Where's Waldo?

[lies and propaganda]

While youre looking for him, see if you can find any parts of the jetliner that crashed there . Where is the luggage, the wings, even one seat?

[lies and propaganda]

1. .....

I dont want this to become a 911 thread.
I hope this wont get relegated to the dungeon because I feel more people besides the Truth Movement need to question this.

[Virginia Dare]

2. incinerated?...n/t

[lies and propaganda]

3. just waldo?

or everything?

[Virginia Dare]

14. the luggage and the people...

the rest of it, I can't help you out there.

One interesting note I read recently. An ER doctor who treated some victims from inside the Pentagon said they were covered in jet fuel and he is still haunted by the smell.

[Twist_U_Up]

62. You wouldnt have a link for that by chance,would you ?

first I heard of this witness.

[Virginia Dare]

115. Yes, here it is...

In the past five years, Ron Miluszewski has been unable to shake the smell of the first victims who were brought to his hospital from the shattered Pentagon: They reeked of jet fuel.

-snip-

Ron Miluszewski, director of admissions at Virginia Hospital Center, was the featured speaker. The hospital treated 44 victims of the Pentagon attack, and his memories of that day at the hospital's triage center are a mix of horror and heroism: The sound of the ambulance sirens bringing the day's first victims. The two injured servicemen who, after receiving treatment, tore off their hospital tags and returned to the crash site at the Pentagon to look for others. The smell of jet fuel on the burn patients.

"It's a memory that has stayed in my head," he said later. "All I could smell was jet fuel, like being in an airport. I'll never forget that. I've tried to. But every time I go to an airport, the smell of jet fuel reminds me. It was so strong."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/11/AR2006091101383.html

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. Jesus Christ.

That's just fucking sick.

Shame on you.

[lies and propaganda]

6. why? I asked a valid question that SHOULD be asked

I want to know if other see wreckage and why I dont.

i think its sick that you just accept it.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lies and propaganda]

12. puke is right. They are so not even close to one another.

That is a crash site, there should be wreckage taht isnt there. Why isnt it? There wouldnt be even one chair, a big ass piece of steel? NOTHING.

[Sinti]

46. You do realize this was uncalled for, right?

I believe it may also be in violation of Godwin's Law. This associating of 9/11 Questioners with Holocaust deniers has got to stop. It's one thing when the Psychoright does it, but is it really necessary for us to do it amongst ourselves?

You could always just ignore people and subjects if they offend you that much that you feel compelled to bring up horrors such as these and vomit in response to their POV.

[lies and propaganda]

65. I had to wiki Godwins Law, interesting that Ive never heard it used before

thanks!

and lovely D.I.A picture, is that the creepiest "airport" of all time?

[DoYouEverWonder]

93. There are 1000's of pictures

of the victims, gas chambers, mass graves and more from Nazi Germany. This has nothing to do with the OP.

Nice red herring.

Why are you so afraid to look? Why don't you want anyone else to look?

[longship]

35. It has already been answered ad nauseum.

But the tin foil hat crowd somehow doesn't want to listen to reasoned, rational discussion on the topic.

I do not accept the 9/11 Commission report. However, there is no doubt in my mind that those four airliners did precisely what is reported in that report. There is not one shred of evidence for missiles, or much of the other things about which the tin foilers screech.

[lies and propaganda]

39. well the tin foil hat crowd wouldnt have to exist

if the powers that be didnt lie about everything and time after time those nutty CT's are debunked.

[Nozebro]

53. "answered ad nauseum" = gov't-sponsored propaganda "reports".

Pretty nauseating, alright.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nozebro]

59. All those (claimed) credentials & yet all you can do (besides insult) is

refer to a Gov't "report". Do some studying and then maybe you'll be able to respond substantively, and not have to resort to only being able to cite a Gov't-sponsored report every time you weigh in on a thread on the 9/11 forum.

I don't think you're a loon, but it does appear that you've been heavily influenced by some.

[longship]

60. I have *never* referred to the government report. Not once.

Go back to primary principles.

Inelastic collision. Momentum is dissipated in the collision.

Kinetic energy... K.E. = 1/2 m * v^2, where m = mass of the airliner + fuel + passengers + luggage.

Energy released by explosive ignition of a given mass of atomized jet fuel.

G-forces... what force dissipates velocity of 530 mph in the time frame of the collision?

The information is available to fill in the blanks. If you really want to know the truth you can do the calculations for yourself. Otherwise, much of what I read here is just so much bollocks.

[Nozebro]

66. Are you saying you're forced to come here amongst "so much bollocks"?

More of the same old "Faith-Based" nothingness. I agree that's certainly here "ad nauseum".
BTW - it's not too late to get out while you can. One less OCT'er here won't cause any noticeable decline in the OCT PR output.

[longship]

72. You would do well to read the DU rules.

Your responses are most unconstructive.

I suggest if you intend to be able to stay here that you practice a little decorum.
If you have a substantive argument to present, I will listen to it. However, I do not have to listen to this kind of haranging.

Ignoring you now.

[tenseconds]

77. decorum

"decorum" is hardly your strong suit.

[longship]

85. At least, sir, I put forth an argument.

Not a never ending spewage of gain-saying. Not that you were doing that. It has been others who have been doing the provoking here.

I sincerely apologize for my impatience with some people here.
However, I apologize neither for my facts nor my reasoning, which I know to be on sound basis.

[tenseconds]

76. resistance

And the wall would offer how much resistance?

[longship]

84. Resistance of the wall to penetration is mostly irrelevant.

The collision is a classic inelastic collision. The same amount of energy is dissipated no matter what the resistance of the wall. The power of the collision only depends on how quickly the airplane comes to a rest. This is dependant on the building's resistance to penetration, but can be measured independantly by simple direct observation. How fast does the entire collision take place? The plane's velocity alone gives this as about 1/5 of a second. I use a much more conservative 1/3 of a second, giving 6.7 billion Watts. Even if it is 1/2 a second, we're talking over 4 billion Watts. It is certainly not a whole second.

Anyway you look at it the collision produced a huge amount of power in a very short period of time. The airliner and all its contents gets crushed beyond all recognition.

[tenseconds]

105. how do you explain

How do you explain the WTC2 impact? The plane sliced through the steel columns without any apparent immediate disintegration.

[Nozebro]

106. It cannot be explained, because it is an impossibility. If a B767 HAD

impacted WTC2, it would have collapsed and exploded outside the building. Some parts of the aircraft would have fallen to the ground below.

NO eyewitnesses claimed to have observed the above. ALL eyewitnesses said the plane crashed into the building and disappeared (melted) inside it. That is an impossibility.

Therefore, we know that UAL 175 (a B767) did NOT crash into WTC2. Either a smaller plane (disguised to appear like a 767) did, or else a 767 was added to the video images which were shown
on television.

[tenseconds]

108. I agree

Yeah. And then we have what looks like a perfectly intact silver cylinder object exiting the building.

[longship]

129. Think about this

The simple answer is that the WTC towers and the Pentagon are two different situations which call for two separate interpretations. How could it be otherwise?

The steel columns on the outer shell of the WTC are not at all similar to the reinforced concrete walls of the Pentagon. This is where resistance to penetration comes into play. If fact, you'll notice that the open space within the towers allowed Flight 175 debris field to actually penetrate through to the opposite side of the tower. This didn't happen as much for Flight 11 because the collision was more direct and the debris field was stopped by the central core and other interior structures.

As to your special pleading "without any immediate disintegration", how can you in any way claim that puncturing the outer wall at 500 mph did not disintegrate the plane? Of course it was substantially broken apart in that collision. What was not destroyed by impact with the exterior wall was destroyed by the interior structures. The result is the same inelastic collision results that were experienced at the Pentagon. Different dynamics, for sure, but the energy levels would be nearly the same and the outcome, inevitable. Shredded, sliced, and diced airliner and contents.

The operative question here is, why would you expect anything other than this outcome?

[DoYouEverWonder]

94. Not one shred of evidence

that the official story is not exactly what happened? The real world is not so black & white and there is lot's of contradictory evidence when it comes to 9-11. How about all the eyewitnesses who claim it was a bomb, helicopter, military plane and who knows what else that day? Of course the M$M ignores the eyewitnesses who didn't see the official version but don't let that get in the way of your fantasies.

Oh by the way, did you know about the C130? The one that was chasing Flight 77? The same one that flew onto PA and got there just when Flight 93 supposedly crashed? Or in your world did that never happen either?

[OldSiouxWarrior]

111. A C-130 chasing a jet??? LOL. You CTers crack me up.

That's funny. A propeller driven plane is supposed to chase a jet????

Even if there was a C-130 in the area, that proves nothing about what it was doing. All of that is wild CT speculation without any bit of evidence.

[DoYouEverWonder]

116. You OCTers should read the official reports before you post

but then I suppose you will come up with an excuse why Air Force Magazine is not a credible source?

Air traffic controllers in Washington “vectored an unarmed National Guard C-130H cargo aircraft, which had just taken off en route to Minnesota, to identify and follow the suspicious aircraft. The C-130H pilot spotted it ... attempted to follow its path,” the report stated.

<snip>

At 9:37, American Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. The C-130 was on the scene only seconds later. The fighters from Langley were still 150 miles away.

<snip>

At 10:03, Flight 93 plunged into a field near Shanksville, Pa., southeast of Pittsburgh. “The nation owes a debt to the passengers of United 93,” the commissioners wrote. “Their actions saved the lives of countless others and may have saved either the Capitol or the White House from destruction.”

The same C-130 that saw Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon was also first to the United 93 crash site. The airlifter had “resumed its flight to Minnesota and saw the smoke from the crash ... less than two minutes after the plane went down.”

http://www.afa.org/magazine/Oct2004/1004sept.asp

[OldSiouxWarrior]

118. Intercepting is not chasing.

The C-130 was already in the vicinity of Washington, ahead of the 757. It didn't have to chase. And it got to the United 93 AFTER the crash.

And you have not proven that it was in any way nefarious.

[DoYouEverWonder]

135. "All of that is wild CT speculation without any bit of evidence."

You could at least have the good grace to admit when you are plan wrong.

I have presented you with solid evidence and now you want to split hairs over 'chase' and 'intercept'. You sound like you took debate lessons from Bill Clinton.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

138. You are speculating on the purpose of the C-130

Yes, I made an error on that. But you are not able to establish that there was an evil purpose for the C-130 being there. You assign a motive to it that there is no evidence to support.

[longship]

136. Cherry picked accounts.

The Pentagon adjoins three major expressways and Flight 77 collided with the building at the height of rush hour. There were hundreds of witnesses to the plane's actions, and many who actually saw it hit. These accounts literally rip the heart out of the tin foil hat crowd's claims that it wasn't an airliner that hit.

So what does the tin foil hat crowd do? They cherry pick the accounts and quote metaphorical descriptions of the devastation and use that to make the witness say something that was never intended. For instance, when a person says "it looked like a missile hit", the tin foilers ignore the simile and state that it *was* a missile. When a witness says that "there's no airplane left" the tin foilers use that to deliberately deceive their blind followers into thinking that the witness is saying that there was no airplane at all. They cherry pick the data and ignore all the accounts of the witnesses whose accounts do not fit into their warped reality.

However, if you look at those accounts at Web sites set up to debunk the tin foil crap, you see all the accounts, even those which the tin foil crowd cite. Of course, then you get to see the quote in context and the tin foil hat crowd's selective and cherry-picked accounts becomes apparent.

These are all typical and classical propaganda techniques that the tin foil hat crowd uses effectively to try to convince the uneducated that a *huge* conspiracy was put into action on 9/11. Why?

What's with people these days that they have to deceive and even deliberately lie about the facts? Then, the hypocritically charge ChimpCo for lying.

[Nozebro]

137. Can you provide some proof that a non-existent flight crashed there?

FL 77 crashed at the Pentagon? Got BTS proof it ever took off?

[OldSiouxWarrior]

140. DOZENS of eyewitness makes a damn good start.

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm Dozens of eyewitness account with links to the original source.

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm Lots of pictures there.

And the plane was tracked on radar the entire way and known to be FL77

[Nozebro]

144. How did they witness FL 77? It wasn't scheduled & didn't fly on 9/11.

You can't prove that FL 77 even took off, much less crashed anywhere. Trickery was used quite a bit on 9/11, and maybe you got fooled, too.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

145. The documentation is that FL 77 took off.

If you are claiming the documentation is false, it is up to you to prove that claim. You are claiming it is false, but you don't have one single bit of proof for you claim. CTers have made that claim up out of empty air.

And the eyewitness DID see a plane hit the pentagon.

And there are the phone calls made from the flight to relatives.

And there are the flight recorders that were recovered.

It is not enough for you to allege trickery. You will have to PROVE trickery, and you don't have ANY evidence, just hot air claims from deluded minds.

[Nozebro]

146. WHAT documentation? Do you even believe what's in your posts?

The authoritative records of ALL flights are made and kept by the Bureau of Transportation Services.
AA FL 77 was not a scheduled flight on 9/11 and didn't take off. That's why there is no record of it having done so in the BTS records. It's also why there is no evidence of it having crashed anywhere. It's also why there's no blood, bodies, gore, luggage etc. in the photographic/video records. Furthermore, it's exactly why the Gov't can't provide any proof to substantiate claims like those you post. I know you are sincere and really do believe what you've been told, but you've been lied to, whether your ego will allow you to admit it or not. You ARE a sincere, objective, truth-seeking progressive Democrat, right?

[OldSiouxWarrior]

158. How utterly absurd.

How do you account for the people on the plane? Each one of them had families that had gone to the airport with them when they caught the plane. (The saw their friends and relatives get on FL77) What about the families at the correct destination who were supposed to meet them? They went to meet them for FL77. What about all the phone calls from the plane?

Of course, you CTers just conveniently "vanish" them. No evidence of it, but that doesn't bother you. You just claim the lack of evidence shows how smoothly the cover-up was done.

And there were body parts recovered from the pentagon and have been DNA matched to all but a few people.

You will have to prove your assertions. You can't just make stuff up and expect to be believed.

[Nozebro]

161. What's painfully obvious is that you're desperate to change the subject.

You've ranted on and on about everything except your devotion to Motherhood, the flag, wide highways, and nickel beer...but you still can't refute the fact that according to the records used by the airline industry and the Government - AA FL 77 wasn't scheduled to fly on 9/11 and didn't.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

164. The fact is it DID fly, and that is all that counts.

How do you explain all the people that got on on the airliner?

How do you explain the calls?

How do you explain the fact that it was on radar as FL 77 the entire time?

[Nozebro]

165. If it's a fact, it would be in the BTS records. Chief, your

post tells me you need to get up to speed a little more on the facts.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

166. A hologram believer is saying that???

You still can't get around the fact that people got on the airliner, and that it WAS tracked on radar the entire time.

Where are all the people?

[Nozebro]

167. A believer in Fairy Tales is saying THAT?

You can't prove anything, can you, Chief?

[OldSiouxWarrior]

168. I have already proven quite a bit, and posted pictures.

Meanwhile, you have pushed the idea that it was missiles cloaked in holograms.

[Nozebro]

169. Have you been drinking today?

The issue is whether or not you can prove that AA FL 77 was a scheduled flight on 9/11 and whether it took off. Never mind whether or not it crashed anywhere. If it didn't take off, the rest becomes irrelevant.

You have a habit (maybe more than one, which is why I asked what I did) of seemingly not being able to stay on the subject at hand.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

43. Go here to see pictures of wreckage.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/single.php?post=816414

or here

http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon.html

You will find REAL answers to your questions at those sites. Of course, that assumes that you really want answers.

Regarding the hijacker having problems with a Cessna. He DID have a commercial pilot's license. But you still have to be familiar with the specific type of plane you are landing. A small Cessna handles differently than a jetliner.

The final maneuver he made is NOT a difficult one. It is a rather routine descending turn.

Further, much of a pilot's training is on how to fly safely. If your intention is to crash the plane, you can dispense with much of that training. Nor did he fly along at low altitude. He made a descending turn, and when he pulled out of the turn, he kept the plane in a shallow dive.

Further, it is absolutely absurd that conspiracy theorists seem to want to see a nearly intact aluminum plane after an 530mph crash into a fairly solid building followed by burning fuel. And in the picture you posted, you can easily see wing damage, to the left of the hole made by the body of the plane, you can see damage where the wing impacted the first floor.

Also, YOU PICTURE IS WAS TAKEN DAYS AFTER 9-11. Notice that there is a CRANE in the picture, and that the lawn is full of vehicles and equipment. Any large pieces of wreckage will have been picked up as they would be in the way.

[lies and propaganda]

45. Thanks for the links.

I have a lot of after dinner reading to do.

But i obviously dont easily see wing damage, otherwise I wouldnt have posted this. i expect that it should be much, much larger and nut just be so tunnel-like.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

47. Maybe this will help out.

In this picture, the stuff on the lawn has been digitally removed, and a 757 inserted.




The wing damage from the impact has not been enhanced. It is just easier to see because the scale of the picture is smaller. Kind of like trying to make out a picture in a newspaper at two feet versus with a magnifing glass where all you can see are dots.

Now remember, that plane is made of flimsy aluminum and is going 530mph, and the wings are full of jet fuel. Aluminum has a low melting point and will melt in almost any fire. The wings are not going to be there when the fire is out, nor will most of the body.

[tenseconds]

78. lets not mull over little points

Copied from http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-Flying-Without-Training13jun06.htm

But, for the sake of discussion let's stretch things beyond all plausibility and say that Hanjour - whose flight instructor claimed "couldn't fly at all" - somehow managed to figure out their exact position on the American landscape in relation to their intended target as they traversed the earth at a speed five times faster than they had ever flown by themselves before.

Once he had determined exactly where he was, he would need to figure out where the Pentagon was located in relation to his rapidly changing position. He would then need to plot a course to his target (one he cannot see with his eyes - remember, our ace is flying solely on instruments).

In order to perform this bit of electronic navigation, he would have to be very familiar with IFR procedures. None of these chaps even knew what a navigational chart looked like, much less how to plug information into flight management computers (FMC) and engage LNAV (lateral navigation automated mode). If one is to believe the official story, all of this was supposedly accomplished by raw student pilots, while flying blind at 500 MPH, (about 750 feet every second) over 30,000 feet high and above the unfamiliar ground, (and practically invisible) terrain, using complex methodologies and employing sophisticated instruments.

To get around this little problem, the official storyline suggests these men manually flew their aircraft to their respective targets (NB: This still wouldn't relieve them of the burden of navigation). But let's assume Hanjour disengaged the autopilot and auto-throttle and hand-flew the aircraft to its intended - and invisible - target on instruments alone until such time as he could get a visual fix. This would have necessitated him to fly back across West Virginia and Virginia to Washington DC. - - This portion of the Flight 77's flight path cannot be corroborated by any radar evidence that exists, because the aircraft is said to have suddenly disappeared from radar screens over Ohio, but let's not mull over that little point.

[Make7]

91. That sure sounds convincing - however, it may not be accurate.

 

...Hanjour was able to obtain his private pilot's license. Several more months of training yielded him a commercial pilot certificate, issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in April 1999.

www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch7.htm

At 9:29, the autopilot on American 77 was disengaged; the aircraft was at 7,000 feet and approximately 38 miles west of the Pentagon. At 9:32, controllers at the Dulles Terminal Radar Approach Control "observed a primary radar target tracking eastbound at a high rate of speed." This was later determined to have been Flight 77.

At 9:34, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport advised the Secret Service of an unknown aircraft heading in the direction of the White House. American 77 was then 5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon and began a 330-degree turn. At the end of the turn, it was descending through 2,200 feet, pointed toward the Pentagon and downtown Washington. The hijacker pilot then advanced the throttles to maximum power and dove toward the Pentagon.

At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour.

www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

The failure to find a primary radar return for American 77 led us to investigate this issue further. Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56. But for 8 minutes and 13 seconds, between 8:56 and 9:05, this primary radar information on American 77 was not displayed to controllers at Indianapolis Center.

www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

To summarize:

• Hanjour had a commercial pilot certificate
  
• they used the autopilot until they were close to Washington D.C.
  
• there is radar data for the entire flight path of AA 77.

- Make7

[tenseconds]

102. flight instructor's statements

Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this most elementary exercise by himself, in fact, here is what their flight instructors had to say about the aptitude of these budding aviators:

Mohammed Atta: "His attention span was zero."
Khalid Al-Mihdhar: "We didn't kick him out, but he didn't live up to our standards."
Marwan Al-Shehhi: "He was dropped because of his limited English and incompetence at the controls."
Salem Al-Hazmi: "We advised him to quit after two lessons."
Hani Hanjour: "His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all."

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-Flying-Without-Training13jun06.htm

[OldSiouxWarrior]

107. The fact remains that Hanjour DID have a commercial pilot's liscense.

And you don't get those from a ceral box top.

Further, it doesn't take great flying skills to crash a plane. During WWII the Japanese trained thousands of kamikaze pilots. They had only the most rudimentry skills. Often they were not even trained to land the plane. The instructors would teach them enough to take off, and dive into a ship. (A ship is much smaller than the pentagon.)The hijackers didn't even have to learn take-off.

The part of flying that the hijackers had to know was fairly simple.

Most of what flying school is about is teaching SAFE FLYING. (Keep up an insturment scan, scan outside the cockpit for other traffic They weren't interested in safe flying, only in being able to find and hit a target, monitor the radio.

[tenseconds]

110. nonetheless

Nonetheless, imagine that Hanjour overpowers the flight deck crew, removes them from the cockpit and takes his position in the captain's seat. Although weather reports state this was not the case, let's say Hanjour was lucky enough to experience a perfect CAVU day (Ceiling And Visibility Unlimited). If Hanjour looked straight ahead through the windshield, or off to his left at the ground, at best he would see, 35,000 feet - - 7 miles - - below him, a murky brownish-gray-green landscape, virtually devoid of surface detail, while the aircraft he was now piloting was moving along, almost imperceptibly and in eerie silence, at around 500 MPH (about 750 feet every second).

In a real-world scenario (and given the reported weather conditions that day), he would likely have seen clouds below him completely obscuring the ground he was traversing. With this kind of "situational non-awareness", Hanjour might as well have been flying over Argentina, Russia, or Japan he wouldn't have had a clue as to where, precisely, he was.

After a few seconds (at 750 feet per second), Hanjour would figure out there's little point in looking outside - there is nothing there to give him any real visual cues. For a man who had previously wrestled with little Cessnas, following freeways and railroad tracks (and always in the comforting presence of an instructor), this would have been a strange, eerily unsettling environment indeed.

Seeing nothing outside, Mr. Hanjour would be forced to divert his attention to his instrument panel, where he would be faced with a bewildering array of instruments. He would then have to very quickly interpret his heading, ground track, altitude, and airspeed information on the displays before he could even figure out where in the world he was, much less where the Pentagon was located in relation to his position!

After all, before he can crash into a target, he has to first find the target.

It is very difficult to explain this scenario, of an utter lack of ground reference, to non-pilots; but let it suffice to say that for these incompetent hijacker non-pilots to even consider grappling with such a daunting task would have been utterly overwhelming. They wouldn't have known where to begin.

But, for the sake of discussion let's stretch things beyond all plausibility and say that Hanjour - whose flight instructor claimed "couldn't fly at all" - somehow managed to figure out their exact position on the American landscape in relation to their intended target as they traversed the earth at a speed five times faster than they had ever flown by themselves before.

Once he had determined exactly where he was, he would need to figure out where the Pentagon was located in relation to his rapidly changing position. He would then need to plot a course to his target (one he cannot see with his eyes - remember, our ace is flying solely on instruments).

In order to perform this bit of electronic navigation, he would have to be very familiar with IFR procedures. None of these chaps even knew what a navigational chart looked like, much less how to plug information into flight management computers (FMC) and engage LNAV (lateral navigation automated mode). If one is to believe the official story, all of this was supposedly accomplished by raw student pilots, while flying blind at 500 MPH, (about 750 feet every second) over 30,000 feet high and above the unfamiliar ground, (and practically invisible) terrain, using complex methodologies and employing sophisticated instruments.

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-Flying-Without-Training13jun06.htm

[OldSiouxWarrior]

113. What a pile of over-hyped bull.

First, he DID have a commercial pilot's license. That proves that he COULD fly. You don't get those by mail.

He doesn't need a CAVU day. The commercial li scene includes instrument rating. He was able to buy the simulator program so he could practice the basics that he needed at home. Don't laugh, those sim programs are very good. He will not need most of his instruments for what he wants to do.

He descended to 7,000 feet on the way to Washington. From that altitude he was able to see the pentagon. Once he had found it (Easy to do as it is next to the river, a bridge, and an airport. All good visual cues.)then he made the spiral decent to line up on the target.

You are trying to make something that was fairly easy sound amazingly difficult. It was easy.

You don't need to be an expert pilot to crash a plane.

[tenseconds]

117. bulleave it or not

The bull starts when he and his alleged cohorts were able to subdue the passengers and the crew using boxcutters. It continues when the plane wasn't identified for a course of time enroute to Washington. It continues when a plane that size is able to fly that low at 500MPH without creating air pressure which would make it loft to a higher elevation than the first floor of the Pentagon. It further goes on its bull route by punching out a hole into the A-E without leaving any visable evidence as to what caused that to happen. Further bull is heaped on the idea that the plane would explode upon impact and yet there are no body parts on the lawn.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

119. He wasn't flying straight and level.

He was in a nose down attitude, intending to crash. And he crashed, into the pentagon.

It did leave LOTS of evidence. See post 97 for lots of pictures.

The plane didn't "explode". It disintegrated due to the extreme G-load from the impact. Upon disintegration, each little piece still had it's same momentum and the whole mess continued forward into the pentagon.

Did you flunk physics in high school?

[lies and propaganda]

44. see post #33, Thats why I asked this

Im just trying to sort it out like everyone else.

No need to be rude.

[karlrschneider]

5. There are actually morons who don't think an airplane hit it.

:eyes:

[lies and propaganda]

7. well, help a moron out then.

Im asking for responses, not pointless criticism.

[karlrschneider]

11. Take it up with a CT moron, who will undoubtedly be someone

with zero knowledge of physics, aerodynamics or any other scientific discipline. I don't have time to argue with morons. (I never named any names)

[lies and propaganda]

13. so does physics state that every single thing plane - like

will melt or fly away?

i just want to know why the hell there isnt anything remotely plane like around there, i think its a completely valid question.

[longship]

48. Since you want to know, here's an explanation.

The collision is called an "inelastic collision" by physicists, which means that the two bodies do not bounce off each other (like billiard balls, which would be an elastic collision). The modelling of such things is simple. The energy dissipated by the collision is simply the kinetic energy of the colliding bodies.

The energy of a 530 mph 757 is well over two billion joules. This is only the mechanical energy of the collision and does not include the chemical energy added by the explosion of tons of atomized jet fuel which would add a considerably more energy to the collision.

Nearly all of a 757 airliner is composed of a light aluminum alloy. (I know this. I was an engineer for Boeing for years.) There is some steel and titanium in the engines and at some attachment points, but these would be insignificant next to the amount of aluminum. The strength of the airliner comes from its construction, not the materials.

Aluminum is stiff, but quite brittle. A collision of such energy would result in the entire fuselage being broken into small pieces. Some larger pieces would survive, like are seen in many pictures of the scene immediately after the collision. But there would be nothing recognizable as an airliner. (Look for the tell-tale Boeing pale green paint on any surviving parts.) The vast proportion of the airliner would be in small pieces. Any parts which survive the penetration of the outer Pentagon wall would be shattered by the support columns, walls, and virtually anything else inside the building as the momentum of the airliner is dissipated in the collision.

Luggage and people would be similarly sliced, diced, and crushed.

One question I'd like to pose to you: What would *you* expect to see after such a collision?

[lies and propaganda]

58. metal, specificially large pieces

a random seat thrown here or there. Just something for me to trust, which is not the 911 findings or BushCo.

[longship]

69. Well, there's plenty of pictures around the Web.

No seats. You wouldn't expect them to survive a 530 mph collision with reinforced concrete. There was plenty of pieces of airframe structure scattered all over the inside of the building. The pieces which weren't burned would still have the pale green Boeing paint on them and would therefore be easily recognizable.

Engine parts were also found inside, including a good part of one of the compressor rotors. A huge chunk of one of the main landing gear punched through to the third ring and made a big hole. Alloy wheels were found. A large piece of the fuselage, with the airline colors still on it was found on the lawn adjacent to the collision site. Pic is somewhere in this thread.

Almost everything else was either crushed, sliced, diced, or burnt up. Forget the luggage, seats and people. Only little pieces would remain.

Here's a pic of some 727's in Boeing pale green (on the tail engine nacelles and the top of the vert stab). They use the same treatment on the entire airframe.

[treestar]

70. How come there are for other accidents?

Maybe those accidents were the conspiracies?

[tenseconds]

71. where?

Where are all those diced,sliced and crushed people on the Pentagon lawn? Is that what the FBI agents were picking up? They should have used gloves. Shame on them.

[longship]

89. Not melt.

Crushed, sliced, diced, like a Vega-Matic. All except for the largest, most robust pieces, like landing gear chunks, engine rotors (titanium--tough stuff), etc. The rest is aluminum alloy.

[tenseconds]

103. robust

No landing gear chunks were identified in the A-E drive that I am aware of..do you have evidence of that?

[longship]

122. What's this, then?

This looks like a landing gear strut to me
It also looked like one to accident investigators


And here's an rb211 engine compressor housing:


And here's a lot of debris including a big chunk with AA colors:


And here's a guy carrying away a big chunk:


And here's a bunch of 757 detritus with a wheel:
(note pieces in Boeing pale green primer):


And here's a very grisly report from the scene
Pentagon searchers encounter grisly scenes

[tenseconds]

131. where

I've seen those pictures many times before. Were they located in the A-E drive?

[razors edge]

16. not beneficial to finding the truth

the official conspiracy theorist will use the "missile hit the pentagon" argument to hold up against anyone who questions 9-11 as being deranged and dismiss the whole thing.

first dissect the towers, thermite visible pouring from the buildings, etc

wtc 7, the secret service at booker t elementary.

things people can get their head around and many independent wittiness can be produced. the pentagon will not be forthcoming with contradictory evidence until a real investigation takes place.

[lies and propaganda]

19. Well, that can be said of the overall investigation.

Its better to blame the terraists until were rocking back and forth in the corner.

Building seven is just as full of holes. Its been five years and so little has been done.

[razors edge]

24. anything can be said of anything

i don't see where one can derive new intel on what happened at the pentagon at this point. I never said I wanted to stop asking questions, I would just prefer to ask the ones that crack the dam, let the water do the work.

[dkofos]

8. Sorry Missles don't have seats or space for luggage

But they are great tools for taking down a section of the Pentagon!!

[lies and propaganda]

10. The impact evidence reminds me of that as well.

Wingspans are wide as hell, but the hole is just a one narrow hallway.

[QuestionAll...]

15. there really should be some debris.

maybe most of the plane sunk into the hole, but the wings would have ripped off and sproinged back.

This is something to be suspicious about, I just don't see how anyone could dismiss this as crazy tinfoil. Remember whose in charge - the murdering, lieing, stealing, cheating, conscienceless, torturing gang.

[lies and propaganda]

17. This is exactly what Im saying.

There should just be something, and there is not, WHY?

And when you consider the source, its not a big stretch to have to question every damn thing.

[Xenotime]

38. There was this one photo..

Caption:AFTERMATH: Wreckage from Flight 77 on the Pentagon’s lawn--proof that a passenger plane, not a missile, hit the building. PHOTOGRAPH BY AP/WIDE WORLD PHOTOS

[lies and propaganda]

42. I have never seen that!

thank you very much!

[Twist_U_Up]

63. Thats a pretty clean piece of plane

I wonder why he has no freinds .

Surely if this good size hunk was in this condition, there would be more plane scattered about.

[vincent_vega_lives]

98. Look Harder

http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

[longship]

51. What!? Sproing back!!!

Special pleading.

We're talking about a huge amount of momentum here and a huge amount of G force as the airliner goes from 530 mph to nothing in a split second.

The wings fold forward and crumble with the rest of the entire airliner.

Please listen to reason here. There's no way that any wreckage would look like an airliner had crashed. All would be destroyed.

Over two billion joules!!!

[Ezlivin]

61. That's why carrier landings always rip the wings off aircraft

Ever watch an aircraft land on a carrier? Ever see the wings rip off as it stops suddenly?

Of course not.

The wings are designed to withstand multiple g-loading. When the aircraft's nose touched the Pentagon the velocity would start to drop, but it would not go to zero instantly. As the aircraft slowed, the wings would slow with the aircraft as they are attached to the fuselage in a very secure fashion.

Sure, the tips may have flexed forward as the aircraft slowed, but to expect that both wings instantly folded forward and went into the "entry" hole is absurd. Even if it were possible that the wings ripped off with the sudden impact of the nose, the fuselage would have been crushed and foreshortened. The wings could not have "swept" forward in two closing arcs quick enough to fit through the same entry hole as the aircraft.

There is insufficient wreckage to indicate that an aircraft the size of a 757 struck the Pentagon.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

74. Carrier landings are NOT sudden, like hitting a wall is.

In a carrier landing the arresting hook on the plane catches on the cable and the plane is brought to a stop in just under a couple of seconds, and the landing speed is about 140mph, or there abouts.

The pentagon speed was about 530 mph (Even a stupid CTer should be able to see that makes a difference.) and it was a crash into a solid building, not a catch on the arresting wire.

Think of the difference between a bungee jump, and the same jump without a bungee cord. The first is like the carrier landing. The second is like the crash.

Comparing a crash to a carrier landing was extremely stupid and showed a strong ignorance of both crashes and carrier landings.

[vincent_vega_lives]

100. Bungie Jump, Good Analogy! n/t

[longship]

86. Sheesh!

I find it totally disingenuous for you to somehow claim that an aircraft carrier landing is in *ANY* *WAY* similar to a 530 mph, 80,000 kg airliner colliding with a reinforced concrete building. You might want to start by calculating the G-force of such a collision and then compare it with the maximum stress for the various structural components of a 757 airliner. Then consider the energy of such an inelastic collision. After that, the power calculation is easy. Then you might want to ponder whether *anything* man-built could survive such a fast release of energy. Oh... BTW, it's 6 billion Watts, not including the fuel explosion.

Pshaw! What's the use...

[vincent_vega_lives]

99. WTF are your talking about?

A carrier landing??? You really have no clue about this subject.

Regarding the wings. They DID NOT "fold forward and go into the entry hole!" They disintergrated on impact. The engines and fuel tanks penetrated the Pentagon Facade and were carried into the building by momentum, the outer tips shattered against the facade.

[tenseconds]

73. hole

How do you explain this hole into the A-E drive? The fuselage height is 17 feet. It would have had to engage the ceiling/flooring of the first and second floors all the way through the C ring.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

75. That's easy. The upper part of the fuselage is less massive.

The lower part of the fuselage has the landing gear and the baggage and therefore has the greater mass, mean it has much greater momentum. Therefore, to lower part of the fuselage penetrated further.

Very simple physics.

[tenseconds]

79. too bad

Too bad there isn't any evidence of fuselage parts or landing gear in the A-E drive. Apparently the lower part of the fuselage was ignored by the initial blast occuring at the very front of the building.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

82. The front landing gear did make it thorough the third wing.

The rest of the stuff was shredded, crushed, torn, and mutilated, but the mass and momentum was still there. (Do you think that a 530 mph impact would leave stuff intact?) The column of mass that was the lower part of the fuselage was able to punch through, along with the nose gear.

[longship]

88. Great posts, OldSioux.

Thanks for the support for fact and truth.
Take a peek at my calculations in this thread.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

121. Thanks. I used them in my post #120.

Since I was only looking for a rough number and rounded everything, I naturally came up with a rounded number, 1,000 lbs for the TNT equivelant. I am sure that the CTers will jump on that number and try to claim that the warheads are that size and use it as proof of a missle strike.

Of course, the damage pattern for a warhead (Expanding gas cloud) would be very different from a plane strike (Kinetic energy), but they won't let that bother them.

[longship]

130. Dont' forget my calcs do not include fuel detonation energy.

nt

[OldSiouxWarrior]

132. I didn't include that either. Just the KE at impact.

The plane's KE at impact was the equivalent of 1,000 pounds of TNT, and then it burned. And they expect to see a plane in that mess.

[tenseconds]

101. really?

Really? Where's the visual proof? I never intimated that anything would be left intact. Why would the lower part of the fuselage be left intact? That's just an assumption on your part to fit your theory.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

109. The lower part was not intact.

Can't you read? Everything was crushed, folded, spindled, and otherwise mutilated - except for a few steel items. But none of that changes the mass or the kinetic energy. Others have posted pictures in this thread of the plane parts and of the nose landing gear strut.

[tenseconds]

112. exactly

You are stating my point exactly. Nothing explains the hole into the A-E drive. Unless there is photographic evidence of the landing gear and possibly the fuselage exiting the hole. There is none to my knowlege.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

114. See post 97, this thread. Lots of pictures.

There you will see plane parts amid the wreckage at the ring 3 hole. You will also find a picture of the landing gear strut.

[tenseconds]

134. near the hole

The landing gear strut is not located near the hole.

[Ezlivin]

104. "The wings fold forward and crumble with the rest of the entire airliner."

Notice the following elements of this image:

1. The wings are still attached and are not "fold[ing] forward;"
2. The vertical stabilizer is still attached and not "fold[ing] forward."

Yet surely the aircraft must be experiencing radical deceleration as it goes from 480 "mph to nothing in a split second."

Your argument seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) that the aircraft was going so fast and hit such a hard object that it was "destroyed". The aircraft was "destroyed" to the point that only a handful of remarkably un-scorched pieces were strewn on the unmarked lawn. Yet, the building that "destroyed" this aircraft retained unbroken windows. And the engines and wings all managed to make it through a narrow opening, then exit another narrow opening.

You seem to demand that the outside of the Pentagon was hardened to such a level that the aircraft was "destroyed" on impact, yet this exceptionally hard surface was permeable enough to permit tons of metal to enter the building and create damage.

You plead: "Please listen to reason here. There's no way that any wreckage would look like an airliner had crashed. All would be destroyed."

This is a patently absurd claim.

[longship]

123. I note that that is *not* a 757.

It's a fighter plane that does *not* have long wings like the 757. I just love the little stubby vert stab on that plane, too. This plane also doesn't have huge high-bypass fan jets hanging on its wings 25 feet outboard of the attachment points. That's a straw man, my friend. How stupid to think that this is in any way similar to what happened at the Pentagon.

Here's another possible scenerio:

My point with the folding forward post was to describe the inertial forces on the wings when the airframe impacts the wall. It's also equally possible that the wings fold backward when the leading edge hits the wall. In fact, there is likely not enough time for them to fold forward before the wing spar hits the wall. If that is so, the impulse at impact would be even more severe due to the inertial forces. The forces on the wing spar would go from a strong force forward to a very strong and sharp impulse backward. At those speeds, the spar attachment point would undoubtedly fail or the wing's box support members would be ripped out.

Regardless of the failure mode there is no way that the wings are going to remain intact at those collision speeds. They are going to detach and fold in. If the verticle stab does not fold, it certainly is going to be crushed. After all, the stabilizers don't carry any fuel or anything else heavy. They're mostly hollow.

Light, thin aluminum vs reinforced concrete. Which do you think wins every time?

[longship]

125. One more point.

The Pentagon *is* exceptionally hardened. It was built at a time of world war to be able to withstand attack. Also, it was to be a temporary military building which was to be used as a huge warehouse after the war. This is why it was way over-engineered.

Did you read my post with the energy calculation? I hope so.

Now, to the construction of an airliner:

An airliner is almost completely hollow inside. There are few big chunks of metal in it. Almost all of it is composed of thin aluminum alloy formed into long boxes which makes the airframe stiff yet flexible enough to stand the stresses of flight. The wing spar is not a solid piece, nor is the fuselage backbone (actually in the belly of the airframe). The entire top 3/5 of the fuselage is a hollow ribbed shell with a thin skin around it. You would be shocked to see how little metal is in the upper fuselage. The stabilizers are very light and essentially hollow.

Aluminum is stiff, but brittle. It has a low melting point. It bends easily. Airframes only work within the very narrow parameters of safe flight. Within a month of 9/11 an Airbus A-300 crashed into Queens, NY when a co-pilot accidently applied too much rudder to counter the turbulent vortex from the 747 that took off just before it. The whole vertical stabilizer sheered off just from over agressive application of the rudder pedals. The attachment points on the Airbus were titanium!!

Airframes are not meant to be man-handled. A crash of this violence results in the total destruction of the airframe. Anybody claiming otherwise is just plain stupid.

[Ezlivin]

126. "Anybody claiming otherwise is just plain stupid."

Taking lessons from the Republican smear machine now?

Please refrain from labeling people you have not met and do not know as "stupid." Allegations such as that are unwarranted and may come back to haunt you.

[longship]

127. Don't you see how ridiculous some of these 9/11 claims are?

That's my point. Probably shouldn't have used the word "stupid" but that's precisely how I feel about all this conspiracy stuff. It is at best ignorant to claim that an airliner colliding at 530 mph should remain in any way intact.

[Ezlivin]

147. I understand your frustration - I must deal with believers in the OCT

Official Conspiracy Theory.

:)

And please remember that everyone has to work through the limited, confusing and contradictory information that our government has provided us. We all assimilate and incorporate this information in different ways and end up with different perspectives. The last thing we need to do is fight each other; after all, nearly all of us are dissatisfied with the government's answers and its so-called investigation.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

148. There is a huge difference between asking serious questions...

...and "No plane hit the pentagon". Serious questions do need to be asked. Claiming that a plane didn't hit the pentagon is idiocy.

[Ezlivin]

163. For the record, I've not stated that "no plane hit the Pentagon"

I do, however, question what happened at the Pentagon.

[longship]

150. Thanks for this, another reasonable post.

I don't want to fight anybody here either. But when I'm as much as called a liar, or a ChimpCo shill simply because I don't adhere to a kooky conspiracy theory which has no basis in fact, sometimes I get a little testy. This has happened in every one of these threads which I've seen, whether or not I have participated.

I want to find the truth behind the facts as much as anybody does. But the one sure way to miss the truth is to start jiggering the facts which is something which is *very* evident in all the MIHOP conspiracy Web sites. That's why I often can't sit still and let the lies and deceptions of the conspiracy crowd go unrebutted. So many of the MIHOP conspiracy claims have been debunked a thousand times.

The conspiracy theorist's nearly universal response to any and all attempts to correct the record with facts is for them to start screeching that the corrector adheres to something they call "OCT", which itself has become a euphemism for anything that contradicts the lame MIHOP conjectures. I do not recommend it's use in these threads for that reason.

By the way, there's a lot of good research cited in the 9/11 Commission Report done by independant academics. These must stand the test of peer review and are subject to revision and correction. There really is plenty of dialog happening on the specifics of the events on 9/11. I've seen none of this cited on the MIHOP conspiracy sites. Why? I have no idea. I must presume that they are more interested in promoting their conspiracies than finding the facts and the truth.

[longship]

90. Special pleading--There should be...

No, there shouldn't. If you really analyze the dynamics it should be no surprise that there wasn't an intact airliner tail sticking out of the Pentagon, let alone seats, bodies, luggage, or anything else larger than the shredded mess that they found there.

[longship]

29. Pshaw! Even more tin foil hat rubbish.

Question: Do you actually think that wing spar attachment points should survive a more than 100 G collision?

Result: It's called Newton's laws. Things in motion tend to stay in motion. Failure begins at the trailing edge and wings fold forward at close to 500 mph aided by the inertia of the torque-arm of the heavy jet engine on the wing. Similar thing happens at the vertical and horizontal stabilizer attachments.

These tin foil hat people expect the damned thing to remain intact and the result to be a perfect fuselage with unblemished tail to be sticking out of the building.

Over two billion joules of energy, and that's just the kinetic energy, not including the energy contributed by the fast combustion of thousands of gallons of vaporized jet fuel.

Think, people. Think!

[longship]

50. Wings detach in a 100+ G collision.

And BTW, the fuselage of a 757 is less than 12' by 13' in cross-section. Almost *all* the mass of the airliner is behind this cross-section. The only other significant mass is the engines which are relatively outboard on the wings. This makes for a significant torque arm. Wings would separate from the fuselage and fold forward. You would likely *not* see a significant outline of a wing on the sides of the building.

What do you expect? That the wings would remain attached? No way.

[Not gullible]

149. Even NARROWER...Look here!!

This is the original hole, before the roof fell down:

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero14/missile/trou_en.htm


Even a chimp can see that it´s an impossibility that a Boeing 757 passengerplane went through there without any markings at all from the wings or the tailsection...

[QuestionAll...]

18. and particularly the accounting section of the Pentagon.

just a day after Rumsfeld spoke about that trillions $ missing...

[lies and propaganda]

20. no one seems to remember that.

There was a whole lot of money there.....

[QuestionAll...]

31. then there's Dov Zarheim, the headcheese Pent accountant

at the time. a flaming PNACer.
who has/had interests in remote controlled aircraft companies.

but sssshhhhhhh! don't talk about it or you'll be called a nutcase. ;(
believe, believe... believe the official story - they would never lie to you.

[Catherine Vincent]

21. It's always good to question everything.

[lies and propaganda]

22. i concur.

Can we even count the number of lies we have caught them in thus far?

[longship]

23. Pshaw! More Tin foil hat rubbish.

Aluminum alloy airliner hits reinforced concrete building at over 500 mph. Over 2 billion joules of energy dissipated in the collision. Tin foilers ask where the plane went.

Anybody who asks that question needs to go back to school.

[Bushwick Bill]

27. I agree, but...

I will give you that most of the plane, except for a few small parts, might vaporize at 530 mph. But, I will not also give you that they can DNA identify all but one person when most of a 757 vaporizes.

[longship]

32. How would you like that coroner's job?

They were picking tissue samples out of the wreckage with tweezers. All had to be collected, cataloged, and labelled. Mangled body parts throughout the whole scene. Tissue samples sent to DNA lab to ID them.

So what are you saying? Are you saying that the coroners and trained accident investigators who do this at all aircraft crashes are making this up? These specialists are dedicated professionals who do an incredible job. They are also civilian contractors, by the way, not military, not government employees. I've known more than one accident investigator in my career at Boeing. These people are decent, honest folk whose only goal is to get to the truth.

What you are suggesting is not only incredible, but it strains credulity to the breaking point to believe it. It also is an incredible insult to a group of people whose integrity and competence is their bond.

[lies and propaganda]

41. you dont find a small stretch

in not being able to find engines, but tissue samples and body parts survived the steel melting heat?

[longship]

52. Tweezers!!!

They used tweezers to pick up body parts.

I hardly call that "body parts surviving".

Use your brain, my friend.

There's almost no steel in a 757.

[lies and propaganda]

36. THAT is an amzing point!

that i havent even thought about.

[vincent_vega_lives]

139. disintergrates not vaporizes

BIG diference.

[Yogi]

34. Where the jet engines get to?

They didn’t vaporize or dissipated in the collision. They were never found explain that?

[longship]

54. Everything Vaporized????

Sounds like another tin foil hat straw man. Nobody said the whole damned thing was vaporized.

First of all, in the chaos of the collision, some stuff gets crushed more than other stuff. Some stuff gets burned up and other stuff doesn't. There was even a guy who happened to be screened from the shock wave who was able to crawl out of the collision zone. He was severely burned, but he survived--the only one, BTW.

The jet engines were crushed up just like the rest of the plane. For christ sakes, they found parts of the engine rotors inside the building.

Straw men and special pleading seems to be a tin foil hat specialty.

[razors edge]

67. hay longship,

old F-4 flight line hydraulics mech myself, most people don't understand the G forces an engine rotor operates under and what distance that titanium is going to fly when dislodged from the root. I've seen landing gear and multiple segmented rotor disc brake assemblies in the pentagon crash photos from inside the building (supposedly). no real scale to judge type but it looked right to me and I've changed a few.

wing spars are composites, engines, landing gear, hydraulic cylider pistons, brake assemblies, and a few other small components are made of materials capable of withstanding a crash into a brick wall and still be recognizable to even those who work with them daily.

I'm as mihop as it comes but this whole pentagon missile thing is just a straw man to discredit legitimate issues.

[longship]

68. Yes, did you see the big chunk of landing gear

It got through to the third ring and made a neat hole as it tore through.
Of course, the landing gear is one of the big chunks of metal in the plane. Most everything else is box construction out of light aluminum alloy.

I agree. You can tell that half these people have never been very close to an airplane, other than flying in one, that is. My experience is as an engineer at Boeing, so I've even seen them in all stages of being built and have done extensive testing on large aircraft. But to these conspiracy theorists, a little ignorance goes a long, long way.

Thanks for the response. I don't accept MIHOP, but it's nice to see that not all are unreasonable, or dare I say mad as hatters. ;-)

[razors edge]

92. peace

edit: I guess time will tell.

[John Gauger]

25. Holy fuck

No matter how many times or how reasonably those conspiracy theories are dubunked, every time I look at those images I think, "Holy Fuck! There's no airplane there!"

[vincent_vega_lives]

96. Why do you expect to see an airplane there? n/t

[Bushwick Bill]

26. I'm MIHOP, but...

I am on the fence on the Pentagon issue because I trust these two researchers. Here is their take.
Oil Empire:
http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html
http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-truth.html
Oil Empire cites this page somewhere:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

Jim Hoffman:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

The real question is how Hani Hanjour pulled off that 300 degree spin and 7,000 foot drop in two minutes, holding a 757 a few feet off the ground at 530 mph, when he couldn't fly a Cessna a month earlier. Also, how did anything hit the Pentagon 35 minutes after the second tower was hit and when Norman Mineta testified that the Vice President was tracking the plane on its way into Washington?

[John Gauger]

28. Rummy once said that Flight 93 was shot down

over PA. That's my theory. I don't know about the Pentagon one though.

[Bushwick Bill]

30. See pentagonresearch.

This is the most balanced analysis that I have read.
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/conclusions.html

[lies and propaganda]

37. Thank you, I will read that.

[FoxOnTheRun]

57. or watch this

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8648669617598919525&q=fetzer&hl=en

[Nederland]

33. I see a piece of the fuselage in the hole near the roof.

[JackRiddler]

40. This picture is obviously not taken on 9/11

Since the fire is out, this is possibly days later. Why should any wreckage be visible at this point? Furthermore, what's that pile at the left edge of the picture? Can you see what's in it? Is this picture useful toward answering your question? No.

[lies and propaganda]

56. i dont remember teh fire burning for days

why couldnt this picture have been taken later that day?

[OldSiouxWarrior]

81. Nope. Days later. Look at it closely.

There is a crane in the picture. That takes at least a couple of days to get there and set it up. And the lawn is covered with construction stuff. That take a few days to do.

The fire burned for about four days. In your picture the fire is clearly out.

[FoxOnTheRun]

49. everywhere

[Twist_U_Up]

64. This is not an absence of evidence, this is clear evidence of absence.

The photographic images of the facade of the Pentagon make it quite clear that the wings and tail of the airplane did not penetrate into the building.

[longship]

80. Wings and tail.

Well, since they found engine parts both within and without the Pentagon it's clear that the wings *did* penetrate.

The mechanism is easy to understand. There are two forces to consider.

First, is the G-force transmitted to the wings via the collision itself. At 237 m/s (Flight 77's speed) and considering that the collision took about a third of a second (being generous here) the G-forces work out to about 70 G's. That's enough to crush just about anything. Now, this force is opposite the direction that the airliner is travelling. The inertia of the wings with the torque-arm of the massive engines (outboard by 7.5 m) would tend to rip the wings spar out of their mounts and fold them *forward*. In reality, there isn't enough time for this to occur before the wing leading edge itself impacts the reinforced concrete wall. This impact *would* dislodge the wing since it would be an extremely energetic force opposite to the inertial forces already being felt. The wings snap off, fold back and, still travelling at a substantial velocity, are carried into the building with the rest of the airframe.

This is why the hole does not show an airline outline. This is why engine parts were found both inside and outside of the building.

The verticle and horizontal stabilizers would experience similar forces, but since they are at the end of the airframe they would feel higher inertial forces before they hit the wall. Again, regardless, the stabilizer's mountings are going to give way and they fold and are carried into the building with the rest of the airframe.

No matter how you look at it there's not going to be enough recognizable airplane left to leave anything like an airplane profile in the side of the building. The wings and stabilizers are going to fold and the only substantial hole will be from the bulk of the airframe mass, the 12 foot by 13 foot fuselage cross-section.

Like it or not, that's how the physics works out. This substantially debunks many of the claims of the tin foil hat crowd.

One more calculation to consider, the mechanical energy of the collision.
The mass of a 757-200 with RB211 engines is 57,975 kg empty. With few passengers but a full load of fuel, the mass should be on the order of 80,000 kg. This measurement is not precise, but it doesn't make a significant difference in the calculation. (Speed contributes much more to the energy than the mass.)

The speed of Flight 77 was 530 mph, or 237 m/s.

The kinetic energy is 1/2 * m * v^2.

KE = 0.5 * 80,000 kg * (237 m/s)^2.
= 2,246,760,000 Joules.
= 2.25 billion Joules.

This energy is dissipated in about a third of a second giving the collision the equivalence of 6,740,280,000 Watts. Nota bene, that this is merely the mechanical energy. I am totally ignoring the energy released by the detonation of tons of atomized jet fuel.

Given that, how much of an airliner and its contents (including passengers) do you expect to remain?

[OldSiouxWarrior]

83. You may want to make one more set of calculations.

Most of these people can't get their minds around how much 2.25 G-joules is, or even 6.7 G-watts. Try converting it into tons of TNT or something like that, and they may be able to understand.

The dedicated CTers will cling to their ignorance, but some of the lurkers may understand it in those terms.

[longship]

87. Sorry. I'm used to MKS units.

I guess DUers can understand horsepower.

The collision was ~9 million horsepower. Again, that does *not* include the exploding fuel.

[vincent_vega_lives]

95. Do you understand the concept of momentum? n/t

[vincent_vega_lives]

97. Only light debris outside the Pentagon

Have to SPOON FEED you?



http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_1.html














I love this exchange
"There's NO debris!"
Response:

"That's planted/fake!!!" :eyes:


"Only a shaped charge can make a hole like that!" :eyes:

[OldSiouxWarrior]

120. The plane hit with the force of 1,000 lbs of TNT.

I have used longship's calculation for the kinetic energy:

The mass of a 757-200 with RB211 engines is 57,975 kg empty. With few passengers but a full load of fuel, the mass should be on the order of 80,000 kg. This measurement is not precise, but it doesn't make a significant difference in the calculation. (Speed contributes much more to the energy than the mass.)

The speed of Flight 77 was 530 mph, or 237 m/s.

The kinetic energy is 1/2 * m * v^2.

KE = 0.5 * 80,000 kg * (237 m/s)^2.
= 2,246,760,000 Joules.
= 2.25 billion Joules.

Converting that to TNT yield at 4 X 10^6 J per KG of TNT yield about (very roughly) the energy of 1,000 pounds of TNT.

But that was kinetic energy, not thermal energy. TNT releases thermal energy, causing a very hot, high pressure gas ball that expands in all possible directions until it has cooled. Kinetic energy is distributed into every atom of the plane and each piece continues in it's original direction - into the pentagon.

So the CTers expect to see an intact plane, or at least big plane pieces, when it has just translated the energy equivalent of 1,000 pounds of TNT. All that will be left of an aluminum plane will be itty-bitty pieces. And then the resulant fire of tens of thousands of pounds of jet fuel will melt most of the pieces that are in the building.

With the exception of a few stray pieces, the plane came apart in a cloud of tiny pieces and almost all of them went into the building. The building burned for almost four days.

There simply wasn't much of the plane left.

[mirandapriestly]

124. ...oh, brother....eom

[OldSiouxWarrior]

128. If you don't like it, show where the math is wrong. NT

[mirandapriestly]

171. old trick.nt

[longship]

133. And my calcs *understate* the mass of the airplane.

I just picked 80,000 kg as an estimate. It's most likely more than that. MTOW of the 757-200 with RB211 engines is on the order of 115,000 kg. I understated it on purpose so that nobody could credibly claim that I was deliberately distorting the results. Of course, the result is entirely dominated by the velocity factor which is squared.

And do not forget the tons of atomized jet fuel which ignited. My calculation totally ignores that energy.

Does anybody have a calculation on how many Joules that would add?

[OldSiouxWarrior]

142. That would be a tricky calculation.

I found a conversion factor for gasoline. 5 X 10^4 J for one gram of gasoline.

Since both are hydrocarbon molecules, the energy should be fairly close to the same. At least close enough for this kind of estimate.

The problem is estimating how much of the fuel load was burned in the initial fireball/explosion and how much was carried into the pentagon by it's own momentum.

Fuel is a very powerful explosive. One gallon of gasoline has the energy equivalent of 50 pounds of TNT. That's why the military has come to love the fuel-air bombs.

Here is an interesting video showing a fuel-air bomb. Too bad it doesn't show a military one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9xCgNdZPKk

[FoxOnTheRun]

143. Here is an animation at the bottom

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/fae.htm

[FoxOnTheRun]

141. According to wiki, which is not always accurate it's

255,000 lb (115,680 kg) max takeoff weight
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757

It could be 100.000 kg


The suspicious thing is the Pentagon is some kind of Whipple Shield http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whipple_shield
and I don't know if it could punch out a perfect hole in the C ring

[longship]

152. "Perfect hole"?

I've seen this a lot in CT literature. This seems special pleading to me. I don't suppose that somebody in the CT crowd would care to define "perfect hole" for me.

The hole mentioned, of course, is directly in line with the airliner's trajectory. I have no problem understanding how and why such a hole should exist. To me, there is nothing exceptional about its existence.

My interpretation of the CT crowd's use of "perfect hole" is to somehow elevate this easily explained phenomenon to a level where it becomes miraculous. It's similar to a bridge player being absolutely astounded that he should be dealt one of 635 billion possible bridge hands. Of course, the odds of a particular hand being dealt is indeed miraculous, but that doesn't stop it from happening four times every single deal.

It's not a perfect analogy, but that's how I see this "perfect hole" claim.

The fact that the hole exists (perfect or otherwise) attests to the fact that it is possible. As I have calculated, the energy the collision generated was huge. Until that energy was dissipated, the destruction continued through the Pentagon's walls. It is entirely reasonable and even expected that the furthest penetration of damage would be directly in line with the plane's path. Furthermore, there is no need for anything solid to make the hole. All that is required is that the debris field itself have sufficient momentum to punch through the wall.

As others have posted here, in pictures and in text, the hole had a huge amount of airframe debris, from large to small, both in front and behind.

I just don't understand to what the CT crowd are objecting. Certainly they can't be saying that such a hole would require a missile, since the energy of a missile wouldn't be significantly more, and may even be less, than a large airliner. Anyway, all the hundreds of eye witnesses saw an airliner.

[FoxOnTheRun]

153. I personally would prefer

a semicircle because the upper half of a plane is air and seats.
But I don't know the way the plane had to fly through the pentagon etc., it could be normal.

the "punch out" graffiti has been planted after the impact it has nothing to do with it.


I'm not saying the hole was done by a missile or other things.

I'm only suspicious that the plane hit a newly renovated region of the pentagon which was mostly vacant.
That Rumsfeld said the Pentagon had lost track of 2.3 trillions on September the 10th and
that the FBI is withholding the 84 security cameras.


There is withholding evidence, manipulating evidence etc going on. Which points to an intelligence honey trap like the better brains have long said.


A good site is
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html


It's the issue the MSM is always asking or spinning every CT into it.

[longship]

154. Aha! I think I see where you are confused.

You still have a more or less intact airframe making the hole. What made the hole was not any big part of the airliner, but the undissipated energy along with its debris field. There is no reason why the shape of this energy and debris would be anything but conical. The chaos of the collision and subsequent, and nearly instant break-up of the airframe would cancel any lack of symmetry in the energy/debris fields by the time it reached it's furthest penetration. At least that's the way I see it. Certainly there would be no fuselage left to shape it.

[Kingshakabobo]

155. The CTers would prefer a cartoon-like airplane impression.......

........in the side of the pentagon.

I've posted pictures of crashes that involved the aircraft diving nose first in to the ground. For instance, Chicago's 1979 flight 191 crash didn't leave much more than scraps(bodies included) and the usual large engine/landing-gear parts......flight 191 was probably traveling around 200 knots when it struck yet the plane was totally obliterated on impact.

I don't understand why CTers expect to see ANYTHING resembling an airplane after a 500mph crash in to reinforced concrete? It doesn't help that the Loose Change guys provide photos of crashes that happened in a landing configuration that somewhat resemble an airplane..........

......or they try to compare a lear jet clipping(at 180ish knots) a 200 foot high light TOWER equipped with a light carousel the size of an automobile located at the top.......to a 757 traveling at 500mph clipping a standard break-away street light...

Junk science and ignorance coupled with a lack of critical thinking.

[FoxOnTheRun]

156. I normally don't touch the pentagon but

they are deceived by the cartoon pictures of wtc1 and 2. A bit of steel and aluminum or reinforced concrete are two different things.

An interesting site is this, some nice pictures inside the pentagon

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/062.html

[tenseconds]

159. witnesses and the hole

All the hundreds of witnesses did not see a large airliner. And though the majority of witnesses did purport to see a large airliner that does not in itself make it Flight 77.

That hole could have been deliberately punched out by a super incendiary device just prior to the plane's impact to give us the illusion that the plane did travel that far into the building.

I see no landing gear or landing gear parts in the A-E drive.

Why would the edges of the hole be charred? Certainly not by a landing gear or plane parts.

[Kingshakabobo]

160. Why would the edges of the hole be charred?

Because smoke was billowing out of the building for a whole day? How can you expect there NOT to be smoke residue on the exterior of the building? It's classic smoke residue from fire.


See the smoke?

[longship]

162. This speculation has no basis in fact.

The witnesses all saw an airliner. *None* saw a missile.
Flight controllers had a good read on Flight 77 from its highjack until the time it hit the Pentagon.

End of debate on this. There is no evidence for a missile. None at all.

Who cares whether you see a landing gear or not. And who cares that the edges are charred? Just maybe the charring might be because of the tons of atomized jet fuel which ignited when the airplane hit. Plus, billions of Joules of kinetic energy dissipating in less than a second is going to create a lot of heat on top of the jet fuel ignition. Charring is *expected*.

[tenseconds]

170. never

I've never stated anything about a missile.Please individualize your responses. Thank you.


There were lapses in identifying the alleged plane's course. Look at the plane's flight path. What do the dots indicate? You are WRONG. End of debate.

I care if I see a landing gear since that is the most promoted explanation of the hole .

I've seen the interior of the C-ring. Remarkable in its lack of soot created by smoke.It looks more like its been bombed.And as you can see,the debris spilling out into the drive has not been charred.

[truthmover]

151. Waldo left 2 hours ago.

Am I the only person in here who is going to point out that this picture was taken long after impact. By the time this picture was taken, any evidence had already been carted off. This photo doesn't even show the lawn as they had already put gravel down over the whole site. I find nothing particularly significant about this photo. Am I missing something?

[OldSiouxWarrior]

157. Actually, that has been pointed out upthread a few times.

What you are missing is the ardent desire of conspiracy theorists to prove their theory, even if they have to lie to do it.

[truthmover]

173. You could learn a lot from me about humility. ;)

How do you know what I am missing? Not that I take great offense, but you speak with quite the air of authority. Are you someone special? I would take offense if your statement reflected a stereotype of people participating in this movement. This movement is in no way unified. General statement about people who participate are no better than stereotypes.

Can you imagine for a moment that I, just for example, may be far more intellectually adept than you, be far more educated that you, and have a greater degree of emotional maturity. Imagine, in essence, that I was a more advanced individual than you on the path of life. Then imagine that all that experience still didn't cancel out my skepticism to a degree that I was willing to entertain hypotheses that at first seemed wild. Maybe in all my growth I had learned that the truth is not always found in the mainstream view. And let's say that I review the evidence and determine that there are important unanswered questions about what happened on 9/11. And let's say that I then support the efforts of the 9/11 truth movement to uncover what happened. Then let's say that I never heard about the hole in the Pentagon, or controlled demolition, or any of the physical evidence, for that matter, and had derived a degree of skepticism from the documentary evidence alone.

That person wouldn't fit into a stereotype that implies that everyone supporting our cause follows some of the junk science being promoted by people in the movement. There are people in the movement, such as myself, who are critical of both the mainstream view, and movement response. But not because I want the movement to fail. I have an educational attitude, and try to help people better understand concepts like evidence, probable cause, and informed citizenship. I lament the state of things at times, but am hopeful that the movement is moving in the right direction.

[Nozebro]

172. None of those things are visible. OCT'ers must be viewing a hologram.

Does the Pentagon have a contract with David Copperfield to produce illusions for OCT'ers?