|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
 Posted - 04/12/2004 : 13:07:10
|
|
I was led to search the web about 911 attacks by an email I received Sunday night. After just a bit of searching regarding the Pentagon attack, I realized something is greatly amiss. It can be clearly proven that a 757 plane did not hit the building. Something much smaller did. If Flight 77 people died in some plane crash, where was this crash and when did it happen and why? Does anyone have any information on this flight and the people besides just a manifest list?
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 04/12/2004 : 15:31:29 [Permalink]
|
Specifically, this claim:quote:
It can be clearly proven that a 757 plane did not hit the building.
I would very much like to see a clear proof of this. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2004 : 17:59:42 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by Ricky
Please either submit evidence to this claim or websites where you found this information.
http://physics911.org/net/
This link is one of many you can study for yourself. Do a search on Pentagon 911 attack or flight 77 911 or something to that nature. Seems that many have been studying the contradictory evidence, such as, lack of wings debris found as would match a 757, lack of damage for that size of plane hitting the building, altered surveilance video that was recording the crash into the building, altered, in that several key frames are missing that would have shown what actually flew into the Pentagon, and many more items too numerous to list in a short post.
At this time I am reflecting on a possible scenario of the 911 events. Consider the following:
1. Two flights are reported to have been hijacked.
2. These flights are flown into the WTC towers within a 1/2 hour of each other.
3. Military intercept jets are certainly put into action, but not in time to stop these first two strikes.
4. Two other hijackings are reported, flight 77 and flight 93, in these cases, the military has time to respond and both flights are shot out of the sky.
5. Flight 93 crashes in remote Pennsylvania area, one of it's engines found 2 miles from the site (probably knocked off by a heat-seeking missle - this is speculation, but very probable. It certainly didn't fall off by itself).
6. Flight 77 is also shot out of the sky, few, if any witness this event in a remote area.
7. Near the same time this is occurring, a jet fighter plane is taken over by an Al Qaeda operative, maybe a sleeper in the military, an actual jet pilot. This "soldier, turned terrorist" flies his jet into the Pentagon, possibly even shooting a missle in front of him to increase the damage.
8. To keep this news of such a breach from the public, operatives in the government search for a way to cover it up and decide to substitute the crashed flight 77 for the smaller military jet. Fortunately, a diverted flight seeking to land at Reagan National Airport flies very close to the Pentagon and is easily mistaken to be the killer jet.
9. The real nature of the demise of Flight 93 is covered over and the official word is that the people who fought the terrorists on the plane were the cause for the crash by the terrorists. Two eye witnesses hold to their stories that they saw a military style jet fly over the crash site immediately after it occurred, while officials deny the presence of an interceptor within range...sizmagraph proof shows a sonic boom occurred very close to this area right before the crash, which might contradict the official line also.
The summation of this scenario: Two American airliners were shot out of the sky by U.S. interceptors under direct orders to do so. This action would be within the accepted response in this situation and was even supported by Dick Cheney in an interview, only the official line was that "we got there to late". The military hijacking or betrayal, though not as horrific as the Twin Towers crash, certainly was a chilling idea to mix into the horrific events of that morning. Along with shooting down our own planes and killing our own people, the news seemed to be too much for public consumption as thought by those in charge, thus the substitutions and cover up. This scenario by no means implicates the Bush Administration in the planning or carrying out of the 9/11 attacks, but is an attempt to understand what might have occurred. I still don't know why the 5 or 6 supposed hijackers of flight 77 were not on the original manifest list. There is another, more gruesome possibility that I will inject with hopes that it is not the case: Flight 77 was accidentally shot out of the sky by interceptors and the hijackers were made up to cover the mistake made in the early "fog of war". I'll have to research more about this flight.
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2004 : 19:09:49 [Permalink]
|
Doomar, I have viewed the website just very quickly, so here is my first impression (don't know whether there will be a second, because I can't say the first impression was persuasive).
Two point of comment. First, I think the site R.Wreck provides gives sufficient answers for the questions the authors of the site raise on flight 93.
Second (since the authors of the site were so amazed by the telephone calls with mobile phones from flight 77), when I was on the plane to Greece some years ago, I read an article about a European businessman who was arrested and convicted (he got a year in prison) because he wouldn't stop using his mobile phone in the airplane. Now, if his phone hadn't worked I think he would've stopped calling.
I wouldn't waste my time with the site (But then again, as skeptics, maybe we should?  ), plenty of other, more effective ways to lobby againt the Bush administration (or the government in general). |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2004 : 19:42:56 [Permalink]
|
Doomar, I have viewed the website just very quickly........I wouldn't waste my time with the site (But then again, as skeptics, maybe we should? ), plenty of other, more effective ways to lobby againt the Bush administration (or the government in general).
Maybe too quickly.
I have studied many such sites and found different info at each, but all showing much evidence of something other than flight 77 hitting the pentagon. The crumped wing theory just doesn't hold water. The wings would have sheared off and the engines smashed through the building. Some marks would have been made on the outer building by the wings and the engines. The impact hole was only 10 ft. in diameter before the upper levels fell. A 757 fuselage is over 12' tall, not to mention the height of the tail, which is much taller. How was this 10' hole able to accomadate the 12' fuselage and huge wings supposedly folded to the sides? The difficulty of bringing this large plane from its supposed flight path and altitude to an almost level trajectory within the designated distance was considered nearly impossible by an expert pilot, not to mention a novice terrorist pilot. Not so difficult for a fighter pilot in a smaller jet.
This following explanation is debunked on the physics page http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=13 : "any pieces of wreckage large enough to be identifiable in after-the-fact photographs taken from a few hundred feet away burned up in the intense fire that followed the crash" The fire was not intense enough to vaporize aluminum struts within the wing. Kerosene does not burn at that high of temperature. And if it was hot enough to vaporize aluminum, how is it that 97% of the victims DNA was identified...we can't find aluminum, but have no problem finding human DNA...yeah, right. Some fishy stuff here. The easy story of the hijacked flight 77 ramming into the Pentagon gets less easy the more and more you study the details. As they say, "the devil is in the details".
By the way, I'm not trying to put the responsibility of this attack anywhere near GWBush...to me, it is clearly an attack initiated by our enemys outside of the U.S.
Only one engine was found inside the Pentagon. The two images below show two parts of the single engine found in the Pentagon. The left-hand image shows what appears to be part of the rotor element bearing the stubs of vanes. The right-hand image shows what appears to be the compressor (front) stage of the engine encased by its housing. This engine is barely a third the diameter of a large turbofan engine that powers the Boeing 757.
See actual pics of this engine at http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3
past midway down the page.
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
| Edited by - Doomar on 04/12/2004 20:02:58 |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2004 : 20:12:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Doomar wrote:
By the way, I'm not trying to put the responsibility of this attack anywhere near GWBush...to me, it is clearly an attack initiated by our enemys outside of the U.S.
Sorry if you understood me that way, I didn't mean that. However, the sites you are looking at do imply (at least at first glance) a,\ possibly huge governmental cover-up. Which would make the government, or at least some governmental agencies unreliable. Not that we didn't already know that  |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2004 : 20:28:07 [Permalink]
|
Doomar wrote:quote:
This link is one of many you can study for yourself. Do a search on Pentagon 911 attack or flight 77 911 or something to that nature. Seems that many have been studying the contradictory evidence...
Yes, many unqualified individuals talking out their respective butts.quote:
...such as, lack of wings debris found as would match a 757...
Says whom?quote:
...lack of damage for that size of plane hitting the building...
The only comparisons I've seen which indicate that the damage is "too little" for a 757 are made by people who don't appear to know what they're talking about. One person says he "calculated" that the original hole was only 18 feet in diameter, yet there is no photographic evidence of this, and at least 90 feet of support columns were missing or sheared.quote:
...altered surveilance video that was recording the crash into the building, altered, in that several key frames are missing that would have shown what actually flew into the Pentagon...
The only "altered" photos I've seen have "timestamps" on them which look like they were added with MS Paint, a sure sign that the forgeries were forgeries. In other words, the altered photos were so badly altered that it appears that someone was hoaxing the alteration. That web site also claims that the seconds which are displayed in the timestamps are supposed to be hundredths of a second, which means that the timestamp runs "hours:minutes:hundredths," leaving seconds out completely.
In other words, these Internet "analysts" don't even understand the implications of what they're saying. And what they're saying is that the government, despite allegedly having the technology to read your computer monitor electronically from across the street in a black van, doesn't have the simple common sense actually make a sophisticated set of fake photos. They can only create ones which look like they were done by a ten-year-old. Right.quote:
...and many more items too numerous to list in a short post.
Why make it short?quote:
At this time I am reflecting on a possible scenario of the 911 events.
First, show us the proof that is so clear that no 757 hit the Pentagon.quote:
Consider the following:...
Biggest problem is the whereabouts of flight 77.
Did you know, for example, that the farthest point from a road in the contiguous 48 United States is in Yellowstone Park, and it's only 20 miles from a road? That's it. And according to at least one source I read tonight (which is at least as reliable as any other web source for these events), F-16 pilots over Washington, D.C. saw the smoke from the twin towers prior to the crash at the Pentagon? That's over 212 miles, according to the sign post on Interstate 95 just North of D.C. At the very least, there are fire stations in the East which keep watch over tracts of forest (and the plane would have crashed into either forests or someone's farm). Somebody would have seen the wreckage of flight 77.
Unless, of course, it crashed in the ocean. In which case all the flight controllers and radar operators on the East Coast are in on the conspiracy to cover up the crash, since they didn't report a stray 757-sized aircraft zipping out over the shoreline.
Oooo! Maybe it crashed into a lake! Nope. There would still be stragglers hanging around almost every body of water so shortly after labor day. Even if not, everyone's boats would have been thrashed about from the waves, and the smell of jet fuel would have tipped someone off.
Also, the seismographic "evidence" of a sonic boom in Pennsylvania is shoddy, at best, and completely fabricated at worst.
Oh, and as far as the Dewdney and Longspaugh report goes, we have here clear evidence of people seeing only what they want to see. They state,quote:
In the engineering report, four of the columns are missing altogether, while a fifth column on the right side of the initial hole is bent (outward), but intact.
They use this to "calculate" the size of the impact site. Yet, the report the authors cite clearly shows eight columns which are "missing, broken, disconnected, or otherwise without remaining function," and two more (one on either side) which have "large deformation, with significant impairment of function." When this discrepancy is noted by a visitor to the site, someone named "Brad" dismisses it by saying "The report can say wgat it wants" [sic], completely missing the fact that the article he believes quotes that report.
In other words, the official report doesn't matter and can't be trusted, the article has the truth - except the article quotes the report, which means the article can't be trusted since the report can't be trusted. By dismissing the report, much of the basis for the article is removed, and it collapses under its own ignorance.
And, with 10 of the outer-most columns obviously greatly affected, we have an impact site which is 3.1m × 10 columns, or 31 meters across. We're asked to believe that an F-16, about half that width, did all that damage. And if a missle preceeded the plane's crash, there would have been two holes, separated by a large distance, to make all that mess, but fire only comes out of one, and the interior damage shows only one impact.
The authors of that article obviously read only the parts of the report they quoted which agreed with their assumptions. They also show no photographs of debris outside the building, yet thanks to CNN, we know such photographs exist, demonstrating that the amount of research they did is, at best, woefully inadequate to support their conclusions. At worst, they ignored the evidence which disagreed with their guesswork.
Either way, the article obviously appeals to those who can't or won't bother to double-check the authors' assertions, but will instead take them on faith. And people who don't trust the authors any more than the authors trust the official version of events can easily find major mistakes in the article, showing the authors aren't trustworthy, anyway.
As for the rest of that web site, if it can be demonstrated that any of it is more trustworthy than that article which is so prominently featured, it might be worth another look. Un |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2004 : 06:26:47 [Permalink]
|
Dave, you have some good points, but trusting a "government photo" is not exactly great evidence if they are the ones covering up something. Let's think about the lack of photos..where is the plane debris they say they have...why can't we see it or photograph it, hmm? I did see photos of the damage before the upper floors collapsed. The hole was only about 10'in diameter. Why wasn't it bigger? I don't necessarily go by the analysis of the authors of these web sites, but the facts they present or bits of evidence. The supposed terrorist pilot of this airliner was not very competent by reports I've read. This strike on the Pentagon required much greater piloting skills than the WTC, as it was fairly low to the ground and careful manuevering was needed to line up just to hit the building at that speed, avoiding buildings and other obstacles. A good, experienced pilot would find it difficult.
The "vaporized wing" theory just doesn't cut the test of science noted at the physics site. If you examine a picture of the WTC tower that was hit by one plane, you can see the damage done by the wings; the marks left in the building. You cannot see any such marks on the Pentagon. A test crash of a fighter jet into a concrete wall left notable marks from the wings on the wall. Common sense dictates there should be marks left by the impact of the wings of this large plane. There aren't any. Where did the huge, 9' engines end up? One engine alone could have made the 10' hole in the building. What happened to the other one?
I don't know the answers, but I am able to understand when basic evidence is missing, evidence that should be there, but isn't, if it happened as they say it did.
In regards to the flight 93 that crashed in PA, how do you explain the engine being found 2 miles from the crash site, and debris spread over that distance? Did the terrorists set off the bomb they said they had on board or was it a missile? Did the plane fly itself into the ground? Where is the evidence of what happened to that engine that fell off? In a normal study of a downed airliner, all these facts are meticulously studied and revealed in reports...where is this report? Do you suppose the two eye witnesses made up seeing a white unmarked military style jet? For what purpose? They saw a crippled airliner falling to the ground, not flying into the ground as we were led to believe happened. I understand why the Bush Admin. would want to cover up their downing of a commercial airliner, inspite of the circumstances, as it would be a first in American history and not one to be proud of. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2004 : 06:33:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Doomar, I have viewed the website just very quickly........I wouldn't waste my time with the site (But then again, as skeptics, maybe we should? ), plenty of other, more effective ways to lobby againt the Bush administration (or the government in general).
Maybe too quickly.
I have studied many such sites and found different info at each, but all showing much evidence of something other than flight 77 hitting the pentagon. The crumped wing theory just doesn't hold water. The wings would have sheared off and the engines smashed through the building. Some marks would have been made on the outer building by the wings and the engines. The impact hole was only 10 ft. in diameter before the upper levels fell. A 757 fuselage is over 12' tall, not to mention the height of the tail, which is much taller. How was this 10' hole able to accomadate the 12' fuselage and huge wings supposedly folded to the sides? The difficulty of bringing this large plane from its supposed flight path and altitude to an almost level trajectory within the designated distance was considered nearly impossible by an expert pilot, not to mention a novice terrorist pilot. Not so difficult for a fighter pilot in a smaller jet.
This following explanation is debunked on the physics page http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=13 : "any pieces of wreckage large enough to be identifiable in after-the-fact photographs taken from a few hundred feet away burned up in the intense fire that followed the crash" The fire was not intense enough to vaporize aluminum struts within the wing. Kerosene does not burn at that high of temperature. And if it was hot enough to vaporize aluminum, how is it that 97% of the victims DNA was identified...we can't find aluminum, but have no problem finding human DNA...yeah, right. Some fishy stuff here. The easy story of the hijacked flight 77 ramming into the Pentagon gets less easy the more and more you study the details. As they say, "the devil is in the details".
By the way, I'm not trying to put the responsibility of this attack anywhere near GWBush...to me, it is clearly an attack initiated by our enemys outside of the U.S.
Only one engine was found inside the Pentagon. The two images below show two parts of the single engine found in the Pentagon. The left-hand image shows what appears to be part of the rotor element bearing the stubs of vanes. The right-hand image shows what appears to be the compressor (front) stage of the engine encased by its housing. This engine is barely a third the diameter of a large turbofan engine that powers the Boeing 757.
See actual pics of this engine at http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3
past midway down the page.
Here's the problem.
I've seen the video of the plane entering the Pentagon. Some things struck me as significant.
1) The plane was already on the ground when it entered the Pentagon.
2) The plane still had a lot of momentum.
3) the Pentagon is a uniquely structured building specificly designed to prevent wall failure. It's supposed to survive a 10 Kt blast at fairly close range. The building gave a lot of resistance to the aircraft and the aircraft (being mostly empty space) crumpled as it went through feet of steel reinforced concrete.
4) The number of people required for a cover up is huge.
5) The photographic evidence that they cite for an engine cowling appears to be mislabled. It looks more to me like an internal element in the combustion chamber. The Turbofan hub looks to be the correct size.
6) When one actually views the entire set of illustrations from the ASCE, it become apparent that a large aircraft struck the building and the "missing" engine could have been mangled beyond the point of easy recognition. Also, the tailfin shown is congruent with the 757 tailfin.
It is highly unlikely that the aircraft that struck the Pentagon wasn't a 757.
Sources:
http://www.asce.org/pdf/illustrations.pdf
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/technical.html
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2004 : 09:32:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Doomar wrote:
Do you suppose the two eye witnesses made up seeing a white unmarked military style jet? For what purpose? They saw a crippled airliner falling to the ground, not flying into the ground as we were led to believe happened. I understand why the Bush Admin. would want to cover up their downing of a commercial airliner, inspite of the circumstances, as it would be a first in American history and not one to be proud of.
I think the statement of the eyewitnesses is suspicious for the following reason. If the fighters were originally going after an airliner which officials thought had hijackers on them, and which was going to be crash landed on (I think reports at the time said) a nuclear powerplant, why would they use unmarked all white airplanes? If they thought the threat was serious, they'd use regular military planes. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2004 : 10:23:51 [Permalink]
|
Well, some specifics about military aircraft:
They are for a reason painted a non-reflective gray. This is a form of ECM (electronic counter measures) that minimizes their appearance on radar, or renders painting them with older radar systems less effective. They can actually, in bright light, appear not so gray as they really are.
It was my understanding that no military craft were scrambled that were able to intercept that particular flight, time and distance being what it is. I'll have to check. Even a ready flight takes about 20 minutes (absolutely bare minimum) from startup to launch, even if your doing a hot turnaround. That's provided the necessary armament are loaded, then your adding time again. We generally allowed 45 minutes launch time. Preflight, connect huffer, start engine, systems checks, mechanical checks - flaps, slats, rudder, ailerons, etc... - remove safety pins from all firing mechanisms, then transfering from squadron control to Control Tower. There's a lot involved getting a military craft in the air. Now ready for combat, you have to load live ordinance, not something generally kept on site at any squadron I've been to. Then you have to test the ordinace systems themselves on top of the aircraft systems, once it's loaded. OK, I don't know if some of the AF newer birds require huffers to start the engines or if they have some sort of electronic start ability... If something goes bad, like a wet start...
Consider, fuel cells are generally located in the wings, additionally, fuel lines run through the wings, for the obvious expediency of delivering fuel to the engines attached to the wings. Now, without knowing the specifics of the 757, I can't say for certain that the fuel cells are located in the wings, but this is generally the case. But one thing I can say, is most aircrafe are constructed such that they have a frame, a thin skin covering the frame then necessary support for cargo and personnel placed throughout the framework. There's a lot less aircraft there than we'd like to think. In fact, there are certain areas of wing and fuselage that you aren't allowed to walk on aircraft. For some reason those guys in metal shop don't really enjoy it when a clutz sticks their foot through the skin of the aircraft. Most of the surface is capable of supporting an individual without breaking through, however the ability for a human to push the skin out of shape is possible. Fuel cells aren't terribly massive either, they're kinda more like a sponge.
Anyway, I'd be more interested in the reconstructed material picked up at the site of impact. It'll tell you more about what hit than speculation any day. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2004 : 11:10:23 [Permalink]
|
Doomar wrote:quote:
Dave, you have some good points, but trusting a "government photo" is not exactly great evidence if they are the ones covering up something.
This is the important part, Doomar: there is no objective standard by which one can pick-and-choose which portions of the government's report are "true" and which are part of an alleged "cover up.". If the government is not trustworthy, then one cannot cite as fact anything from the ASCE report. Yet, the article's authors depend on information within that report to support their own theory.
Of course, the ASCE is not a government agency, but the technical director of the project was with the Army Corps of Engineers.quote:
Let's think about the lack of photos..where is the plane debris they say they have...why can't we see it or photograph it, hmm?
Ask "them." Question everything: don't take somebody else's word for it that we "can't." You're a citizen, exercise your rights.quote:
I did see photos of the damage before the upper floors collapsed. The hole was only about 10'in diameter. Why wasn't it bigger?
I would like to see such a photo. The one within the article you offered shows a fire much larger than 10' in diameter, and since the fire is bright, and there's smoke, any other damage on the building is obscured. Plus, it's a single frame from a video, which means the quality is low to begin with. With that image, it is impossible to determine, with any accuracy, the size of the hole.quote:
I don't necessarily go by the analysis of the authors of these web sites, but the facts they present or bits of evidence.
Question everything: first you need to determine that they are "facts." Assuming that the authors present "facts" is a matter of faith, since they lied about the column damage.quote:
The supposed terrorist pilot of this airliner was not very competent by reports I've read.
Question everything: find independent verification of his lack of skills.quote:
This strike on the Pentagon required much greater piloting skills than the WTC, as it was fairly low to the ground and careful manuevering was needed to line up just to hit the building at that speed, avoiding buildings and other obstacles. A good, experienced pilot would find it difficult.
What buildings? He came in over a large, flat highway interchange, and clipped many light poles before the engines hit the generator and a steam vent prior to the plane crashing into the building.quote:
The "vaporized wing" theory just doesn't cut the test of science noted at the physics site.
Question everything: one of the "tests of science" assumes that the fire could be no more than 860 degrees C, but the ASCE report (again, a report they cite as trustworthy in part) reveals that temperatures may have exceeded 1,000 degrees C in places. They also assume that jet fuel was the only fuel in the building, yet the building was full of building materials, too. In other words, the tests are of bad science. They also assume that the earlier collisions did not weaken the wings, and that the wing tips did not enter the building at all. Also, one witness reported "fine" aluminum debris falling all over.quote:
If you examine a picture of the WTC tower that was hit by one plane, you can see the damage done by the wings; the marks left in the building. You cannot see any such marks on the Pentagon.
The WTC was not designed to take a bomb blast. According to the ASCE report, the facade of the Pentagon was missing between column lines 8 and 15 (on the first and second floors), the exterior columns at lines 16 and 17 were highly damaged, and other stone was crushed and cracked, both "30 to 50 feet" north of column line 8 and all the way south to column line 20, which will be hard to see in a photo taken from a large distance away. Assuming the Pentagon and the WTC should show the same sorts of damage is naive.quote:
A test crash of a fighter jet into a concrete wall left notable marks from the wings on the wall. Common sense dictates there should be marks left by the impact of the wings of this large plane. There aren't any.
Then you are blind. Did you look at the ASCE report at all?quote:
Where did the huge, 9' engines end up? One engine alone could have made the 10' hole in the building.
First off, you'll have to provide hard evidence that the hole was no larger than 10' before this "fact" can be discussed. With the authors of that article agreeing that at least four columns were missing, the hole was at least 12.4 meters wide, or 40' 8", using their numbers. Since the airplane was not circular (wings, tail, and all), it is unlikely that the hole would be circular. This is true of the F-16, too, although the amount of damage is far too small for that plane, even with a missle helping.quote:
What happened to the other one?
Don't know. I wasn't there during clean up. Find out, don't take it on faith that it was missing entirely.quote:
I don't know the answers, but I am able to understand when basic evidence is missing, evidence that should be there, but isn't, if it happened as they say it did.
No, you're making assumptions about what "should be there" which are not themselves supported by evidence. What "basic" evidence is missing, and who says it's missing? The people promoting the idea that a 757 did not crash into the Pentagon have a large interest in not showing photographs of evidence which disagrees with their conclu |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2004 : 12:50:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
My problem with the F-16 going into the building is with the missles. Surely just after impact they would explode. If memory serves me right, an F-16 carries 6 missles. So the plane would first enter the building, then the missles would explode, causing even more damage. I'm pretty sure the explosion of 6 missles would be much larger than a 747 flying into it.
Missiles (whether air-to-air or air-to-ground) are rarely impact detonated. The large fireball effect of downed military aircraft is due to fuel, not ordinance.
And the aircraft is a 757, not a four engine monstrosity.
The F-16 carries a myriad of payloads dependant on mission. Impact weapons are best against soft ground targets. It wouldn't make any sense that an F-16 (of which the ordinance has to be checked out and installed on the weapons pylons) that is supposed to be ready for combat air patrol would be armed with Air to ground missiles like the Maverick or Hellfire. It would likely be Sidewinder missiles which detonate in proximity of the offending aircraft and only after being armed. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
