The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
I used to test aircraft engines for Prattt and Whitney and sat at dozens of enquiries about air crashes and I've never seen debris like that of those two crashes.
It's a google video called "Loose Change"
I know it is the Blick, I saw the headling while waiting in line at the supermarket - it is equivalent to the Bild in Germany and I think the Mirror in the UK - but still, the topic is not going away.
The wings weren't lying on the ground either. There was just no wreckage. To me, it was really that simple
It makes sense to me what you describe about the pentagon crash. Just wondering if we will ever find out the truth. Maybe with the internet it might be possible, as information can not be hidden as easily anymore.
If you're intested, look at video.google.com
The one I was watching was Loose Change but if you google 9-11, you should be able to get a few others, including those that debunk the debunkers.
I think my best guess right now is that knew it would happen and did nothing to stop it because it would benefit them.
One simply cannot comprehend just how well they have benefitted from the attacks. Almost nothing this administration has done can be even remotely justified without 9-11.
But I've always been pretty liberal and pretty open to conspiracies. I will say this on behalf of the American people: it is difficult to wrap your brain around the fact that the people who are supposed to be protecting your safety, your way of life, your country, are actually out to kill you. Minorities, draftees, etc have experienced this. But for most Americans, the idea that we could be attacked, militarily, by our own White House, in a time of peace, requires such a shift of consciousness that it may take decades or centuries to accept that.
It reminds me of a story I heard about Columbus' ships arriving in the Americas and the native peoples not seeing them on the horizon because they simply had no reference in their psyches to recognize them.
Here is a reference to that legend. http://www.empowermentillustrated.com/mtarchive/000663.html
I don't know if it is true, but it sounds appropriate to explain much of what is happening now. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
nancy 'eyes apopping' reagan was touring the schools wisely enjoining the children to 'just say no', like the compassionate soul she was, and there on the tv was a damning document with bush senior's john hancock on it.
right there, on my tv, in america!
i always loved phil donahue and 60 minutes, but this was a whole new level.
i never doubted for an instant that 9-11 was a false flag....it was too spielberg to be anything else...
i still have a touching faith in the moon landing, santa claus and the tooth fairy!
oh yes, and that we will pull our collective cranium outta our collective rear end one fine, sunny day...
9-11 changed everything...i became a news junkie (and stopped reading fiction.....)
i know a third act-opener when i see one, and the stagecraft of this saudi moriarty served as a rousing wake-up call.
to what?
1984 - the sequel?
i'll let you know after a long, refreshing nap... 'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
Please, no conspiracy theories here on ET. I don't intend to ban anyone on this like on dKos, but I find the topic tasteless, pointless and mindless. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I find Kos' policy regarding the topic appalling. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
And this from the author's wiki page:
"Forsyth is a Eurosceptic Conservative. In 2003, he was awarded the One of Us Award from the Conservative Way Forward group for his services to the Conservative movement in Britain."
Sounds like here might be something better to do with your time. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
Picking jaw from floor, will be back when I glue the pieces together. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
Their biggest offense is the promotion of attrocious acting and writing. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
Click for (much) larger.
See this In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I watched one of the 9-11 conspiracy videos today. At least with the Pentagon crash and flight 93, they make a very good point: the debris and targets in the crashes do not look the way they should.
An extraordinary claim. So far I have seen no evidence beyond "it doesn't look the way it should and I know, I'm a mechanical engineer".
I don't claim any mechanical competence, but I call for evidence. Nothing more, nothing less.
Thus your comment is disingenuous. I did not move the goalposts. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
shouldn't that be written somewhere in little letters in legal language?
I see a whole in a building, soot marks on the grass and some on the Pentagon, and broken windows
I don't see any plane wreckage
engine:
hole cut by the right-side engine next to the smashed generator:
wreckage of seats behind the Honeywell GTCP331-200 APU:
*Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
I could fit it in one large suitcase
the point of the makers of the film was that that was ALL the wreckage that existed. now compare that to another airplane wreckage and you'll find that there isn't a lot here
where's the rest of the seats, engines, fuselage, luggage, etc? I don't even see little bits of them on the ground
and look at the cable spools - they look intact
physicist: none =0.000000
engineer: 0 ± 1 or 2
by none, I meant not a lot. You don't even have enough parts to build 1/10 of an engine there. there are 2 engines. about 150 seats and at least 100 people with their baggage. (other engineers would understand that, by the way.)
And sprinkling the thread with "1" and "2" ratings and using a righteous, insulted tone does little for your credibility. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
manon: I just watched "Loose Change" Fran: The conspiracy thing just doesn't seem to go away manon: What convinced me was the pentagon crash Jerome: I don't intend to ban anyone on this like on dKos, but I find the topic tasteless, pointless and mindless. manon: so I guess this isn't really an open thread, is it? Jerome: Oh it's open. Which also includes the right to say that what you write is silly and worse. manon: Really? any reason for saying that or just a prejudice? Jerome: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And sprinkling the thread with "1" and "2" ratings and using a righteous, insulted tone does little for your credibility. Migeru: The thread might have turned out differently if you had said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" initially, instead of bringing up Kos' banning policy. Jerome: You honestly think so?
You may note also that, apart form my initial comment, I dropped in at comment 80 or 90. Obviously I was not successful at stopping this silliness. Maybe I should have censored things, since I'm accused of it anyway. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I am not going to put anything "somewhere in the wiki" about your policy on anything. There are places for admins to put those kinds of things. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
I guess this isn't really an open thread..?
and
Oh it's open. Which also includes the right...
1 hr and 10 mins of invective.
Your "montage" isn't of any help because it doesn't reflect the real flow of the thread.
But you make a good point. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
No one is saying 9-11 did not happen.
Some people are just questioning how it happened.
Remember the magic bullet in the JFK assassination?
Questioning established facts is not a bad thing, IMHO.
You guys see wreckage, and I see a few items. You guys see proof from the burn marks on the building, I don't see anything of the sort.
Why is that a bad thing?
So someone's brain was open for business? Really?
that way, I can get a Spanish translation as well
Look, let's be kind and say you must have been very confused. And didn't mean to make unfortunate insinuations about this site and the way it's run, or the people, Jerome first, who put in a huge amount of their time here for 0 kopeks.
what caused this?
In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
those are doors and other parts of the building
bragging would be much more unbearable
Then it should be easy to debunk. Where's the plane? Where are the passengers that took that flight? etc, etc.
As the US government has had plans that included the fake desturtion of an airplane, this approach might not get you very far.
Wikipedia on Operation Northwoods:
The suggestions included: [...] Destroying an unmanned drone masquerading as a commercial aircraft supposedly full of "college students off on a holiday". This proposal was the one supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
On the other hand:
Leads into a whole other direction filled with speculation.
In general I think one should be allowed to question one theory about an event without immediately presenting another. The need to have a complete story at every point is in my opinion one of the driving forces behind the 'conspiracy theory'-discourse that is counterproductive to an investigative approach an rational discourse (as I believe a huge part of this thread shows). Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
Also, as much as "where are the wings" & co get on me with every repetition, I'd say that while there are real conspiracies, conspiracy theories can't be dismissed out of hand, it shall be done on a case-by-case basis. (BTW there is a diary up at present with MS Estonia conspiracy theories, which after some pre-knowledge and some research I see exactly on the level of 9/11 ones.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
I don't know why you should take this as some sort of personal affront, but in my professional experience, that is not what a plane wreck looks like.
what makes you so eminently qualified to judge events? blind faith or something more substantial?
Anyway, he didn't call you stupid and naive. He called the theory that. Not only stupid and naive people hold stupid and naive theories.
I prefer the cupcake method of moderating, myself... Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
I happen to know that there is a subliminal flashing message on the title "open thread" which reads Please Be Overly Irritable! ... Please Be Overly Irritable! ... but let's all make an effort to ignore it. We are better than some crappy brainwashing technology. We can overcome it. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
Just tell her that theory is stupid and naive, that should do it.
But I'll let you in on my own thought about this: fighting is good, it shows that we're passionate.
"The ultimate quest for a baby, is that for wisdom. In certain philosophies, the quest for Wisdom expresses itself as the slow ascension towards Buddhahood. At the end of his quest, a Western baby can brutally decide to slow down all his daily gestures and reduce the size of his universe. He is then capable of playing cards for hours straight, while talking about his daily life to a barman. It is the ultimate renouncement of the desire to achieve Buddhahood that only a wise Westerner is capable of".
http://www.tourdafrique.com/orient/index.htm We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars. Oscar Wilde
One plane crash is not the other if velocity and fuel level is the same, the impacted medium and impact angle also count. But I asked you specifically about speed, too.
what makes you so eminently qualified to judge events?
Of the two of us it wasn't me who tried to use the argument from authority. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
as for the impacted medium, I have already told you that that was a variable, but if you know it's physical properties, you can extrapolate from one medium to another
I just finished a gig at an observatory filled with wannabee mechanical engineers with astrophysics degrees
not the same thing in the least
material science? really? how about destructive testing? do any of that?
Look, all I'm saying is feel free to write a technical diary about this. DoDo is sceptical, I'm actually interested. We're both physicists. That doesn't mean we know better but you know what to expect us to know or be able to understand.
Everyone getting defensive doesn't help. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
you approach this with a bias that is more appropriate to the birth process of stars than to metallurgical failures due to impact
come on, you're talking about 9 m/sec/sec acceleration versus a 520 mph thrust forward
you're also arguing against the established facts - no aircraft has sustained this type of damage from an impact of any kind in history. EVER. and people are questioning it. doesn't that ring any bells for you?
That no plane sustained this kind of damage is paralleled by the fact that no plane suffered this kind of impact. You were navigating around that point for several rounds. You were not responding to any queries about to what kind of experience you have with impacts, not even kinds of impact that could be extrapolated for the case of the Pentagon. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
how do people in engineering design things? from previous experience
how do they know how things behave in certain conditions? from previous experience
I once had to test a certain type of bearing seal called an air seal that exists in the hot part of the engine and supports the power shaft in some turboshaft engines. The seal worked most of the time, but nobody who had worked with it over years and years could tell me where the high pressure and low pressure areas were, ie, how the seal actually worked. It worked, that's all.
A lot of engineering is like that - you design something and hope it works. You don't necessarily put instruments all over the place and figure out how it works.
Same thing when something ruptures. Most engineers don't care about anything at the molecular level. They just want to know under what conditions it will happen.
So the fact that it has never happened before, and it happened TWICE, both times on 9-11, and not anytime since then, when planes have hit buildings before, makes it extremely suspicious and that is what should be investigated, not the 10,000 times or more that it didn't happen.
In general we do not have mathematical proof for stuff we know that we know. Neither do we always have an reference handy (not even with the help of google). Be it engineering or the access to firewood in Sweden. And getting challenged on stuff we know that we know, that are basic, does not prompt eagerness to prove it, for what proofs would be acceptable for those that does not share our knowledge? And then a "you prove it - no you prove it" is quickly started.
Therefore I am not sure this debate over Pentagon will lead anywhere. On the other hand I would be interested in a diary on what plane crashes into objects usually look like. I know formulating it would probably mean some work for you (it is that way with knowledge we normally use rather then describe) but I think it would be interesting. If you like to compare it with 911 is up to you. Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
that would be extremely nice. I know nothing about structural mechanics.
An important point would be the "B.4.3 Floor Truss Seated End Connections at Spandrel Beam and Core" chapter... As it would seem that some of those connectors were supple (as design) and couldn't be fireproofed very well... ?
An audio-slide show shows for the layman the whole story ! "What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman
"Acknowledged" "Funny" and then "0-9" for an actual grading of instructiveness/pertinence/whatever of the comment
The first two would not count in the grading average.
We have been warned on at least one occasion not to deviate from the binary unrated/4 rating system, as people get really sensitive really quick. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
There are some things that appear to be anomalies - unexpected phenomena to scientists. Some things that need explaining.
Now if we have knowledgeable people here at ET, on the possible explanations for these phenomena, then I think we are entitled to discuss them.
Of course, we may find that the answer is in ourselves - according to the theory of a very respected and senior medical researcher friend of mine. He told me three months ago about it, and I heard more at a meeting today. Clinical tests are confirming his theory.
The answer is a panic disorder caused by changes in CO2 levels. This is a cousin of the panic of suffocation or drowning. Apparently we have two 'sensors' - one is in the medulla at the back of the brain, the other in a main aorta leaving the heart. The brain monitors the levels of CO2 in the blood in a kind of steroscopic way. A differential in the two signals causes a reaction of seeking to avoid the situation (like lifting the head or going outside) on up in severity to a full blown panic attack. Jogging for instance does not cause the panic, because oxygen going down is not a trigger. There also seems to be an element of pattern recognition in which, if the cause of of the CO2 rise is 'logical' - such as swimming underwater holding your breath, the reaction can easily be suppressed.
The real feeling of panic is when your brain detects a differential but 'sees' no cause for it.
Perhaps therefore, our tendency to see conspiracy in 9/11 is related very much to one of the constant interests of this forum. The existence, origin and consequences of changes in CO2 levels in our urban environments.
Now there's a conundrum...
Somewhat like a brain surgeon performing surgery on his own brain - perhaps the ultimate feedback system. You can't be me, I'm taken
Could you elaborate a bit more.
Verrry interesting. "When the abyss stares at me, it wets its pants." Brian Hopkins
In limited trials it has proved very effective, bigger trials coming up. Main problem has been the caustic chemical used for scrubbing - but now solved.
Original observation of reaction is quite old and well documented. What is new is the understanding of how it works. You can't be me, I'm taken
This discussion is frustating because it's like shadow boxing. You make claims without going specific about them. As Migeru pointed out, I have a level of physics education to at least follow your technical arguments if made explicit. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
and we're not talking about the molecular level either
this is the FIRST incident of a plane "vaporising" due to an impact and you can't even see any metal vapour coating on the buildings or on the cable spools in front of the building, about 15 feet from the impact point. amazing! a plasma effect from Jet-A1 fuel (which has about the same properties as diesel fuel)
Gravity was just a small part of what I wrote, picking it out of context, and as the only bit to respond to, more fits your charge.
with forward velocity equaling 520 mph?
For a falling plane, gravity adds to speed before impact and adds 1G to impact force. For a plane flying into a building more or less level, the speed you name is initial speed. This was of course an academic point making part of my argument countering your dismissal of impact angle as a factor, not a specific Pentagon impact argument.
this is the FIRST incident of a plane "vaporising"
Vaporising??? Are you now taking figurative speech literally? I again refer you to the photographs of wreckage from the wings. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
there is a burn pattern on the building but nothing that would indicate the geometry of the object that caused it.
No wreckage? I must be hallucinating:
Here I must be seeing paper clips and the piece of the Global Hawk:
Bur damages? These aren't burn damages:
I don't see anything except some soot on a building that was hit by something which some people tell me was an airplane. I can't see anything on the building that convinces me of that. There is some debris, but very little for such a large object such as a 757.
Sorry but that's what I see
This may have been debunked already, in which case I'm happy to see links explaining how it was done.
But otherwise, this one has me baffled.
Normal airport landings use a system called ILS which guides the pilot to the runway, and optionally autolands if visibility is poor, or the pilot is feeling lazy.
The Pentagon obviously had no ILS. So we're talking about aiming something with the handling characteristics of a very, very large and unwieldy object, travelling at a very high speed.
I'd estimate the target corridor subtends an angle of a couple of degrees. Too high and you overshoot. Too low and you crash into the ground well ahead of the target, spraying the facade with debris, but not doing any structural damage.
You have to get this angle right while flying at between 300 and 500mph. This doesn't give you a lot of time to make pitch and altitude corrections during the final approach.
You can't use the altimeter to improvise a glideslope because there are no clear horizontal cues outside of the windows that you can check against - and everything is happening too fast to run a checklist anyway.
So you're:
Not using instruments or other aids
Approaching at a rate at which everything is happening between 2 and 4 times faster than for a typical landing.
Hitting a target corridor, which has to be accurate to (let's be generous) a few degrees
In something with the handling characteristics of an airborne express train
This may be exactly what happened. But if so, it's extremely impressive flying.
The fact that he hit so low suggests that he almost missed the target, which is not surprising, as you point out. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
The Pentagon may cover the biggest surface area of any building, but it's not particularly tall. In fact it only has four storeys, at maybe fifty feet. There's a scale photo from a recent study here. For comparison the tail fin on the 757 is just over 44ft.
Let's be conservative and say the approach speed is 300mph, or five miles a minute.
Let's say you're a minute away from your target at an altitude of a couple of thousand feet. How tall does a four storey building look five miles away at a shallow angle?
Fifteen seconds from impact, that four storey building is still more than a mile away.
Because I'm in a pedantic mood, I've worked out the visible width of the target corridor from a mile away. It's a little more than half a degree. And that's just to hit the damn thing at all, never mind score a bullseye on the ground floor.
Let's call it a degree if you assume that some overshoot into the body of the building still counts as a success. (And that's generous considering the actual shallow angle of approach.)
Unlike a car, which is fairly responsive, any altitude and pitch correction is going to take at least a few seconds to work itself through your brain, the avionics, the engines and flaps. Mostly likely you'll overshoot any correction and have to compensate in the other direction, which will eat further into your time allowance. What you certainly can't do is throw a 757 around the sky like a sports car.
Still, being even more generous, the reality is that if you're more than a few degrees out a mile away, you've already missed - by a long way.
As I said - impressive flying.
Do you if the pilot was aiming for the ground floor?
And if so ... how?
(Just being my usual amiable self ;-) She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
Heaven forbid we pay attention to real "conspiracies" that aren't even hidden, such as the entire public relations industry.
you are the media you consume.
I just know what I can see with my own eyes. That was no airplane.
You were there and you saw it? Why didn't you say so?
there is such a thing as deductive reasoning, in case you haven't heard
After Challenger and Columbia - a huge on-the-record public enquiry and engineering effort.
After 9/11 - hey, we're holding on to all the evidence we can, and we'll only agree to set up an enquiry if we're bullied into it. (Although we reserve the right to release excerpts from emergency phone recordings of the Towers whenever there's a politically sensitive moment.)
Where are the photos and amateur video footage of the Pentagon attack?
I'd expect a ground level attack would be much less likely to be filmed than an attack on a tall building, for common sense reasons. But did no one take a photo of an airliner flying an approach run on a public building?
releasing just one and then being forced to release the others through the courts, is an absolutely stupid PR move. Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
I think that the level of conspiracy-writing or, the other way around, debunking of conspiracy, that we here at ET can come up with, is based on data that is completely external to us and frankly not very accessible to us either. If we accept the external proof that there was no Pentagon crash, or its contrary, that there was a Pentagon crash, we are only taking chances in both cases.
Basing any theory, conspiracy or its contrary, on pictures, can't really get us very far. Pictures or their settings, can be doctored (no conspiracy), and can be interpreted (conspiracy).
And people who have investigated more than a few crash scenes, are the best people, IMO, to interpret the evidence.
Now, If someone could help me locate that picture of Ms. Royal that appeared here several weeks ago, I will go away and write a diary. "When the abyss stares at me, it wets its pants." Brian Hopkins
But maybe it's not her, just someone looking like her. Who knows? In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I already had this one.
TeHeHe.
But your picture is much bigger, DL.
Thanks. "When the abyss stares at me, it wets its pants." Brian Hopkins
757 not 727. What went through that hole was the wreck of the central fuselage, not the entire structurally intact plane. Note that the entire plane virtually disintegrated on impact, only wreckage went further. The video apparently also didn't show you the photos on which the mark of the wings can be seen on the building wall, and the photos on which lots of scrap metal from the wings in front of the Pentagon is visible. The "where are the wings" conspiracy theory is actually the weakest of them all, dismissed even by part of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. I suggest you read what I wrote and linked earlier here. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
now I've supervised mechanics putting together turboprop, turboshaft and turbofan engines and APU's, and I have yet to see a part that looks like the one found in the wreckage which wasn't recognizable by reps of R&R and P&W
Even so, from the text of the very first link:
There have been some people who claim that a Global Hawk was what hit the Pentagon. Here is what John W. Brown, spokesman for Rolls Royce (Indianapolis), had to say about the part in the photo above "It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I'm familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy." (Of course it wouldn't be anything he's familiar with, it's a powerplant made by Honeywell.) The AE 3007 engines are used in small commuter jets such as the Cessna Citation; the AE 3007H is also used in the military's unmanned aircraft, the Global Hawk. The Global Hawk is manufactured by Northrop Grumman's subsidiary Ryan Aeronautical, which it acquired from Teledyne, Inc. in July 1999. A detailed view of what the turbofan that powers the Global Hawk looks like - I'm sure you can see it's too small to be anything in the pictures contained here or anywhere else in the Pentagon crash evidence. Also visible in this photo, one of the 757's blue passenger seats to the left of the turbine, and possibly a 2nd seat above the other seat.
DoDo: How many planes crashing into massive buildings at near maximum speed have been part of your professional experience? manon: what makes you so eminently qualified to judge events? manon: no answer. Colman: You want an answer in twelve minutes??? manon: ok, you know something about engineering and/or aircraft? Colman: Me? Shit no. But I don't get all cranky if I don't get a response within twelve minutes. ...later, on a parallel thread... DoDo: 12 minutes passed.
...later, on a parallel thread...
DoDo: 12 minutes passed.
If I may comment this meta-discussion, I don't see my problems with manon's debating style explained by Jérôme's provocation, nor do I think mentioning that he won't follow Kos's policy is the same as "bringing up" Kos's banning policy, even though I disagreed with that initial comment by Jérôme and saw it as provocative (and implied so in a reply, which to complicate things was in turn taken as an insult by manon). *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
manon: what makes you so eminently qualified to judge events? blind faith or something more substantial?
6 mins later...
manon: no answer. I guess blind faith. And I thought we were all hip people who didn't put much faith in blind faith.
Those are arrogant, belittling comments that were not justified (by what you want to say about Jerome or by anyhting else). Colman stepped in with his twelve minutes comment to wisecrack... OK, it didn't work... and suggest manon was overdoing it.
Later, DoDo explained that he didn't reply instantaneously because he was looking for data. And when manon didn't reply to a question of his, he pulled out the "twelve minutes" clause. The troll rating for that was obviously ridiculous.
BTW, I asked manon three-quarters of an hour ago what she meant by "open for business". I mean to get an answer.
What, by me now? Wowee...
Let me point out, manon, that you have distributed troll ratings, while no one, afaik (if I'm wrong forgive me) has troll-rated you. And you have slung around some pretty high-handed comments about other people's capacities and qualifications. I don't think you are justified in passing yourself off as a victim.
Bonus: more metal parts close-ups for you:
(Even more at this Italian page.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
A torn gasket with a fuel filter still attached?
And some unknown but rather small parts of the aircraft?
And would they have been spread out on the grass by the suitcase carriers before whatever made the impact on the Pentagon, or after?
And what happened to flight 77? And its passengers? They're all with Elvis? In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Do you know how hard it is to completely burn a human body?
Where are all the black boxes? In the atmosphere too? Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
I'm not trying to push some conspiracy, it's just something that has always been sitting there with a questionmark hovering over it, and I've never found anyone who had enough technical knowledge to explain it to me. Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
the parts are pretty heavy, mechanically fitted together, wired into place (every bolt has to have wiring around it so it doesn't loosen) and many of the parts are designed to withstand extremely high temperatures
the Pentagon is reinforced so it would not replicate the same conditions, but there would be some similarities to your incident
maybe if you could give us some more details of what you remember about it?
In Dodo's links you'll find those pictures of the damages on the outer part of the building. The structural damages were mostly at the ground floor and is consistent with the flight path and height level (in fact the plane must have been on a an air cushion effect, "effet de sol" in french).
One of them, left wing, chunked out a bit of concrete railing and the right one hit the generator (two structures at less then 1m and 3m high respectively) and went inside (picture of one engine inside the wrecked building) through the ground floor part of the facade.
Not surprisingly, the pictures show that posts and beams are damaged much further then the central big hole... (the famed wing problem)!
The Pentagone building shape and built technique had the same effect (my feeling) then the multiple layers of plastic sheets used to stop a bullet in forensic tests... The shape charge effect of such a plane at such a velocity would have otherwise reached the central courtyard. While it seems that only two holes were blown up on that side (either perpendicular corridors, or part of the engines)!
I would agree with some that the chances to hit the target, flying so low and in such a short distance to maneuver and align the plane is really hard to achieve even for a trained fighter pilot !
My two euro cents worth of explanation ! "What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman
It's hard enough to keep a conspiracy with two or three people from leaking out, but in this case there is a MOUNTAIN of debunking analysis.
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 7 2 comments
by Oui - Feb 4 47 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 2 8 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 26 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 31 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 22 3 comments
by Cat - Jan 25 63 comments
by Oui - Jan 9 21 comments
by Oui - Feb 78 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 72 comments
by Oui - Feb 447 comments
by Oui - Feb 322 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 28 comments
by Oui - Feb 2115 comments
by Oui - Feb 16 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 313 comments
by gmoke - Jan 29
by Oui - Jan 2736 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 263 comments
by Cat - Jan 2563 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 223 comments
by Oui - Jan 2110 comments
by Oui - Jan 21
by Oui - Jan 20
by gmoke - Jan 20
by Oui - Jan 1841 comments
by Oui - Jan 1591 comments
by Oui - Jan 145 comments