Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 2 votes

9/11 Cruise Missile Theory


  • Please log in to reply
581 replies to this topic

#361    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 05 July 2009 - 02:17 PM

Obviousman on Jul 5 2009, 07:17 AM, said:

You do not quote any sources, and say they are 'readily available'. What you said in that post are NOT facts, but supposition and opinion. Some of it may well be true, and I agree it is possible that intelligence services may have had a hand in recruiting hijackers.... but it is not proven.

You seem very confused between what is fact and what is supposition.  By the precise wording I used in my post #275 (and I was careful about it), all that I listed as facts are such.  Let me use an example from that post: -

Fact: The CIA is in part responsible for the founding of Al-Qaeda, with supply of funding and weapons through Pakistan. Ali Mohammed is one example we know strongly fitting the profile of an Al-Qaeda/CIA double agent.

Supposition #1:  After the CIA inception of Al-Qaeda, agents/cells sent to train the Mujahideen remained embedded within the structure and continued to operate into the ‘90s, long after the Soviet/Afghan war ended.  Ali Mohammed was one such embedded agent and it is others like him that first contacted the 9/11 hijackers.  This operation had similarities to the successful Operation Gladio where covert stay-behind cells were embedded in the structure of European countries after World War II and not revealed for over 40 years.  With the U.S. funding the Mujahideen $630 million per year by 1987 it would seem a wasted investment and opportunity if all this were not the case.

Supposition #2:  The CIA assistance to Al-Qaeda would only be during the time that the Mujahideen were fighting the Soviets and all contact was broken off in 1989.  Ali Mohammed was simply a U.S. special forces and later CIA agent that defected to Al Qaeda.  As these events occurred 12 years prior to 9/11 they are irrelevant.
Now we can discuss all we like about the different suppositions but not the initial fact.


Obviousman on Jul 5 2009, 07:17 AM, said:

No distortion; I gave the full quote. Yes they thought it was a military plane because of the manoeuvres it did; they did NOT say "we thought it a fighter jet" or "it moved like a missile".

I have highlighted where we now agree.  Rookie extremist pilots imitating military manoeuvres and what would be expected of a GPS guided approach, fancy that.  Anyhow, please drop the strawman as you know well I am opposed to the idea of a “fighter jet” or “missile”.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#362    phunk

phunk

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 423 posts
  • Joined:14 Sep 2006

Posted 05 July 2009 - 03:16 PM

Q24 on Jul 5 2009, 10:17 AM, said:

I have highlighted where we now agree.  Rookie extremist pilots imitating military manoeuvres and what would be expected of a GPS guided approach, fancy that.  Anyhow, please drop the strawman as you know well I am opposed to the idea of a “fighter jet” or “missile”.


A GPS guided approach wouldn't have needed to circle back because it was too high.

They said it looked like a military jet not because of the difficulty of the maneuvers, but because passenger jets aren't normally flown with no regards for the passengers (high G turns).  As has been demonstrated many times, the maneuvers weren't hard, a child in a simulator could do them with a few minutes practice.


#363    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 05 July 2009 - 06:20 PM

phunk on Jul 5 2009, 04:16 PM, said:

A GPS guided approach wouldn't have needed to circle back because it was too high.

That would surely depend which system were being used.  If we were talking about a missile I would agree this would not need to circle but an airliner system is perhaps configured differently.  The link I provided in my post #349 on the previous page describes the Wide Area Augmentation System that uses descending constant radius turns to line the aircraft up for final approach in landing.


phunk on Jul 5 2009, 04:16 PM, said:

They said it looked like a military jet not because of the difficulty of the maneuvers, but because passenger jets aren't normally flown with no regards for the passengers (high G turns).  As has been demonstrated many times, the maneuvers weren't hard, a child in a simulator could do them with a few minutes practice.

I don’t believe the manoeuvre was particularly difficult until the final approach; skimming the ground at 500mph.  I do find the characteristics of the descent comparing favourably with a military or GPS guided manoeuvre to be interesting though.

Even barring the fact that the pilots in the simulator linked on the last page actually flew the wrong route and did not skim the ground in the way the Pentagon flight did, I still find the experiment unconvincing.  I took driving lessons in a simulator and it appeared very realistic, certainly giving a fantastic basis for when I got out on the road.  When no one was looking I thought I’d go for a quick joyride.  I went off-road without bumping up the kerb, over a low wall without deflection in my course, through a garden with no effect on handling and crashed into a house before the screen juddered to a halt.  I’m betting in real life I would have skewed sideways in the air after hitting the kerb and come to rest against the low wall.

Edit:  the video linked said that the pilots using the simulator did not even have any experience of flying a real Boeing 757… well here is someone who does…

“The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple.” … Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have “descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn… For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand,” said Wittenberg.

Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown.

There are another 200+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals who doubt the official story at Patriots Question 9/11.

Edited by Q24, 05 July 2009 - 06:32 PM.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#364    merril

merril

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts
  • Joined:16 Feb 2008

Posted 05 July 2009 - 07:27 PM

Quote

“The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple.” … Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have “descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn… For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand,” said Wittenberg.

Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown.


Really, now, Q24. You can do better than dragging out someone who should be seeing his doctor, instead of offering odd opinions...

Re: Russ Wittenberg-

He is a retired commercial pilot. he flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years.

Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown.

In fact he has flown the actual two United Airlines aircraft that were hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC).

Cap. Wittenberg states unequivocally that for Hani Hanjour, the Hijacker who allegedly flew the plane that hit the Pentagon but who was refused the rental of a Cessna because of his bad flying skills, to have flown the plane that allegedly hit the Pentagon would have been absolutely impossible. Why?

In his own words: “I don’t believe it’s possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a Cessna 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it’s design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding — pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G’s. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn’t do it and I’m absolutely positive they couldn’t do it.”


Q- why do you continually employ these tactics? Would it not be better to be of a constructive frame of mind? There are more pressing needs in the world than trying to see who's tree we can shake.

Grow up, for heaven's sake.


#365    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,484 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 05 July 2009 - 07:45 PM

Q24 on Jul 5 2009, 06:20 PM, said:

There are another 200+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals who doubt the official story at Patriots Question 9/11.


And, as of 2008, there are approx 85,000 pilots in the world.  Out of 85,000 pilots, 200 found the subject worthy of comment?  That's not even 1%.  Heck, that isn't even a quarter of 1%.

Are those your standards?  Are you saying that .24% is statistically significant?


#366    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,259 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 05 July 2009 - 07:58 PM

Just to add to this a bit...

merril on Jul 5 2009, 12:27 PM, said:

In his own words: “I don’t believe it’s possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a Cessna 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it’s design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding — pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G’s. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn’t do it and I’m absolutely positive they couldn’t do it.”


Maximum cruising speed for a 757-200 at altitude is between 493 kts and 504 kts (567 mph to 580 mph). (SOURCE, SOURCE)

It has been shown that flight 77 impacted the Pentagon at between 500 and 530 mph.

(I don't have any info at the moment on the predicted G loads during the turn, so I'll forgo commenting.)

For someone who apparently has so much experience with these aircraft, he certainly doesn't seem to know their performance specs very well.




Cz

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe..." - Carl Sagan

"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." – H. L. Mencken

#367    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 05 July 2009 - 08:39 PM

aquatus1 on Jul 5 2009, 08:45 PM, said:

And, as of 2008, there are approx 85,000 pilots in the world.  Out of 85,000 pilots, 200 found the subject worthy of comment?  That's not even 1%.  Heck, that isn't even a quarter of 1%.

That’s a poor argument considering there is no data on how many of those 85,000 pilots have even taken a close interest in the subject.  There is a possibility that 250 pilots have studied the event in which case 80% of them have questions - I would find this significant.  I admit that we don’t know but it is your argument not mine.  I gave the example of the Patriots Question 9/11 pilots only as a counter to the simulator pilot that was linked.


Czero 101 on Jul 5 2009, 08:58 PM, said:

For someone who apparently has so much experience with these aircraft, he certainly doesn't seem to know their performance specs very well.

To defend Wittenberg, from what I have read I believe he is perhaps referring to the speed design limits whilst banking.  Also it must be noted that the specifications you provided links to are given at a 35,000ft altitude, not skimming the ground.

For the record yet again, I do not personally believe that the manoeuvre was impossible – just suspect.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#368    KennyB

KennyB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,472 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2005

Posted 05 July 2009 - 09:12 PM

Cz, I had a typo. The picture I was talking about in post#356 and #358 is:
Page 21    Post 304   3rd or 4th picture.  KennyB


#369    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,259 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 05 July 2009 - 10:03 PM

Q24 on Jul 5 2009, 01:39 PM, said:

To defend Wittenberg, from what I have read I believe he is perhaps referring to the speed design limits whilst banking.

That's entirely possible, As I mentioned, I have been so far unable to find those kinds of performance specs

Quote

Also it must be noted that the specifications you provided links to are given at a 35,000ft altitude, not skimming the ground.

Also true and while there are no specifications that I have been able to find so far that list its maximum speed at or near sea level / ground level, what I have read indicates the possiblity that the aircraft would actually be able to travel faster at lower altitudes. However, that is just speculation at this point as I have only had time for a cursory read through the material in question. I could very well be mistaken.

Quote

For the record yet again, I do not personally believe that the manoeuvre was impossible – just suspect.

Fair enough. To be sure, this kind of maneuver was most likely not in the designer's minds when they put the plans down for this aircraft. However, I am drawn back to when Boeing's Dash 80 test aircraft (predecessor of the 707) performed a near perfect barrel roll during a demonstration flight over Lake Washington during Seattle's 1955 Seafair.




Cz


"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe..." - Carl Sagan

"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." – H. L. Mencken

#370    merril

merril

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts
  • Joined:16 Feb 2008

Posted 05 July 2009 - 10:59 PM

Q24 on Jul 5 2009, 07:20 PM, said:

I don’t believe the manoeuvre was particularly difficult until the final approach; skimming the ground at 500mph.


Didn't he barrel up between Washington Blvd. and Columbia Pike? He started out 4 miles SW of the Pentagon at 2000 ft. alt. I think there was one tall hotel- the Sheraton. He just had to depend on some sort of plan, and have some luck in avoiding obstacles. He obviously managed- much to the disgust of the civilized world.



Q24 on Jul 5 2009, 07:20 PM, said:

I do find the characteristics of the descent comparing favourably with a military or GPS guided manoeuvre to be interesting though.


Autopilots or other similar concepts are there to perform normal flight assistance- in the same criteria that a human pilot would perform. How can you state there is something as blatant as you suggest- Hani Hanjour did not execute a turn?


Q24 on Jul 5 2009, 07:20 PM, said:

Even barring the fact that the pilots in the simulator linked on the last page actually flew the wrong route.


Umm, no. Wrong again...

linked-image

as in-

linked-image




Q24 on Jul 5 2009, 07:20 PM, said:

and did not skim the ground in the way the Pentagon flight did, I still find the experiment unconvincing.  I took driving lessons in a simulator...


Their purpose of demonstrating the turn was successful. The final path into the side of the Pentagon was probably not done using a Cray backup, but the facts remain. Hanjour and whatever other lower lifeform was in the cockpit proved themselves to be among the most irresponsible, stupid, pretenders to history. Saying he did not come in low and make it across the last few miles, flies in the face of reality.



Q24 on Jul 5 2009, 07:20 PM, said:

Edit:  the video linked said that the pilots using the simulator did not even have any experience of flying a real Boeing 757… well here is someone who does…

“The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple.” … Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have “descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn… For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand,” said Wittenberg.

Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Retired commercial pilot...indent]


What is Wittenberg saying, again?

linked-image

Link


QUOTE (Q24 @ Jul 5 2009, 09:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
To defend Wittenberg, from what I have read I believe he is perhaps referring to the speed design limits whilst banking.  Also it must be noted that the specifications you provided links to are given at a 35,000ft altitude, not skimming the ground.

For the record yet again, I do not personally believe that the manoeuvre was impossible – just suspect.


Then, why quote Wittenberg? If he is so wrong about the facts of what happened, why drag him into your arguments? Doesn't make much sense.



#371    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,484 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 05 July 2009 - 11:25 PM

Q24 on Jul 5 2009, 09:39 PM, said:

That’s a poor argument considering there is no data on how many of those 85,000 pilots have even taken a close interest in the subject.


Sure there is.  You yourself posted it.

According to your source, only 200 or so of those 85,000 pilots find the story suspicious enough to take a close interest in.  

Quote

There is a possibility that 250 pilots have studied the event in which case 80% of them have questions - I would find this significant.  I admit that we don’t know but it is your argument not mine.


Yes, there is a possibility that 84,750 pilots didn't bother reading about the subject that they work in on their daily lives and that they weren't interested in commenting on something that was so flagrant that the remaining were inspired to claim that the entire explanation was impossible.

There is the possibility that the tens of thousands of pilots in countries that owe no allegiance to the US (indeed, some that hate the US with a passion) were ambivalent about something so utterly obvious that any amateur with access to the internet can see.

There's always that possibility, sure.  Of course, that possibility hinges on this being such a complex argument that pilots actually would need to study the issue.  Being that even the aforementioned amateurs can figure it out with a few minutes on Google, I somehow don't think that's the case.

So, yeah, it's possible.

But it's only .24% probable.

Quote

I gave the example of the Patriots Question 9/11 pilots only as a counter to the simulator pilot that was linked.


You bring it up every time you discuss the topic.


#372    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,259 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 06 July 2009 - 01:33 AM

KennyB on Jul 5 2009, 02:12 PM, said:

Cz, I had a typo. The picture I was talking about in post#356 and #358 is:
Page 21    Post 304   3rd or 4th picture.  KennyB

No worries. We all make mistakes now and then.

Let's re-address your previous posts.

KennyB on Jul 4 2009, 07:37 PM, said:

Gentlemen, please bear with me again. Look at post #30, about the 3rd pic down, the one that is well lit. If the plane came in and barely cleared the wire spools, why didn't the left wing hit that little cyclone fence. If the plane was cocked over to the right enough to clear that, the right wing or the right engine would have been plowing the ground. See the arrow pointing to the ledge under the windows on the left side. If the left wing made that mark, the wing would have been higher than the fuselage. For the fuselage to be fairly level, the only way it could be done would be if the plane had a gull wing, like a C-119. Does a 757 have a gull wing? No, I thought not.  KennyB

First things first. The images I will be presenting all come from the following site:

USINFO Photo Gallery: The September 11 Attack on the Pentagon

This site was previously posted by Merril in post #284. It addresses the misconceptions presented in the "Loose Change" videos, specifically that a missile hit the Pentagon, not an aircraft.

I'm assuming that you are referring to this image.

linked-image

While this is the same image that you refer to from post #304, it is smaller and does not have the same indicators on it. The arrow shown points to the mark you are referring to

What you are seeing here is a low concrete wall which surrounds a ventilation exhaust structure situated between the helipad an the Pentagon proper. That wall is roughly only a foot high. The arrow in the picture above indicates the point on that wall where the bottom of the left engine pod struck it, removing a roughly semi-circular portion of the wall. Please note that it was only the lower portion of the left engine pod that hit that low wall, not the entire wing.

With regards to the "cyclone fence", this picture gives a bit better perspective:

linked-image

The portion of the fence seen at the very left of the above image is the same portion of the fencing seen in the image Kenny has referred to. That fence was surrounding a large, temporary power generator on the lawn of the Pentagon. This is the large, dark object that makes up most of the foreground in the image I have provided above.

This generator looks to be approximately the same size as a standard shipping container. These containers are 20 or 40 feet long by 8 feet wide by 8 1/2 feet high. It is hard to tell the length of the generator, but the width and height appear to be that of a standardized shipping container. The trailer that the generator is mounted on is roughly 3 feet high (from the ground to the bottom of the generator / container). So this gives the generator a total height of roughly 11 1/2 feet. Again, it is hard to be certain of the exact dimensions of the generator / container so it could even be what's called a "high-cube" container. A "high-cube" container is 9 1/2 feet tall and is called "high-cube" because it allows for more cubic footage of cargo to be carried. This would give the generator a total height of 12 1/2 feet. Having worked in the trucking / container industry as recently as a year ago, I am quite familiar with these containers, their dimensions and the trailers used to move them. While I can't be 100% positive due to the damage to the generator, I would say that I am 95% positive that my comparison between the generator and the shipping containers I have referenced is accurate.

Examining the image above you can see that the generator has obviously been hit by something, in this case, the right wing of flight 77. The caption for this image states that an eyewitness saw the wingtip of the aircraft hit the generator, but in my opinion, it had to have been closer in towards the right engine pod since the gap in the fencing surrounding the generator was made by the right engine pod. This also explains why the corner of the "cyclone fence" is still standing as seen in both my picture and Kenny's. More on that to follow.

The artist's depiction below clearly shows that the generator is roughly in-line with the right engine pod and the low wall surrounding the ventilation structure is roughly in-line with the left engine pod.

linked-image

The image below, taken before the side of the building collapsed, shows the generator / container still on fire in the lower right portion of the image:

linked-image

Looking at the generator / container and comparing it to the remaining fencing, it appears as though the fence is only 8-feet high, not 10-feet as claimed by Kenny in later comments (see below).

It just so happens that this image is also one used by the makers of "Loose Change" to put forward the idea that there was only a 16-foot hole created in the front of the Pentagon where flight 77 impacted. What hey DON'T tell you is that the hole they presume is the only damage (indicated by the arrow just to the left of centre) is actually on the second floor and that most of the impact damage was to the ground floor. Conveniently for them, the ground floor damage is hidden in this image by the foam / water being sprayed by the fire truck in the lower left foreground.

KennyB on Jul 4 2009, 09:55 PM, said:

cz, that mark on that ledge is perfectly horizonal. For the wing to have made such a straight mark, the plane would have to have been heeled to the left and the left wing or engine would have caught the fence, the right wing would have been pointing up at a high angle. The only way the left wing could have made that mark would be if it had a gull wing and a little more altitude. Your picture shows the wing in an even lower position than I thought it was. As close as that fence is, there's no way it would have missed being hit by the left wing or the left engine. It was too close for the wing to go over it. If, as you say, the left wing was lower than the right one, it would have centered that fence. That looks like a 10ft fence.  KennyB

As stated above, the "mark on the ledge" is only the roundish gouge taken out of a small portion of the wall. The rest of the wall is perfectly horizontal because that is the top of the one-foot wall. The aircraft was only "heeled over" by a small amount, probably less than 10 degrees. The image below shows the approximate attitude of the aircraft at impact:

linked-image

As you can see, the right wing is raised slightly and the left wing is virtually parallel with the ground. This would have the effect of putting the left engine pod less than a foot above ground, which is consistent with the damage shown to the low wall, and putting the right engine roughly 5 to 6 feet above ground, which again is consistent with the damage seen to the generator / container and the "cyclone fence" surrounding it. The reason the corner portion of the fence is still standing is that it was in the "empty space" between the right engine pod and the aircraft's fuselage. Also, fence corner posts are, generally speaking, sturdier posts, are placed deeper into the ground and usually have concrete poured into the hole surrounding the post to make it stronger and more stable.  

The image also shows the approximate extent of the damage caused to the Pentagon. You can clearly see that considerably more damage was done to the ground floor by the wings, engines and other, heavier parts of the aircraft.

The damage can be seen more clearly in this artist's depiction:

linked-image

Compare that to the following images that show the damage to the ground floor:

linked-image

Damage from the right wing extends up to the second floor slab, but since the wing did not penetrate the floor slab, the damage above there is somewhat limited when compared with the area below the floor slab. Here's a closer look at the second floor slab:

linked-image

And the same area pictured after the collapse:

linked-image

Note the scrape marks above the second floor. These are most likely the results of parts of the aircraft (horizontal and vertical stabilizers, parts of the wing) hitting and disintegrating against the facing wall. Notice also that there is significantly less damage above the second floor slab and that the damage tapers off laterally after column 19 (indicated). This is due to the weaker outer portion of the wing breaking up upon impact with the floor slab. Damage gets more significant toward column 18 and 17. The wing's structure is more substantial and stronger the closer it gets to the fuselage (so that it can support the engines and the fuselage) and would remain intact longer, therefore doing more damage before breaking up completely.

linked-image
This is an image of the damage done to the ground floor by the left wing. Since it was virtually horizontal at the time of impact, most of the damage is limited (vertically) to the ground floor, but as can be seen by the indicated column numbers, extends quite far laterally, as far as column 8. The expansion joint at column 11 indicated is where the facade of the Pentagon initially sagged immediately after impact, and then collapsed approximately 20 minutes later.









Cz




"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe..." - Carl Sagan

"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." – H. L. Mencken

#373    Valdemar the Great

Valdemar the Great

    Mainly Spherical in Shape

  • Member
  • 25,044 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:there

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 06 July 2009 - 07:16 AM

Czero 101 on Jul 5 2009, 11:03 PM, said:

Fair enough. To be sure, this kind of maneuver was most likely not in the designer's minds when they put the plans down for this aircraft. However, I am drawn back to when Boeing's Dash 80 test aircraft (predecessor of the 707) performed a near perfect barrel roll during a demonstration flight over Lake Washington during Seattle's 1955 Seafair.




Cz

I think it'd be quite possible in a 757. I heard somewhere that when the US Navy evaluated one in a ocean patrol capacity, they decided to see what it could do and decided that it'd make quite a good dogfighter if you hung a couple of Sidewidners on it.

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


:cat:


#374    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 06 July 2009 - 08:30 AM

aquatus1 on Jul 6 2009, 12:25 AM, said:

You bring it up every time you discuss the topic.

And you bring up the same flawed argument every time.

Last time you claimed there were 107,000 pilots in the U.S. but this time you state there are only 85,000 in the world… so either 22,000 pilots have retired in the last 3 months or you can’t get your figures straight.  What is interesting though, and this is a trend all across Truth Movement groups, is that the 180+ pilots I was previously quoting have now risen to 200+.

Anyhow, the discussion inevitably ends with me explaining that silence for all intents and purposes constitutes indifference and not agreement with your views.  I then challenge you to find a number of pilots specifically supporting your view to equal those who question the official story.  I have never seen anyone meet that request.


Czero 101 on Jul 6 2009, 02:33 AM, said:

Cz

That appears to be a good analysis of the damage, Cz.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#375    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,484 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 06 July 2009 - 11:22 AM

Q24 on Jul 6 2009, 08:30 AM, said:

And you bring up the same flawed argument every time.


Just because you cannot explain why 200 pilots out of 85,000 is significant does not make it a flawed argument.

Quote

Last time you claimed there were 107,000 pilots in the U.S. but this time you state there are only 85,000 in the world… so either 22,000 pilots have retired in the last 3 months or you can’t get your figures straight.


Actually, I just couldn't find the source I used last time, and unlike others, I dislike saying things that I can't back up.  The closest I could find was a source from 2008.

Quote

What is interesting though, and this is a trend all across Truth Movement groups, is that the 180+ pilots I was previously quoting have now risen to 200+.


Again, please explain to us the significance.  Why is the opinion of 200 pilots out of 85,000 (or out of 107,000, if you insist) significant?

Quote

Anyhow, the discussion inevitably ends with me explaining that silence for all intents and purposes constitutes indifference and not agreement with your views.


Which is in perfect agreement with my claim.  99.76% of all pilots (or, to make you happy, 99.81% of all pilots) find the situation merits indifference, rather than attention.

Quote

I then challenge you to find a number of pilots specifically supporting your view to equal those who question the official story.  I have never seen anyone meet that request.


And I point out that it's likely that you never will.  Just as you will never find a list of people specifically specifically supporting the round Earth theory.  Or a list of people specifically claiming that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy.  You will find, however, lists of people who do not believe that.  People don't bother to sign on to lists claiming the obvious.  It's only when they believe something is not so obvious that they sign on.  Apparently, a lot of pilots don't find the conclusions the Truth movement puts out to be all that obvious.  Heck, if you are right about their indifference, most of them don't find the conclusions to be even worthy of comment.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users