|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 04/13/2004 : 13:36:28 [Permalink]
|
| And the AIM-9 sidewinders carry, at most, 25 lbs of high explosive. Big whoop. If one could get through the facade or a window, it probably wouldn't even "soften" more than a few of the columns inside the Pentagon (let's say five), leaving 75 more to be destroyed or significantly weakened by a little bitty F-16, which leaves a 90-foot hole in the wall. Riiiiiight. |
- 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 : 22:15:40 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
1) The plane was already on the ground when it entered the Pentagon.
I don't think that is an accurate assumption, as there is no torn lawn before the point of entry into the building.
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.
You are certainly correct here about the unique reinforced structure, but even reinforced concrete leaves marks when struck.
4) The number of people required for a cover up is huge.
True, but if all involved see it as a matter of national security, it is not that difficult. I believe that to be the case here. In my scenario, the U.S. is not responsible for this tragedy. They did ot have prior knowledge, nor plan any of this, only the cover up for national security sake. I really do not disagree with the reason for the cover up if, indeed, a military plane, piloted by an Al Qaeda "sleeper" pilot in our military, was the cause and flight 77, which was truly hijacked with intent to fly it into a national building was shot down by necessity by our fighters to prevent more loss of life.
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.
Perhaps you are right, I dont' know.
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.
I didn't see it that way. Maybe I saw a pic you didn't. There is a pic made after the fire was out and before the roof collapsed that shows the actual entry hole as only about 10 feet in diameter. The two 9' wing jet engines of a 757 are not accounted for with the one entry hole. The great mass of the engines would, at the very least, caused significant holes in the building. There is no logical explanation why such holes or dents are not there if a 757 hit the building. To me, this is the most significant fact.
It is highly unlikely that the aircraft that struck the Pentagon wasn't a 757.
that conclusion is at the heart of this matter.
|
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 |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2004 : 22:20:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
[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.
A good thought. Are there, perhaps, other unmarked planes that we are not aware of being used by the CIA or some other government group? Consider the new pilotless planes used in Afghanistan. Not that these were the ones used, but that they were unknown to most of us before Afghanistan and they were used by CIA.
Let's not forget that we probably have planes that are still unknown by the public in our arsenal. |
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 04/13/2004 22:49:33 |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2004 : 22:34:52 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by Trish
It was my understanding that no military craft were scrambled that were able to intercept that particular flight
So I've heard also, but that didn't make it so. Also, there could easily have been military craft already in flight somewhere within a couple hundred miles. With supersonic speeds, such distance means little, along with the even faster missile speeds with long range. And let's not forget the subs and navy craft in the area with knock down capability. Because the flight path of 77 was over the mountains of West Virginia, the plane could have easily been knocked out of the sky in that location. The other two strikes had already taken place and there was no longer a question about the hijacker's intent. The C-130 pilot who "verified" both flight 77 and 93's destruction was a military pilot, and the two main ground witnesses were both Pentagon men who knew each other. For national security purposes, these men would gladly do there part. Wouldn't you?
Thank you for your input on the scrambling of jets and wing construction.
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.
Think a lot of people would like to view that material. Don't think it will happen any time soon. |
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 |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2004 : 22:44:55 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Some good points about the fighter jets and their ordinance. It's possible that no such ordinance were used. It is also possible that if a fighter was used to strike the Pentagon, if could have been accelerating at an extremely high speed, far above 400 to 500 mph. Maybe even 1500 mph, which might account for the punch out on the inner side of the Pentagon and would also account for hardly anyone really seeing what hit the building because of the tremendous speed and the closeness to the ground, not to mention why only a 10' hole was made by the initial impact, yet such extreme damage was done to the building. The supposed trail of smoke which some think was from a missile, could this be from a jet afterburner? I really don't know. |
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 |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2004 : 22:46:28 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by Dave W.
which leaves a 90-foot hole in the wall.
what 90' hole is this?
|
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 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2004 : 05:24:49 [Permalink]
|
Doomar wrote:quote:
what 90' hole is this?
The one which accounts for eight missing or broken columns, and the facade missing from a wide swath of the building. It's all in my post prior to the missile discussion, on page one. You're going to have to provide clear evidence of a hole no larger than 10 feet if you're going to keep tossing that number around as if it were a fact. Because...quote:
There is a pic made after the fire was out and before the roof collapsed that shows the actual entry hole as only about 10 feet in diameter.
Just asserting that there is such a picture repeatedly doesn't prove anything. Where is this photo?quote:
The great mass of the engines would, at the very least, caused significant holes in the building. There is no logical explanation why such holes or dents are not there if a 757 hit the building. To me, this is the most significant fact.
These are assumptions on your part, not facts.
You're also, now, going to have to provide evidence for a "trial of smoke" leading up to the building. There doesn't appear to be one on the actual security photos (available in the ASCE report). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2004 : 06:42:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
[quote]Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
1) The plane was already on the ground when it entered the Pentagon.
I don't think that is an accurate assumption, as there is no torn lawn before the point of entry into the building.
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.
You are certainly correct here about the unique reinforced structure, but even reinforced concrete leaves marks when struck.
4) The number of people required for a cover up is huge.
True, but if all involved see it as a matter of national security, it is not that difficult. I believe that to be the case here. In my scenario, the U.S. is not responsible for this tragedy. They did ot have prior knowledge, nor plan any of this, only the cover up for national security sake. I really do not disagree with the reason for the cover up if, indeed, a military plane, piloted by an Al Qaeda "sleeper" pilot in our military, was the cause and flight 77, which was truly hijacked with intent to fly it into a national building was shot down by necessity by our fighters to prevent more loss of life.
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.
Perhaps you are right, I dont' know.
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.
I didn't see it that way. Maybe I saw a pic you didn't. There is a pic made after the fire was out and before the roof collapsed that shows the actual entry hole as only about 10 feet in diameter. The two 9' wing jet engines of a 757 are not accounted for with the one entry hole. The great mass of the engines would, at the very least, caused significant holes in the building. There is no logical explanation why such holes or dents are not there if a 757 hit the building. To me, this is the most significant fact.
It is highly unlikely that the aircraft that struck the Pentagon wasn't a 757.
that conclusion is at the heart of this matter.
ASCE report places the hole at 14.3 meters (over 40 feet) not 10 feet (3.3 meters).
The inner ring of the Pentagon was never breached. The plane only punched through to C ring. A and B rings were untouched.
Additionally, since 77 was near the Pentagon and 93 was getting close to Camp David, they would be in military airspace. It would not be unusual for a military officer to confirm these two losses. In addition, 93 crashed well after the WTC hits and after the military had grounded all flights.
You still have 250 feet of damaged supports and going from a 40 foot hole to a five foot exit hole to contend with.
I base these off of the ASCE report used by your article. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2004 : 06:58:32 [Permalink]
|
Why are some people so fascinated about super secret conspiracies. The whole consiracy 'theory' of the pentagon crash doesn't even make any sense.
I mean fer crying out loud the president can't even cheat on his wife without the entire country finding out. If there is one thing that is clear about the US goverment it is that it cannot keep a secret.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2004 : 08:01:52 [Permalink]
|
Something else about ordinance loaded on military aircraft. When attached to the bomb rack there is a physical pin that prevents arming of the ordinance. This pin is pulled only after the ordinance is deployed. It's standard NATOPS procedure to dump your racks if there is a powerplant problem on takeoff. The pin exists to prevent the ordinance from dentonating on impact if the rack itself is dropped.
Dave, fuel explosions generally occur when a drop tank is used, in relation to military aircraft. The fuel in a drop tank is in an open tank vs a cell. The fuel is more likely to explode when stored in that fashion. Though the AF does use JP-5 where the Marines/Navy use JP-4, unless the AF has changed. One fuel acts more like kerosine, less explosive, where the other is more like gasoline, it burns hotter. (I could be backwards on the JPs - if I am please feel free to correct me.)
As for an engine, something as small as a bird can make an engine useless and cause the engine to tear itself apart. |
...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
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2004 : 08:23:02 [Permalink]
|
Valiant Dancer wrote:quote:
You still have 250 feet of damaged supports and going from a 40 foot hole to a five foot exit hole to contend with.
I base these off of the ASCE report used by your article.
To quote the report:The path of damage extended from the west exterior wall of the building in a northeasterly direction completely through Ring E, Ring D, Ring C, and their connecting lower floors.There was a hole in the east wall of Ring C, emerging into AE Drive, between column lines 5 and 7 in Wedge 2 (figure 5.16). The wall failure was approximately 310 ft from where the fuselage of the aircraft entered the west wall of the building. The path of the aircraft debris passed approximately 225 ft diagonally through Wedge 1 and approximately 85 ft diagonally through a portion of Ring C in Wedge 2.
...
Most of the serious structural damage was within a swath that was approximately 75 to 80 ft wide and extended approximately 230 ft into the first floor of the building. This swath was oriented at approximately 35 to 40 degrees to the perpendicular to the exterior wall of the Pentagon.Within the swath of serious damage was a narrower, tapering area that contained most of the very severe structural damage. This tapering area approximated a triangle in plan and had a width of approximately 90 ft at the aircraft's entry point and a length of approximately 230 ft along the trajectory of the aircraft through the building. I count 40 rows of bricks missing in figure 5.16, and if each row is three inches high, that's about a ten-foot hole (it's certainly bigger than five). Hey, maybe that is the hole Doomar is talking about, and somebody's making the claim that it's actually on the exterior wall.
By the way, the person who wrote the other article you cited, Doomar (this one: http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=13 ), makes incredible and unwarranted assumptions based upon nothing. For example, he assumes that because ring D did not collapse, it was completely undamaged. That's quite ridiculous, and makes for a very poor "physical and mathematical analysis." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
tw101356
Skeptic Friend
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2004 : 09:54:26 [Permalink]
|
I've seen the aftermath of a jet fighter crashing into a house. It was an F-4 Phantom and it crashed about 8 blocks from my house in the late 60s. Of course my buds and I had to bike over to see it immediately after school. Wasn't particularly impressive. It left a 10 foot long, 4-5 foot deep crater in the lawn and took a five foot bite out of the corner of a house (no deaths or injuries by the way). One of the engines separated and flew into a nearby carport and totalled a family's new car, yet left them untouched in the adjacent kitchen. One of the training Sidewinders (they said training on the news) was found nose down in a lawn with the motor firing.
There's a whole lot less kinetic energy in a smaller plane. It just can't do the same amount of damage.
Also, if a pilot went renegade like the conspiracy theorists claim, his entire squadron would be kinda curious what happened to him and his aircraft. You don't just tell everyone to ignore it when an aircraft and pilot disappears.
=====
The pilot of the F4 that crashed was my friend's dad. He and his copilot ejected and landed safely in the bay and were picked up by drunk sport fishermen. They had to take control of the boat and steer toward the search & rescue boats because the fishermen were too busy working on their cases of beer.
-- TW
|
- TW
|
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2004 : 17:30:46 [Permalink]
|
I think your hard core conspiracy theorist won't be satisfied with anything less that a 757 shaped hole in the Pentagon, kind of like when Daffy Duck runs through a wall and there's a perfect Daffy Duck shaped hole in the wall! Sorry, but you're just not going to get that level of definition with a reinforced construction like the Petagon. The outer wall of the WTC were made of a much lighter, more flexible material due to the different structural demands required of a very tall building as opposed to a 5 story glorified bunker. A commercial airliner wing, which is basically an airfoil shaped gas tank, could conceivably have enough structural strength to puncture the skin of the WTC before being destroyed in the ensuing jet fuel explosion, which would explain the size and shape of the holes in those buildings. I don't see how you could expect to see a similar damage pattern on a steel reinforced concrete structure designed to withstand a sizeable blast.
As to the difficulty of flying an airliner that close to the ground, last I checked, pilots were doing it all the time. It's called "landing".
As for the theory of a "sleeper" military pilot launching a missile into the Pentagon, and then following it in with the plane, I'm thinking that he'd more likely follow up the missile attack with, I don't know, maybe a fly-by of the Capitol, maybe launch a few more missiles at some high profile targets, do a street level run down Pennsylvania Ave, you know, really spread some terror, then punch his ticket to Allahville with a crash landing right into George W.'s hot tub. Seems like a waste of a perfectly good fanatic to fire one shot then go kamikaze right away. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2004 : 06:47:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Valiant Dancer wrote:quote:
You still have 250 feet of damaged supports and going from a 40 foot hole to a five foot exit hole to contend with.
I base these off of the ASCE report used by your article.
To quote the report:The path of damage extended from the west exterior wall of the building in a northeasterly direction completely through Ring E, Ring D, Ring C, and their connecting lower floors.There was a hole in the east wall of Ring C, emerging into AE Drive, between column lines 5 and 7 in Wedge 2 (figure 5.16). The wall failure was approximately 310 ft from where the fuselage of the aircraft entered the west wall of the building. The path of the aircraft debris passed approximately 225 ft diagonally through Wedge 1 and approximately 85 ft diagonally through a portion of Ring C in Wedge 2.
...
Most of the serious structural damage was within a swath that was approximately 75 to 80 ft wide and extended approximately 230 ft into the first floor of the building. This swath was oriented at approximately 35 to 40 degrees to the perpendicular to the exterior wall of the Pentagon.Within the swath of serious damage was a narrower, tapering area that contained most of the very severe structural damage. This tapering area approximated a triangle in plan and had a width of approximately 90 ft at the aircraft's entry point and a length of approximately 230 ft along the trajectory of the aircraft through the building. I count 40 rows of bricks missing in figure 5.16, and if each row is three inches high, that's about a ten-foot hole (it's certainly bigger than five). Hey, maybe that is the hole Doomar is talking about, and somebody's making the claim that it's actually on the exterior wall.
I was basing the 5' figure on an estimation of the hole's size in relation to the structural figure showing damage. I saw that the hole was about the width of the space between two support columns. the report mentioned that the entry hole was about 40' wide destroying eight support columns. My guestimation could definately be wrong by a factor of 2.
By reading the article, the author assumes that each ring is seperate when the bottom two floors are actually common. He bases his D-ring undamaged claim on this picture.
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/16.jpg
The major problem is that the roof of the second floor can bee clearly seen in this one.
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/17.jpg
Had I not noticed that the wall from C ring had four windows above a solid masonry floor and the wall from D and E rings had only three windows above the percieved "street", I may have made the same mistake if I hadn't read the ASCE report. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2004 : 08:00:02 [Permalink]
|
The wings of the plane is not at a 90 degrees angle to the main body. They are swept backwards. It is not unreasonable to assume that the wings will at least partly fold back towards the main fusilage when trying to squeeze through the hole that the cocpit punched in the wall. This will reduce the size of the hole to less than the entire wing-span.
Hold your arms straight out from your body, and run through a narrow door, and you'll understand what I'm talking about. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
