What actually hit the Pentagon: an old stone apparently left unturned

[iks83]

So you are saying your outdated knowledge about simulators from the 80s makes you now an aviation expert.

Ry tells how it is: http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=23751&start=0

Seriously you have damage on the pentagon that fits a 757. You have wittnesses, you have piles of luggage, you have bodies, you have debris, lots of debris... of course the no planer sites show you cropped and cherry picked pictures, a clear sign that you can trust those people. You have plane parts and no reason why they would go to such lenght to stage a plane hitting the pentagon instead of just hitting the pentagon with a plane. What you can argue about is the contradiction in the flight data. But no instead of talking about that its always no plane no plane no plane missile missile missile. Or Cheynes stand down order with the guy saying the PLLLLAAAAAAANNNEEEE is 10 miles out do the orders still stand? You have no evidence for a missile but lots for a plane. So the government pulls some secrecy stunts and all the kooks believe the no plane story cause whyyyyyine dont they release the footage of the surveilance cams and bla. Cause they want some mystery they can handle to poison the well with no plane BS.

[feeditup]

Now to the left of the circled hole is that another hole ? and how did that angel come into play ?

[citizenx]

That last photo brings to mind two words, and they are not "aluminum" and "titanium" -- they are "depeleted uranium."

"Warhead", not "fuselage".

The plane would have crumpled, especially at the speeds it was supposed to be flying.  Such a neat penetration through three separate "rings" of the Pentagon seems highly unlikely.

[feeditup]

yep , and wheres the post on the dude that annualized the engine has that bin disproven yet ?

[feeditup]

Now i could buy that being the motors, but how was there on on the front lawn ? or where ever they found it ?

[citizenx]

yep , and wheres the post on the dude that annualized the engine has that bin disproven yet ?

You mean this?

14 Dec 2005, 07:57 am
Twitch
Fanatic Tremekian
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: PCMTL.com
Posts: 741
Twitch's Gallery   Loose Change 9/11 Documentary

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...20890224991194

1 hour documentary about the 9-11 incident. Interesting movie.

One of the point of the video, was that the alleged 757 that hit the pentagon, had engines that were made out of Titanium, and give facts from websites, and from the official engine manufacturer. 1. There was only 3 pieces of identifiable debris found from the plane according to the press. One of which, was a Turbine fan. In 2 of the photos, this turbine fan looks to be no more than 3 feet in diameter. A 757's turbine fan is 9 feet in diameter. 2. Titanium burns at 1684 Degrees celsius. The optimal temperature jet fuel can reach, with as much oxygen as possible, is ~800 degrees celsius. How were the engines destroyed "by the explosion of the jet fuel."? 3. Before the collapse of the wall on the outer ring, the only damage done according to photos, was a 16-foot hole. No wings, no holes from the fuselage, and no holes from the engines. Infact, no engines were ever recorved. These engines can withstand a blast 1 and a half times that magnitude.


http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cBlOJYET59IJ:www.tremek.com/forum/off-topic-chat/16012-loose-change-9-11-documentary.html+%22titanium+burns+at%22&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk 

Not vouching for the correctness of this info., but would like to hear a refutation of this combustion point for titanium and the temp. jet fuel can burn at optimally if anyone has better info.

Nope.

[feeditup]

ya thats the iceing on the f**king cake as fare as 757  plane .

[agentbluescreen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26H-WzIe858

You will note that these slow "near stall" Low Pass Flyby's are at around 200 Knots with flaps down, throttle down and wheels down just in case. Below 30-40 ft (at lamp post height) such a stunt is impossible.

Try and find yourself a pilot who'll try that at 400 Knots

[Kilika]

So you are saying your outdated knowledge about simulators from the 80s makes you now an aviation expert.

Ry tells how it is: http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=23751&start=0

Seriously you have damage on the pentagon that fits a 757. You have wittnesses, you have piles of luggage, you have bodies, you have debris, lots of debris... of course the no planer sites show you cropped and cherry picked pictures, a clear sign that you can trust those people. You have plane parts and no reason why they would go to such lenght to stage a plane hitting the pentagon instead of just hitting the pentagon with a plane. What you can argue about is the contradiction in the flight data. But no instead of talking about that its always no plane no plane no plane missile missile missile. Or Cheynes stand down order with the guy saying the PLLLLAAAAAAANNNEEEE is 10 miles out do the orders still stand? You have no evidence for a missile but lots for a plane. So the government pulls some secrecy stunts and all the kooks believe the no plane story cause whyyyyyine dont they release the footage of the surveilance cams and bla. Cause they want some mystery they can handle to poison the well with no plane BS.

That's your reply? Well, it is a reply I guess, but to say "outdated" is at best childish and speaks volumes of ignorance. Facts are never outdated. I've flown in the simulator at far faster speeds than 500mph. Things happen REAL fast at those speeds. The F-14 is a Mach 2+ fighter jet. Nothing has changed with how fast a speed is since the F-4 and then the F-14 were retired.

damage on the pentagon that fits a 757

That is your's and other's opinion, but the facts do not back it up. There should be books and movies about the parts found that match that specific aircraft, but alas, where is the matching the part numbers, to confirm which aircraft they came from? I don't remember seeing any part confirmations. None. Show me and I'll stand corrected.

While your at it, show me one video of a test of flying a jet that size into the concrete barriers they use for testing. I've seen several online, one even of a F-4, and all of them I have seen don't show the aftermath of the impact once the dust has settled. Show me one that does. If you can't, you must ask why.

And I say again, with all those planes mothballed, I think the American public would be willing to pay for a test and a few planes even, to confirm the allegations. That would be crucial evidence for their case at trial, but wait, there won't be any trial to provide that evidence to, because it's not a criminal investigation is it? It's a military action with tribunals, and extremely different investigation techniques and evidence rules. Interesting. Of course you having an investigation background would know that, right?

The allegations about the hole punched through multiple walls is that it was an engine that did it, was one explanation I've read, but one simple test, that most likely is already on tape somewhere, will show there is no physical way that the nose of a 757 did that. I don't believe that is physically possible, sorry. You would lose so much energy after just the first wall impact, which the military claims was new reinforced bomb-proof stuff or something, that the shape of the nose would be lost completely before it could punch through the second wall, and the energy would continue to be lost dramatically with each impact of a wall, not even considerng the columns it supposedly cut through, it's JUST NOT POSSIBLE.

Ever saw a bullet after hitting flesh and bone? That building was FAR stronger than any flesh out there. And that plane was not solid lead either. I don't know how to do that actual math, but I sure know enough about physics to be completely confident that could not have been a 757 or any other standard commerical airliner that has not been massively modified. The concentrated mass needed to continue at that rate is just not there, as speed is not enough. You have to have the mass with it to withstand impacts of what, 6 walls. Distance alone reduces speed without continued applied force(?). Apply that energy at an angle, and the problems only get worse. There's an interesting aspect of physics called deflection. Check it out sometime.

For the distance they claim the aircraft came in low to be able to hit the poles, you take that height and compared to the hole on the building and easily determine the basic flight path to impact, which then is easily calculated whether a flight based on that altitude is even possible at the speeds they claim. I say it is not possible for a 757 to fly that low for that long, hitting stuff along the way, and not hit the ground first before the building. That's fantasy land stuff!

Just imagine a light pole hitting the leading edge of a wing, and what that does at 500mph, or even 300mph. You think that wing won't come off in part before building impact? You think it would maintain it's airspeed, which would require it to maintain the leading edge, it's relative position to the aircraft and flight theory, for that distance, and impact at the same rate as the rest of the aircraft and vaporize? Now we are struggling to maintain reality, you can't make up enough stuff to account for all that.

Ever watched Mythbusters? They may be clowns with toys, but physics don't lie, and you don't have to know the math to know that.

[jimd3100]

The goal I had when I joined this forum was to do my little part to keep the 9-11 truth movement truthful and keep it from becoming the 9-11 kook movement which was an obvious goal for some.
I could show witness after witness after witness describing a passenger jet. But it wont matter. All it takes is one person who thought it was a missile and that is the only witness that matters to the 9-11 kook movement. Well, I'm sorry but we can't even find 1 witness that said that. So LBR decides that a witness that saw a plane out of the corner of his eye is a good witness for a missile. LOL! Amazing!

9/11: Steven Gerard - 20 passenger corporate jet no markings
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NLBMHYgpMI

But not as amazing as his pathetic attempt at trying to show there was even reporting that day that no plane crashed at the pentagon.....

"NO PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON" only once aired report
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFz7gLz7CVk

Yea, I could point out that the video he posted has been debunked long ago. That it is actually an edited clip edited by no planer disinfo frauds to deceive you. The reporter was asked a question. Someone said it crashed near the pentagon. No...it crashed at the pentagon. The unedited clip exposes all this but I've already done that about 100 times including on this very thread, so obviously it just doesn't matter. We want kook not truth.

In this very thread...

MCINTYRE: The Web sites often take statements out of context, such as this exchange from CNN in which I -- myself -- appear to be questioning whether a plane really hit the building: From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. In fact, I was answering a question based on a eyewitness account who thought the American Airlines plane landed short of the Pentagon. I was indicated there was no crash site near the pentagon only at the Pentagon.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/05/16/transcript.wed/

MCINTYRE: In fact there were thousands of tiny pieces of the plane, and I personally photographed a piece of the fuselage and what appeared to be part of the cockpit.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/05/16/transcript.wed/

Unedited video proves he's telling the truth....
Pay attention to what is said at the 2:31 mark to the 2:50 mark. You Dishonest no planers edited that out to make it appear he was reporting no plane crash. This is blatantly dishonest. In fact it's disinfo. And if you opened your eyes, what I am trying to do is WAKE YOU UP TO IT. There is a disinfo campain. And I call you no planers because this no plane BS started at the pentagon. You are the original no planers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjlBpChvzD8

The edited clip that duped you into no plane kookville land....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BQiFHpGglw

This isn't exactly new, but some of you duped by no plane disinfo (that includes no plane at the pentagon)refuse to acknowledge this....

However I'm tired of showing how you keep getting duped and go to kookville, so I'm thinking of not only joining you but performing a 9-11 coup.

My plans for a 9-11 kook/truth movement coup:

I've been posting and showing all the people who were at the pentagon, some who nearly died from Jet Fuel in their lungs, tons of witnesses, on and on. I now realize what a waste of time it all is. Because no one cares about these people. They "support the official story".  I'm thinking  I might abandon my goal, and not only join you but be the leader/expert/grandpooba of the kook movement.

Pay no attention to this subversive.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kOhaIg4e_k


The 9-11 kook movement has always pointed out that they have asked one person who was there. April Gallop. And I think we can all agree that if we were sitting in an office on the first floor and a huge boom happened we would naturally think a plane flew into our office. But not so with April. She assumed it was a bomb, and while grabbing her kid and getting out she noticed no plane parts. What more would a kook movement need for obvious evidence that it was a bomb and the plane parts were planted? There is also more good news, for my coup. Being a kook movement member I don't just love videos, but celebrities. That's what separates me from the sheeple. They put celebrities before videos. What fools! And I believe April will be up for a best supporting actress nomination in a conspiracy show after the excellent performance shown just before the 27 minute mark of the show......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrZ14NRbT-s

Add one more celebrity to the kook movement.

I will soon unleash my coup and be ruler of the 9/12 kook movement!

9/12? You ask? Yes, for years we kooks have been putting up with "fake truthers" supporting the "official story" with "planes hitting buildings" and "9/11 happened on 9/11" and so on. This "supporting the official story" nonsense will cease. I will not only proclaim 9/11 happened on 9/12 I will have videos that prove it. One of them the beloved pentagon video the "fake truthers" fell for.
This is proof..see for yourself...


I will show my credentials for being a 9/12 kook movement leader with my amazing and scientifically proven Fly Under theory(which I will refuse to call a theory)

The Fly Under Theory-this proves the plane flew under the pentagon and fooled everyone:
1. No one saw a plane fly over the building-this alone proves the Fly Under since we know it couldn't fly into the building so Under is where the evidence leads us.
2. Plane parts were found which proves they were planted
3. Work crews just finished working on the same place the plane hit-working on the super duper secret tunnel that the plane flew into and fooled everyone.
4. Several people saw the plane go so low just before "impact" that they thought it hit the lawn-proof it flew into the secret tunnel and fooled everyone.
5. The plane was not seen on radar by ATC after it reached the pentagon, which proves it flew under the pentagon through the super secret tunnel.
6. The light poles were planted to create a fake flight path to fool everyone just for fun.
7. A CIA agent gave the signal to an undercover agent disguised as a cab driver to push the garage door opener to open the secret tunnel at the perfect moment. The sign was a brick thrown through the cabs window. You might ask "why not just have the CIA agent open the super secret tunnel door?" The answer: "To cause confusion."
8. The c130 pilot did not see the passenger jet fly over the pentagon. Duh- Because it flew under it.
9. No one in the high rises or roof tops saw the passenger jet fly over the pentagon. Duh- because it flew under the pentagon.
10. Every witness at the scene supports the Fly Under because they all saw the plane fly into the pentagon which proves they were fooled. No one saw it fly over. Duh -it flew under.

I will have my 9-12 kook movement site set up and able to take orders for my Fly Under DVDs(which is a scientifically proven fact based on independently confirmed interviews and research) I already have on the record several endorsements and will banish naysayers to the fake truthers/enemies list.

With my Fly Under videos and 9-12 website I will make at least $100 a year which is approximately $100 more a year than I'm making now. I will finally get the money I deserve. And when I proclaim anyone using the term 9-11 is supporting the official story everyone will either go along with this or be outed as an agent who supports the official story. I will then finally get the attention I have so desperately wanted all these years. My coup will then be complete and I, Jimd3100 will be ruler of the 9-12 Kook Movement. I will have attention and make hundreds of dollars in the process.
 
I thought the Fly Over was funny at first, but Jesse Ventura showed the joke was on me.

Jimd3100 future grand pooba of the 9-12 kook movement

[citizenx]

You know what, Jim?

You have don't so much more for the truth and patriot movement than Jesse Ventura.  I don't think you have to show him or us the slightest amount of respect.  In fact, I think you should treat us all with al the contempt, and derision, and patronising disrespect you can muster.  We owe you a lot.  I mean honestly, I am just a cranky middle school English teacher.

What do I know?  Why should you address my questions or arguments?

I deserve nothing but your complete disregrard.  And thanks for that.

citizenx

P.S. I work with adolescents all day long who have more respect for other people and their opinions, but what the hell?  I guess this is what passes for argument and reason around here.

[jimd3100]

You know what, Jim?

You have don't so much more for the truth and patriot movement than Jesse Ventura.  I don't think you have to show him or us the slightest amount of respect.  In fact, I think you should treat us all with al the contempt, and derision, and patronising disrespect you can muster.  We owe you a lot.  I mean honestly, I am just a cranky middle school English teacher.

What do I know?  Why should you address my questions or arguments?

I deserve nothing but your complete disregrard.  And thanks for that.

citizenx

P.S. I work with adolescents all day long who have more respect for other people and their opinions, but what the hell?  I guess this is what passes for argument and reason around here.

What's wrong with my fly under theory? Why not just debunk it?

[citizenx]

I don't believe the fly under theory and I don't necessarily believe the fly over theory and I don't necessarily believe the expert (professional) witnesses who just happened to be loitering around the Pentagon (the "Pentalawn 300"), and I don't necessarily believe you.

I need more than testimony, I need evidence.

People CAN be wrong, and (of course) people can lie.

[jimd3100]

The evidence is solid. You admit it's possible and can't debunk it. I think the fly under is proven.

[citizenx]

Now that's not a "smart-a$$" answer at all.

How did your aluminum and titatnium fuselage penetrate all three rings of the Pentagon?

How did 9' wide titanium turboprops burn or vaporize at 800 degrees celsius?

And those are just some the most recent questions I have raised you have simply chosen to ignore.

But as far as your straw man "fly over/fly under" theories, I am not necessarily biting.

I wasn't there.  I didn't see anything first-hand. Did you?

[jimd3100]

Now that's not a "smart-a$$" answer at all.

How did your aluminum and titatnium fuselage penetrate all three rings of the Pentagon?

How did 9' wide titanium turboprops burn or vaporize at 800 degrees celsius?

And those are just some the most recent questions I have raised you have simply chosen to ignore.

But as far as your straw man "fly over/fly under" theories, I am not necessarily biting.

I wasn't there.  I didn't see anything first-hand. Did you?

It flew under the pentagon.

[citizenx]

Well, that sounds like expert eye-witness testimony.

 

I'm satisfied.

[jimd3100]

Well, that sounds like expert eye-witness testimony.

 

I'm satisfied.

Eyewitnesses were all fooled obviously. Of course a missile might have hit after it flew under, I wont rule that out. But it's unlikely after they were already fooled by the fly under, you know the saying "fool me once..."

[citizenx]

Well, I am glad you are amenable to reason, and can admit a missile might have hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

That's mighty big of you, big guy.

Maybe, I'm all wrong about you.

[jimd3100]

Well, I am glad you are amenable to reason, and can admit a missile might have hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

That's mighty big of you, big guy.

Maybe, I'm all wrong about you.

I'm counting on you to buy a pack of my DVDs when I get my site set up.

[citizenx]

Boy, have you got the wrong guy.

You think my wife would let me spend money on that?

[Freeski]

Can we please get some opinions/analysis on this vanishing wing (WTC):

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=190458.msg1131145#msg1131145

I'm sure you're all familiar with it.

[citizenx]

Freeski,

I'm with you buddy, but in fairness this is a Pentagon thread and a fairly cloudy one at that.

The (doctored?) video from WTC ain't helping matters around here.

(Yes, I saw it already and don't know what to make of it, other than to think it was doctored by someone, somehow once upon a time.  One winged aircraft don't fly.  At least not in straight lines.)

[Freeski]

The 9-11 kook movement has always pointed out that they have asked one person who was there. April Gallop. And I think we can all agree that if we were sitting in an office on the first floor and a huge boom happened we would naturally think a plane flew into our office. But not so with April. She assumed it was a bomb, and while grabbing her kid and getting out she noticed no plane parts.

I honestly don't understand this. (You can see the clip above.)

But isn't it the opposite? Why would anyone assume an airplane before a bomb?

I suspect that if I were in my office and heard an earth-shattering BOOM that the first things to come to mind would be explosion, bomb or earthquake. Not airplane. Airplane may be factored in now, after 9/11, but not on 9/11.

[jimd3100]

I honestly don't understand this. (You can see the clip above.)

But isn't it the opposite? Why would anyone assume an airplane before a bomb?

I suspect that if I were in my office and heard an earth-shattering BOOM that the first things to come to mind would be explosion, bomb or earthquake. Not airplane. Airplane may be factored in now, after 9/11, but not on 9/11.

Yea, but using your logic when April Gallop says she thought it was a bomb our response would be "so what" anyone would think that.

[Freeski]

Yea, but using your logic when April Gallop says she thought it was a bomb our response would be "so what" anyone would think that.

Are these your words or someone else's words?

And I think we can all agree that if we were sitting in an office on the first floor and a huge boom happened we would naturally think a plane flew into our office. But not so with April.

[jimd3100]

Are these your words or someone else's words?

And I think we can all agree that if we were sitting in an office on the first floor and a huge boom happened we would naturally think a plane flew into our office. But not so with April.

Yup, it helps with my Fly Under theory.

[iks83]

lol jimd you are so mean. stop confusing the retards. they already have enough problems as it is. all it takes is a couple of frames from a highly compressed video where the wing of a plane got overwritten with a block of sky and their worldview is shattering and are forced to ask stupid questions.

also where came the stuff from that the engines evaporated? was it a official statement? some news article? also when I see the word evaporate there are synonyms popping up like, dispel, disperse, dissipate, dissappear, vanish, scatter, etc... everything that would fit to blades of an engine ripping apart, so whats left shooting through the 3rd wall or whatever is the core and not the full 9 feet of engine. In what silly world are you people living?

[Kilika]

*sits patiently awaiting a reply from icks83*

[fradus]

Why would anyone assume an airplane before a bomb?

I suspect that if I were in my office and heard an earth-shattering BOOM that the first things to come to mind would be explosion, bomb or earthquake. Not airplane. Airplane may be factored in now, after 9/11, but not on 9/11.

I agree Freeski. Wasnt there also  witness testimony about the smell of cordite?
Stop it with the Fly Under Theory jimd3100...it might just take off.

[iks83]

Gee are you desperate for an answer... its almost as if I'm a celebrity.

That's your reply? Well, it is a reply I guess, but to say "outdated" is at best childish and speaks volumes of ignorance. Facts are never outdated. I've flown in the simulator at far faster speeds than 500mph. Things happen REAL fast at those speeds. The F-14 is a Mach 2+ fighter jet. Nothing has changed with how fast a speed is since the F-4 and then the F-14 were retired.

I don't see how a F-14 and F-4 compares to a 757. Also I dont care how fast things happen at those speeds since there was no human pilot who also didnt care how fast stuff happened.

That is your's and other's opinion, but the facts do not back it up. There should be books and movies about the parts found that match that specific aircraft, but alas, where is the matching the part numbers, to confirm which aircraft they came from? I don't remember seeing any part confirmations. None. Show me and I'll stand corrected.

While your at it, show me one video of a test of flying a jet that size into the concrete barriers they use for testing. I've seen several online, one even of a F-4, and all of them I have seen don't show the aftermath of the impact once the dust has settled. Show me one that does. If you can't, you must ask why.

Hey you are the hero of aviation so why dont YOU go and find videos of testflights that show the aftermath. What no connections to the people back in the 80s?

And I say again, with all those planes mothballed, I think the American public would be willing to pay for a test and a few planes even, to confirm the allegations. That would be crucial evidence for their case at trial, but wait, there won't be any trial to provide that evidence to, because it's not a criminal investigation is it? It's a military action with tribunals, and extremely different investigation techniques and evidence rules. Interesting. Of course you having an investigation background would know that, right?

Good luck finding a billionaire willing to do that... dont confuse wishful thinking with actual thinking.

The allegations about the hole punched through multiple walls is that it was an engine that did it, was one explanation I've read, but one simple test, that most likely is already on tape somewhere, will show there is no physical way that the nose of a 757 did that. I don't believe that is physically possible, sorry. You would lose so much energy after just the first wall impact, which the military claims was new reinforced bomb-proof stuff or something, that the shape of the nose would be lost completely before it could punch through the second wall, and the energy would continue to be lost dramatically with each impact of a wall, not even considerng the columns it supposedly cut through, it's JUST NOT POSSIBLE.

Would you please make up your mind? First you talk about the engine making the hole and then suddenly its the nose. And why can't it be the engine? You are the one saying its was not a plane so you should proof that there was none. Go ahead... try look up the specs of the walls, how much force they can withstand. Look up the weight of the engine and do a bit of math and calculate at what force it hit the walls and show me where its impossible. I say it was a plane, you have luggage, you have parts, you have wittnesses, you have bodies, you have damage that fits the size of the plane, etc. The facts are there... so I don't have to proof a thing. You on the other hand say its all staged so you tell me what evidence you have. You have evidence how they moved the stuff there? Have you evidence of anything? You can speculate all day long and strain your head with wishful thinking but its still nothing in the end.

Ever saw a bullet after hitting flesh and bone? That building was FAR stronger than any flesh out there. And that plane was not solid lead either. I don't know how to do that actual math, but I sure know enough about physics to be completely confident that could not have been a 757 or any other standard commerical airliner that has not been massively modified. The concentrated mass needed to continue at that rate is just not there, as speed is not enough. You have to have the mass with it to withstand impacts of what, 6 walls. Distance alone reduces speed without continued applied force(?). Apply that energy at an angle, and the problems only get worse. There's an interesting aspect of physics called deflection. Check it out sometime.

What silly analogy is that? And now you say you Don't wanna do any math but sure as heck you know physics? You talk about concentrated mass and speed that isnt enough? Well then calculate the stuff out!!! PROOOOVE that is doesn't add up! "Distance alone reduces speed without continued applied force(?)." And here I thought you know physics. You are a retard plain and simple.

For the distance they claim the aircraft came in low to be able to hit the poles, you take that height and compared to the hole on the building and easily determine the basic flight path to impact, which then is easily calculated whether a flight based on that altitude is even possible at the speeds they claim. I say it is not possible for a 757 to fly that low for that long, hitting stuff along the way, and not hit the ground first before the building. That's fantasy land stuff!

Just imagine a light pole hitting the leading edge of a wing, and what that does at 500mph, or even 300mph. You think that wing won't come off in part before building impact? You think it would maintain it's airspeed, which would require it to maintain the leading edge, it's relative position to the aircraft and flight theory, for that distance, and impact at the same rate as the rest of the aircraft and vaporize? Now we are struggling to maintain reality, you can't make up enough stuff to account for all that.

If its easy calculated then do it! Go ahead! Also a very intersting thing... you say the flight data is wrong which it is... yet you believe the speed they claim it went that came from the same data. Ok lets say 500 mph was the case that is like 200 m/s so if the plane is on a straight path to the impact zone how does a lamp pole matter in anyway? You have a big mass, a direction and probably even an increase of speed... how does a pole matter? If the wing would have ripped off its just what? 1 second to impact? Ever got hit by a train at full speed? Guess how that would matter to the traveling path of the train. And the vaporizing aircraft again.... there were piles of wreckage, its on the photos. And I am the one struggling to maintain reality? Well you are right I really do to counter your insane struggle to maintain your dream.

Ever watched Mythbusters? They may be clowns with toys, but physics don't lie, and you don't have to know the math to know that.

What? Those people who wouldnt dare touch 9/11 with a 12 feet pole? How do you know that physics dont lie if you dont do the math? Or rather your perception of physics. If I throw a ball straight up in the air at what speed does it hit the ground?

[Kilika]

Gee are you desperate for an answer... its almost as if I'm a celebrity.

Regardless of what you may think, I do want to hear your side because I know there are many things I don't know about this, thus I am willing to listen.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't see how a F-14 and F-4 compares to a 757. Also I dont care how fast things happen at those speeds since there was no human pilot who also didnt care how fast stuff happened.

Sorry, I guess I didn't word it correctly. The reason I said taht is that the fighter jets can do at least the speeds the 757 was alledged to have been traveling, thus I was saying I know what it's like at that speed in a far better handling aircraft, and what those jets can and can't do at those speeds, thus if they can't do it, I know for a fact an airliner can't do it. Make sense?

The other point is that the speed is critical to the allegation, which is that the 757 clipped several light poles, right? take a look at the alledged clipped poles and their locations, particularly the ones furtherest fromt he Pentagon. My point is if the claim is true that the 757 clipped them, at those speeds, it would have cut through that wing like butter, causing major damage, thus making it nearly impossible for the wing to remained attached and not change it's attitude and speed relative to the aircraft due to the distance away from the building. Without proof, it's speculation on my part of course.

And pilots do care about speed relative to distance and lift. Stall speed directly relates to speed. Pilots do care about speed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey you are the hero of aviation so why dont YOU go and find videos of testflights that show the aftermath. What no connections to the people back in the 80s?

I've looked and have found none, that's why I said that. I'd really like to see them. I want to see what's left to compare to the Pentagon debris field. As I said, I'm not wanting to be closed-minded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good luck finding a billionaire willing to do that... dont confuse wishful thinking with actual thinking.

But you know it would settle it once and for all, or prove the official story a lie like we know it is. With all these generous billionaires pledging half their wealth to charity, there you go. Maybe Zuckerberg can toss in a few mill. Not. You and I both know the deal. The PTB wouldn't allow it to happen if at all possible, money to do it or not. I suspect the FAA would jump right in and make all kinds of claims why they can't approve such a test. As I said, we know the deal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Would you please make up your mind? First you talk about the engine making the hole and then suddenly its the nose. And why can't it be the engine? You are the one saying its was not a plane so you should proof that there was none. Go ahead... try look up the specs of the walls, how much force they can withstand. Look up the weight of the engine and do a bit of math and calculate at what force it hit the walls and show me where its impossible. I say it was a plane, you have luggage, you have parts, you have wittnesses, you have bodies, you have damage that fits the size of the plane, etc. The facts are there... so I don't have to proof a thing. You on the other hand say its all staged so you tell me what evidence you have. You have evidence how they moved the stuff there? Have you evidence of anything? You can speculate all day long and strain your head with wishful thinking but its still nothing in the end.

You want me to prove a negative? Nice. Ain't happening. So go back and re-read what I said. I said, that at least one claim is that the hole was made by an engine. I did not say that's what I thought made the hole. Huge difference. I do not think any parts from a 757 made that hole. And the engine parts found don't match a 757, and they have yet to confirm the part numbers on what they did find, unless I overlooked that.

I don't believe an engine could maintain structural integrity for that amount of time and distance while crashing through that many walls, and as an example I presented the bullet and flesh analogy. That fact is that even a solid bullet starts to "break up" on initial impact even when hitting soft flesh, right? So then how can a soft, hollow, aluminum aircraft body withstand all those impacts of those walls to make that hole? I say it could not. That eliminates the body as the hole suspect. Thus what made those holes? An engine as SOME say? Nope, I don't believe it's possible, for basically the same reasons as the body. It wouldn't withstand the impacts to get that far into the building. Sorry, I just don't believe it possible.

We are in disagreement as to what was found at the site. Until proven otherwise, I refuse to believe that most of that aircraft just vaporized into thin air, based on what they claim they did find. There's a ton of stuff missing that they claim "vaporized" is the word they used. Agains, sorry, I'm not buying it. I know the world and what's it up to, so I trust nothing the government alledges without solid proof. They have failed to provide solid proof.

So you don't think it was staged then? Why would you say that? Of course I think it was staged because the facts don't add up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What silly analogy is that? And now you say you Don't wanna do any math but sure as heck you know physics? You talk about concentrated mass and speed that isnt enough? Well then calculate the stuff out!!! PROOOOVE that is doesn't add up! "Distance alone reduces speed without continued applied force(?)." And here I thought you know physics. You are a retard plain and simple.

I said I am not able to do that kind of math. I'm not that skilled with math and don't claim to be. I struggled to get through college algebra. But the thing about physics is that you can do experiments and comparisons, without doing a single math problem to learn things. That's why I mentioned Mythbusters, only to say they do stuff all the time that doesn't require any math skills to see what happens. Mythbusters danced around and basically refused to really address 9/11, and their thermite tests were a joke it was so obvious, but I didn't mention them for that reason. Just that we can see stuff happen without doing the math. The numbers just add to the evidence. Numbers that I'm not skilled enough to provide.

Name-calling is not helping. It makes you look juvenile. Do you not understand there's such a thing as gravity? Add gravity to the equation and try reading the sentence again. You do realize that if you do not maintain force on an object as a constant rate, you cannot maintain a constant speed due to what? Primarily gravity. What happens when a bullet is fired out of a gun? That initial force from the explosion of gunpowder doesn't last and the bullet almost immediately starts to lose what? Speed and impact force.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If its easy calculated then do it! Go ahead! Also a very intersting thing... you say the flight data is wrong which it is... yet you believe the speed they claim it went that came from the same data. Ok lets say 500 mph was the case that is like 200 m/s so if the plane is on a straight path to the impact zone how does a lamp pole matter in anyway? You have a big mass, a direction and probably even an increase of speed... how does a pole matter? If the wing would have ripped off its just what? 1 second to impact? Ever got hit by a train at full speed? Guess how that would matter to the traveling path of the train. And the vaporizing aircraft again.... there were piles of wreckage, its on the photos. And I am the one struggling to maintain reality? Well you are right I really do to counter your insane struggle to maintain your dream.

As I said, I can't do that kind of math. I never said I believe the alledged speed. I gave a speed of 500mph as an even number to use that is actually I think a little slower than the actual speed alledged. What's the maximum operational speed of a 757? I think it far less than 500mph. Try operating an aircraft in excess of it's design limits and see how easy it is to handle. Ever pulled out of a flat spin? I know you haven't. I've done it in a F-14 simulator and it takes a long time to do it, all the while your losing altitude. Fortunately the F-14 has great glide capabilities unlike the F-4 which is a rock with wings.

Even an increase of speed? Sorry, that is physically impossible. You cannot increase speed as a result of damage to the air surfaces of an aircraft. No lift equals drag in effect. Drag causes a reduction in speed without increase in power to compensate for increased drag. I did go to some Navy flight theory classes a couple times so I kind know how flight works, and that brings me to the poles as I mention in my above answer. See the above explanation about the poles.

Yes, vaporized, the word THEY used, not me. As I said, there is a massive amount of debris missing and is unaccounted for.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What? Those people who wouldnt dare touch 9/11 with a 12 feet pole? How do you know that physics dont lie if you dont do the math? Or rather your perception of physics. If I throw a ball straight up in the air at what speed does it hit the ground?

I gave the reason for mentioning them above. It wasn't because of any 9/11 show they did. I concede we can at times easily be mislead by our perceptions of what we think we see.

I don't know the math, so I can't answer. But based on the various laws of physics they go by, it will eventually fall, given enough time and distance, at a freefall rate of up to 120mph. Faster speeds can be attained with the efficient use of aerodynamics. Assuming there is no other force applied besides your hand that tossed it. Tossing it vertically suggests that it will eventually stop midair without any additional applied forces, then change directions due to the force of gravity and thus fall at that rate, partially in relation to it's shape. That's my uneducated guess.

[jimd3100]

There should be books and movies about the parts found

Would you please promote my Fly Under Theory?........

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=164982.msg1165479#msg1165479

It makes more sense than what these people say doesn't it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIJSXow0p0U&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PTRsuRao7A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6VuMHaZGuA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh2iFhTYX5s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HBjxYrhI4E&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc3wzFxdVso&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_z9sCeYZ54&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyIi7Z3fuhg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzBmgsjC6Nc&feature=related

http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3459052/1/

9/11 Pentagon Witnesses - They Saw the Plane Hit!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfQEwxxVyKY&feature=player_embedded#!

[Kilika]

Not interested, but thanks for the offer none the less. And I'm not interested in "eye-witness" testamony. I prefer hard facts.

The details in the end don't matter really. We all know crimes were committed, regardless of what was used. We can go back and forth all day long and then some, and most likely remain at odds on a variety of things unless we can get access to all the facts.

I'm of the opinion some of the facts are intentionally being withheld to cover crimes committed, and the picture presented is not as claimed. I'll leave it at that.

[Letsbereal]

Pentagon was hit on 911 by a bunker busting cruise missile – Records were destroyed – how convenient

Same as with building 7 were ENRON and other files were destroyed.

9/10/2001: Rumsfeld says $2.3 TRILLION Missing from Pentagon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU

[themadness]

we all know that crimes were committed and we will never know the truth. ventura's episode on the attacks would have been a good start to explain the whole ordeal to sheeple. there are still people that think a 757 hit the pentagon though.

i can consider almost every idea other than a commercial jet of that size. i'm not trying to hj the thread but what about unmanned drones? i'm sure its been discussed.

these things are so close to looking like a commercial jet its crazy and some are quite large. they are also used for civil purposes.not to mention their missile firing capability. seems to me the pentagon attack would have been a dry run for testing the drones to do what they are in pakistan.

this one in particular could have been mistaken for a small commercial jet.
 http://warnewsupdates.blogspot.com/2009/01/whats-it-like-to-live-in-tribal-areas.html

a wiki overview of drones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle

[agentbluescreen]

these things are so close to looking like a commercial jet its crazy and some are quite large. they are also used for civil purposes.not to mention their missile firing capability. seems to me the pentagon attack would have been a dry run for testing the drones to do what they are in pakistan.

this one in particular could have been mistaken for a small commercial jet.
 http://warnewsupdates.blogspot.com/2009/01/whats-it-like-to-live-in-tribal-areas.html

a wiki overview of drones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle

Well first off, though it is possible and may even have been far simpler, UAV Predators are designed as a reusable mobile attack platform. Using an UAV would be both slower, less self-destructive and like any small plane it may have left too much telltale evidence behind due to it's low impact speed. Unfortunately none of these killer model airplanes are jet powered and the most advanced and sophisticated "UAV" criminal mass murderer's attack weapon actually IS a 'fully disposable' jet/rocket powered "BIC"-cruise missile.

As well only the very largest and most slow moving propeller driven UAV"S would have the capacity to carry a missile payload of anything much larger than a 20-50lb sidewinder-class missile. Nothing on the 1,000 lb AUP Depleted Uranium BROACH Penetrator scale that hit the Pentagon auditors Blackwater crime records offices and murdered the auditors and exposed and well-cooked the stashed, pre-planted cache of 757 parts stored there during the supposed 'refit' of that death wing.

The problem with the Pentagon was in convincing casual witnesses that they had seen an airplane, even if they hadn't eye-witnessed one actually crashing. This makes dropping a launcher/missile on a parasail a far more attractive option. In 1999/2000 the then-top secret PEGASYS JPADS artificially intelligent controlled parasail airdrop mass murderer killing re-supply systems where completely unknown. Quite literally most witnesses wouldn't have known nor could fully describe what they might have seen falling out of the military cargo jet, and the lag between that event and the pretended "crash" was convenient to prevent drawing attention to the air drop of the "winged" pallet launcher.

[citizenx]

Agreed.  It was most likely not a UAV as some have suggested.  The weaponry it could carry would not match the destruction at the scene.

If the damage was not caused by a jetliner, a missile is the only logical alternative -- and one much larger than a UAV would normally carry.  Somehow the missile penetrated and destroyed three rings of the Pentagon.

[agentbluescreen]

There is actually a huge body of other inescapable facts of evidence that also support Gen Stubblebine

http://s60.radikal.ru/i169/1003/f7/5dbc426c4403.gif

There are at least two options, either the Air Force E-4B Boeing 747 operated by the National Airborne Operations Center, pictured over the White House at 9:44 am on 11 September 2001, twelve minutes after the Pentagon strike,

Or the modified for radar jamming or drone control EC-130, widely reported to have been in the vicinity.. Now check the story below from Shoestring 911, it talks of "Air Force corporate passenger jets" which fits the bill nicely, since the fragment of airplane wing seen in the video certainly appears not to be from a high wing plane like a C130, nor to be substantial enough to be part of a Boeing 747!

http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2009/09/...n-911-what.html

Quote:

2 September 2009: Bobcats over Washington on 9/11 - What were two mystery aircraft doing overhead at the time of the Pentagon attack? Two unknown military aircraft were flying at high altitude near the Pentagon around the time it was hit on 9/11.

The planes had the call signs Bobcat 14, and Bobcat 17, a partial transcript of air traffic controller communications reveals they were communicating with the control tower at Washington's Reagan National Airport, which is less than a mile from the Pentagon, between at least 9:31 a.m. and 9:40 a.m. on September 11. [1]

The attack on the Pentagon took place at 9:37 a.m. [2] Radar data has shown that the two aircraft flew "in trail" in single file, with one directly behind the other, at an altitude of 21,000 feet, and were overhead in the few minutes before the Pentagon was hit. [3]

LAUNCHED FROM DOVER AIR BASE

It would seem essential to establish the exact identities of these aircraft and find out what they were doing in the vicinity of the Pentagon at such a critical time. Yet, eight years after the attacks took place, we still do not have this information. The fact that these aircraft were near the Pentagon at the time it was hit is itself virtually unknown.

Quote:

According to a 9/11 Commission memorandum, flight strips and other information indicate that the two aircraft, Bobcat 14 and, Bobcat 17, originated out of Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, the memorandum added, "It is possible, but not confirmed, that they were Air Force corporate passenger jets.

When questioned by the 9/11 Commission, Bob Lazar, the acting operations manager at Reagan Airport on September 11, said he did not remember any aircraft with the call sign 'Bobcat' that hung out over the National airspace that day, all he could say was that he did remember two aircraft coming from the north, but he did not think that they entered National's airspace. [4]

OTHER AIRCRAFT NEAR THE PENTAGON

Furthermore, there were at least two other military aircraft near the Pentagon at the time it was hit. A C-130 cargo plane that took off from Andrews Air Force Base, which is 10 miles from the Pentagon, was airborne by 9:33 a.m., and was seen by numerous witnesses above the Pentagon just after the attack there. [5] Its pilot reportedly witnessed the explosion from the Pentagon crash. [6]

And television news reporters described a "white jet" plane that was "circling the White House" a few minutes after the Pentagon was hit. [7] The White House is about three miles from the Pentagon, two government sources familiar with the incident later told CNN that the plane was a military aircraft, but its details were classified.

An analysis by CNN suggested the aircraft was an E-4B, which is a militarized version of a Boeing 747 that is used as a flying command post. [8] One such aircraft is known to have taken off from an airfield outside Washington, DC, shortly before the Pentagon was hit. [9]

Quote:

Considering the historical significance of the 9/11 attacks, which have had devastating consequences that affect us to this day, it is essential that important details surrounding those attacks be thoroughly investigated. We therefore need to know exactly what the two aircraft--Bobcat 14 and Bobcat 17--were, and why they were flying above the Pentagon around the time it was attacked on September 11.

considerable other references


[1] "Partial Transcript; Aircraft Accident; AAL77; Washington, DC; September 11, 2001." Federal Aviation Administration, September 20, 2001.
[2] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (Authorized Edition). New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004, p. 10.
[3] "Memorandum for the Record: Visit to Reagan National Airport Control Tower in Alexandria, VA and Andrews Air Force Base Control Tower." 9/11 Commission, July 28, 2003.
[4] Ibid.
[5] "AA 77 Radar-Based Timeline and Maps." 9/11 Commission, n.d.; "9:37 a.m. September 11, 2001: Witnesses See Military Cargo Plane Near Flight 77; Pilot Later Implies he is Far Away." Complete 9/11 Timeline.
[6] "The Secret History of 9/11: The U.S. Government Reacts." CBC, September 10, 2006.
[7] "Planes Crash Into World Trade Center." ABC News, September 11, 2001; "The White House Has Been Evacuated." Breaking News, CNN, September 11, 2001.
[8] "Tropical Storm Humberto Heads for Texas; Democrats Blast Petraeus Timeline for Troop Withdrawal; Interview With General David Petraeus." Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees, CNN, September 12, 2007.
[9] Dan Verton, Black Ice: The Invisible Threat of Cyber-Terrorism. Emeryville, CA: McGraw-Hill/Osborne, 2003, pp. 143-144. According to former 9/11 Commission staff member Miles Kara, this E-4B aircraft took off from Andrews Air Force Base and was airborne at 9:27 a.m. See Miles Kara, "9/11: The Mystery Plane; Not so Mysterious." 9/11 Revisited, June 30, 2009.

[citizenx]

See Stubblebine is something that kinda turns me off "No Plane at the Pentagon".

Not a selling point.

I don't want to "support" him in anyway.  Makes me think this is just too hot a potato -- at least for the moment.

Almost makes me run screaming to give jim a big manhug.

Even if he's not disinfo, he's an embarassment.  But he would fit the bill of disinfo guy perfectly.