The Pentagon on 911.. a cruise missile struck the building!

[icosaface]

Plasma? Got any evidence that that ever happened. Microspherules? My, my the ministry of truth is working overtime today. Remind me again of the investigation done by the NTSB.

[JazzRoc]

Quote:Plasma? Got any evidence that that ever happened. Microspherules? My, my the ministry of truth is working overtime today. Remind me again of the investigation done by the NTSB.

You seem to have forgotten http://concen.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=30361&st=20

You're quiet there. Was it just too depressing getting your snide slanders smacked down?

It must really grate when your own side pulls the rug out from under your feet, eh?

Tell you what. Study engineering. Get some knowledge and understanding.

Mind you, that'll put you on the other side... :)

[Dr Richard H Thorndyke]

Quote:Study engineering.

That'd involve too much effort JR and can't be done solely with Google and Youtube.

Far easier to just call you a shill, an agent (for the Ministry of Truth) or a sheep. :LOL:

[---]

Quote:

Quote:Study engineering.

That'd involve too much effort JR and can't be done solely with Google and Youtube.

Far easier to just call you a shill, an agent (for the Ministry of Truth) or a sheep. :LOL:

bestest buddy bonding. how sweet. :makeout:

:eatdrink013:

[triplesix]

Ah the refreshing ass-slapping of two know-it-alls.

Is this the "engineering" that says a plane will vaporize into nothing upon impact, like at the Pentagon, but will shred through the Twin Towers enough to cause a collapse?

Love having it both ways.

[---]

Quote:Ah the refreshing ass-slapping of two know-it-alls.

Is this the "engineering" that says a plane will vaporize into nothing upon impact, like at the Pentagon, but will shred through the Twin Towers enough to cause a collapse?

Love having it both ways.

yeah ab-solutely. What're they on? What a double act they make ! I'm almostnear stupified by the sudden animated buddy bonding these skepdic flakes are constantly trying to parade without giving an inch..no respect at all. haha go on guys, go book 'em Dano. meh:nuts:

[Hans Olo]

Quote:Seriously? How about the missile systems of the Vietnam Air War? How about the video of the plane crash itself?

The Vietnam war was in the 60s/70s you'd think RC have improved significantly in the last 20 to 30 years - like all computer technology.
The video of the plane crash itself is only ONE example - that's not sufficient to support your notion that makes RC controls are FAMOUS for being unreliable. Look at the US missiles used in Afghanistan and Iraq. They do hit their targets quite well. I'd say they are more precise than human pilots - especially when we are talking about extreme maneuvers.

[---]

Quote:

Quote:Seriously? How about the missile systems of the Vietnam Air War? How about the video of the plane crash itself?

The Vietnam war was in the 60s/70s you'd think RC have improved significantly in the last 20 to 30 years - like all computer technology.
The video of the plane crash itself is only ONE example - that's not sufficient to support your notion that makes RC controls are FAMOUS for being unreliable. Look at the US missiles used in Afghanistan and Iraq. They do hit their targets quite well. I'd say they are more precise than human pilots - especially when we are talking about extreme maneuvers.

That directly contradicts what he said..about it requiring actual pilot control.

It would indeed to good to see that claim fleshed out then, so to speak, with facts, if he cares to. I agree.

[triplesix]

It's an asinine argument.

Modern remote navigation uses ultrasophisticated GPS geolocation. This technology has been demonstrated to land a F/A-18 tactical aircraft on a moving aircraft carrier in rough seas without any human intervention, 100% of the time. It's a proven technology that has been installed on all manner of military tactical and support aircraft, including VTOL. Military contractors brag about the capability of these systems on their websites all the time.

Remote control has reached an element of precision where guidance systems can effectively control trajectory through pitch rate, roll rate, lateral acceleration, yaw rate and speed commands. It is safe to assume anything can be flown anywhere and made to do just about anything, all by computerized vectors, without any human control, barring some catastrophic outside interference.

[icosaface]

The ministry of truth thinks that the steel in the WTC had enough potential energy to cause the 247 columns to simultaneously collapse on each floor, break all those steel welds, aerosolize the concrete, hurl beams in an upward and outward arc as far as 500 feet horizontally, repeat the process all over again as each new floor is impacted, fall at free fall speeds and still have enough energy to be able to melt steel in the rubble pile and keep it molten for weeks.

Where are the two titanium engines from the pentagon crash site?

[---]

Quote:Where are the two titanium engines from the pentagon crash site?

There are some wreckage fragments that seem consistent and reasonably identifiable as what would be correct parts for the engines concerned.

[icosaface]

Not good enough nik. Airplanes parts are all numbered so as to be identifiable as being a part of a particular plane. The NTSB always pieces airplanes that have crashed back together. Did they do that for the four plane crashes that happened on Sept. 11, 2001?

[FastTadpole]

Quote:A 757 doing 575mph would pass through them like putty - and did

The fluid dynamics of air at that height WTC or pentagon impact points, could not reach the higher altitude's top speed of 575 mph rather somewhere around 320 mph be sure to factor that into your equations.

Source: Phone call to Boeing Corporation

[---]

Quote:Mr. Metcalf,

I'd like to reply to your article on the Pentagon and aircraft debris, Warning - this won't be a short reply! Please visit this link for some explanations and photos I provided to threads at Free Republic which assist in answering some of the questions from the non-believers: http://www.fitzweb.com/military/pentagon/index.html My website posts primarily respond to people thinking the act was a truck bomb, not an aircraft.

I'm Chief Master Sergeant John Monaccio, I'm the senior Air Force enlisted police officer for the Air Force. I was in the Pentagon on Sep 11th, in room 1B461, when we were attacked. I personally participated in rescue and recovery operations immediately after the attack, and for days afterwards, and have direct observations of many details not mentioned previously, and of what I claim in this e-mail.

The French web site's questions have a validity due to the restrictions (my word) on news coverage and photos from the site - you don't get the entire picture from what's been released. I would suggest looking at the questions from a different angle to see why there was such a disparity in coverage from WTC and the Pentagon, thus leading to questions.

From the beginning, WTC was an open book with continual coverage, the Pentagon was not. The Pentagon houses 25,000 people, most of whom work on classified information in the routines of their day. The attack blew unimaginable amounts of classified documents and other classified media into open areas. Security containers were dislodged, sensitive operations areas blown open, and classified computers and papers littered the site. The raging fires created drafts carrying classified papers into the air and distributing them everywhere on the grounds of the Pentagon .

The corresponding law enforcement response brought in agents from every possible three letter abbreviated force, many who work undercover or covert operations. Protecting their identity is a concern so they can live to fight another battle another day.

I suggest those are the reasons why access to photos, videos, etc., have been limited. For example, I was in room 1B461. The plane's inertia carried aircraft remains all the way through the building coming to rest on the outside walls of our offices. We discovered cockpit wreckage at our feet while attempting to rescue people from a Navy operations area.

I worked with the FBI gathering evidence in an attempt to confirm the company the airliner was from so they could track it back to it's point of origin. While doing so, we found certain religious items from the hijackers. The evidence collection process was filmed by a civilian crew working for Arlington County. The crew filmed the evidence amongst reams of classified information at the scene. Similar problems with classified existed everywhere. Photographers had the same problems of any picture they took on scene.

Now to the questions:

1. The first satellite image shows the section of the building that was hit by the Boeing. In the image, the second ring of the building is also visible. It is clear that the aircraft only hit the first ring. The four interior rings remain intact. They were only fire-damaged after the initial explosion.
How can a Boeing 757-200 weighing nearly 100 tons and traveling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour only have damaged the outside of the Pentagon?
The answer is that the plane did damage the rest of the building, it just didn't cause it to collapse. The plane hit at a 45% angle to the face of the building. An impact hole was clearly made (reference the web site photos), and the aircraft and wreckage continued some 240' through the rings of the building coming to rest in A&E Drive. The engines were buried inside the building and they took many of the support columns out that resulted in the eventual collapse of the E-Ring (in conjunction with the fires). The entirety of the E, D, & C rings were demolished as a result of the blast effect from the plane. Check this site from the project engineers for more information: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2002/...6570C.html Click on the various links for more photos and explanations.

2. The next two photographs show the building just after the attack. The aircraft apparently only hit the ground floor. The four upper floors collapsed toward 10:10 am. The building is 78 feet high.
How can a plane 44.7 feet high, over 155 feet long, with a wingspan of almost 125 feet and a cockpit almost 12 feet high, crash into just the ground floor of this building?
You can see from the pictures I posted that the plane did just crash into the front of the building. There are corresponding holes in the building to meet the fuselage and a limited portion of the wings and tails section. The plane did not strike the ground first, it hit right below the second floor of the E-Ring.


3. Look at the photograph of the lawn in front of the damaged building.
Where is the debris? Any debris! Did it all disintegrate on contact?
The debris is not visible in the pictures because of the sheer destructiveness of the impact against the scale and depth of field of the photos. Look at my posts and you'll see a level of detail that is much better. Critical to recall is the inertia of the mass that was the plane. Look closely at the released video and you'll see in the frames pieces of the airliner actually flying over the top of the Pentagon's E-Ring.

4. There are photographs, which show representations of a Boeing 757-200 superimposed on the section of the building that was hit.
What happened to the wings of the aircraft? Why isn't there any wing damage?

There was wing damage, but remember the plane's wings are 1/8" aluminum against solid granite. The wings disintegrated and spewed small parts and pieces across some 800 feet by 300+ feet of area to the front of the building. If you look closely at the pictures I posted, you'll see an impact hole that basically accounts for the fuselage and to width of where the engines were on the wings.

5. One journalist asked: "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?" At a press conference the day after the tragedy, Arlington County Fire Chief Ed Plaugher said, "First of all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation. I'm talking about, but not large sections."
The follow-up question asked, "In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing?" Plaugher replied, "You know, I'd rather not comment on that. We have a lot of eyewitnesses that can give you better information about what actually happened with the aircraft as it approached. So we don't know. I don't know."
Wait a minute! Time after time (Oklahoma City bombing, TWA Flight 800, Flight 93 et al.) we are told not to depend on eyewitnesses?
When asked by a journalist: "Where is the jet fuel?" The chief responded, "We have what we believe is a puddle right there that the what we believe is to be the nose of the aircraft."

These are red herrings taken from a news conference just a day after the event. The Chief was not well enough informed at that point to answer those questions. There was a debris field in the front of the E-Ring littered with small pieces of the plane. The fires were still raging 1600+ degrees in other areas of the building where the plane passed and fueled by material in the building. The aviation gas was vaporized on contact with the building when the wings were ruptured. The mass of the liquid was carried forward deep into the building to the point where it started fires 240 feet into the building and up to the 5th floor. There were no puddles of aviation gas because they were all burning. One look at the color of the smoke rising would tell anyone who's aware of aircraft fires all they need to know.


Notwithstanding the collective myopia in not being able to see what we are being told, there are more questions.
One pilot wrote, "I flew the Boeing 747 jumbo jet, but not this 757 from what I see (or don't see) looking at these pictures, it's hard to pick out aircraft parts:
· · The wingtip alone would have sheared off and bounced back into the street, the two engines would have penetrated deeper into the wall and framing structure further than any other part making a definite hole.
That's partially what happened. People are forgetting the aircraft was traveling at 350+ mph. When it rammed the solid granite, the mass carried it and the engines through the E-Ring, but the less sturdy parts of the aircraft were immediately reduced to scrap.

· · The belly of the aircraft contains, fuel tanks, baggage, mailbags, and cargo; none of this type debris can be seen.
Correct. That debris was carried forward into the building's other rings and offices.

· Assuming 8,600 gallons of kerosene fuel at a specific gravity of approx 6.9 lbs/gal (temperature considered) weight of the fuel would be close to 60,000 lbs and would splatter everywhere.
True, and it did just that. The initial fireball seen on the tape was not the entirety of the blast. Much of the fuel was carried forward and into the hallways, corridors, rings, and offices. The fuel ignited a split second later and vaporized many workers at their desks. The ferocity of the fires on the outside of the building were caused by the aviation fuel.
· Where are the seats, those with passengers buckled in would be ripped out of the floor, for that matter, where are the passengers?
The passengers were carried into the building with the aircraft. Some were blown out and carried over the top of the E-Ring, still strapped into their seats. I believe all the bodies from the Pentagon were recovered and identified, I think there were one or two passengers (and this was as of October) not yet identified. The well being of the families dictated all aspects of casualty recovery be strictly handled with the care of the deceased paramount.

· I have never seen an aircraft accident where the aircraft evaporated upon impact, water, land or buildings.
I'm sure in this pilots experience that's correct. I've been to many where what you think and what you see are different. An accident in AZ in the 80's had a KC-135 tanker being hit in the co-pilots seat by a small private plane. This Boeing 707 jet nose-dived and made a hole into the desert. The debris field was incredibly tiny. Correspondingly, an accident in 1999 with a much smaller F-16 was spread over tens of acres simply from the angle of impact - that accident also did not have too many large pieces.
· If these pictures were taken within 3 days after 9-11, there would have been definite remains of parts. I don't see any.
Refer to earlier comments.
I don't know what else to say except that a lack of critical thinking has been applied by some of these folks, especially the tens of witnesses that saw the plane strike.

My apologies for grammar, continuity, etc., I'm trying to do this quickly from work. I'd appreciate it if my words would stay between us.

V/R

Chief Monaccio

CMSgt John Monaccio
HQ USAF/XOFM

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/penta...l_20020316.html

[---]

Quote:"Entering changes to the auto pilot is something that terrorist pilots probably would not have been trained or able to do. Even the United senior pilot, who instructs on how to do that, said that he always has to pause before he makes such corrections to make sure to remembered how to enter the change."

COMMISSION SENSITIVE UNCLASSIFIED - MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD - Interviews of United Airlines and American Airlines personnel in key roles on September 11, 2001

Quote:Increasing the plausibility of precision automated control of the two aircraft striking the WTC, is the fact that each aircraft struck precisely the bottom regions of the only sections within each WTC tower only recently upgraded with thermal protection materials. This would suggest a clandestine relationship between the visually spectacular aircraft attacks upon the WTC and activity pre-September 11, 2001 within each WTC aircraft impact region, intended to initiate structural failure within these regions not generated by the aircraft attacks themselves and to contribute to an appearance of structural failures caused by each aircraft impact.

Floors 92 and above were re-fireproofed between 1995-2000 within WTC 1. WTC 1 was struck at floor 94 by AA 11. Floors 77 and above were re-fireproofed between 1995-2000 within WTC 2. WTC 2 was struck at floor 78 by UA 175

http://www.911blogger.com/node/19305

Quote:During October of 1994 at NASA's Crows Landing Flight Facility in California, 110 autopilot approaches and touchdowns of a United Airlines Boeing 737 aircraft facilitated by augmented GPS positional signals, were successfully conducted, with "accuracies on the order of a few centimeters" being consistently achieved.

GETTING TO THE POINT IN PINPOINT LANDING, NASA, 1998
http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/spinoff1998/t2.htm

Quote:The Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics at Stanford University described experimental RF turns similar to the 330 degree descending turn performed by American Airlines Flight 77, following 1998 test flights involving a WAAS prototype:

"The Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) ... allows pilots to fly ... approaches that cannot necessarily be flown with current instrumentation ... Complex curved approaches, including approaches turning to a short (less than one mile) final ... Pathways were constructed from ... climbing, or descending constant radius arcs ... Autopilots could use WAAS position and velocity to fly curved trajectories."*



*Inflight Demonstrations of Curved Approaches. and Missed Approaches in Mountainous Terrain
http://waas.stanford.edu/~wwu/jennings/pub...98/iongps98.pdf

http://www.911blogger.com/node/19305