Aircraft in Pentagon security camera video
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
cynical_bastard
Mass Bowel Movement
An invisible missile fired by a plane that moved faster than the eye.
It didn't land, photos show a pristine lawn. It is the flight instructors who tell us that Hani Hanjour was an utterly hopeless pilot. It was the FBI that told us that he was the pilot of flight 77.Stigmata said:
Yes I've seen the Purdue simulation, and it's very good. It has changed my opinion of some things such as lack of aircraft debris. However it hasn't explained the lack of holes where the wings and tail should have gone it, and I don't believe that's a question that they addressed.
Stigmata
sexual tyrannosaurus
This image is a bit vast so i'll just post a link:
http://www.pez.ca/~mashton/images/wtc/pentagon-post.jpg
It gives a good sense of the scale of both the building itself and the extent of the damage. It looks like a large enough target to hit with ease AND the damaged area is wide enough to account for the wingspan.
FFS Jazzz, you must have spent even less time than me researching this online. A nice google image search for 'pentagon' will get you lots of pictures that will disprove your barmy theories.
http://www.pez.ca/~mashton/images/wtc/pentagon-post.jpg
It gives a good sense of the scale of both the building itself and the extent of the damage. It looks like a large enough target to hit with ease AND the damaged area is wide enough to account for the wingspan.
FFS Jazzz, you must have spent even less time than me researching this online. A nice google image search for 'pentagon' will get you lots of pictures that will disprove your barmy theories.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
Solved it
here we can see that the plane was flying in to attack the giant gozilla like dragon
seen here under infra red light
here we can see that the plane was flying in to attack the giant gozilla like dragon
seen here under infra red light
editor
hiraethified
Yes. Fortunately, the hotel security had just installed a brand new experimental high speed camera which managed to track the 'faster-than-the-eye-can see' missile-launching, invisible fighter jet striking the Pentagon at 10,000 frames/second.cynical_bastard said:
The staff (who naturally had full access to the tapes) shrieked in horror as the 757 passenger plane first morphed into a missile-spewing fighter jet and then a 'mini-me' Dinky sized version of the 757 before it slammed into the Pentagon.
Happily, the dwarf-sized pilot managed to eject out of the shrinking aircraft at the speed of light and arrive ten years in the future.
alphaDelta
◘◘\«ˆ»/◘◘
Here's what happens in the ultimate battle of aeroplane vs. solid object:
http://www.sandia.gov/media/mov_mpg/f_4crashtest_slow.mov
See those small bits going everywhere? Debris. Fin.
http://www.sandia.gov/media/mov_mpg/f_4crashtest_slow.mov
See those small bits going everywhere? Debris. Fin.
Stigmata said:
With respect, you haven't spent quite as much time as me yet
. Have a look at this site by xox which contains a 3-D superimposition of a 757 on a reconstruction of the Pentagon facade from photos taken before the wall collapsed.The superimposition are on this page http://0911.site.voila.fr/index2.htm
To my knowledge, no-one has attempted any account as to how the wings and tail vanished into the structure of the Pentagon. You must admit that this is somewhat puzzling.
And there's no need to be rude - I'm a patient chap and we are here, ostensibly, to help each reason.
alphaDelta
◘◘\«ˆ»/◘◘
What clearly happened is that secret monkeys (see previous image) were controlling the scene from a 5D lizard perspective, and ergo, what you see crashing into the giant block is not a conventional aeroplane but some kind of miniature cyborg horse.
It is for precisely this reason that the block became self-aware and took it upon itself to subvert this evil and inexplicable plot, and as you can see, not only destroyed the rocket driven robodevilry with its rebel concrete power, but directed the majority of its remains upwards into the atmosphere.
The debris was about to reach its intended space destination where it would be analysed by clever boffins and turned into a self-replenishing source of food for the world's poor. Alas! 'Twas not to be. Travelling silently, invisibly and at exactly nine miles per hour, it was intercepted by equine outlaw Shergar from his Moon base stable, where his mind had been subtly altered by weeks of drug abuse and jam.
Taking the initiative from his binary-brained cohorts, he fashioned the miniscule bits into a giant laser (which also fired conventional bullets, for backwards compatibility) and used it - YES! - to go back in time and assassinate the President.
OR DID HE?
It is for precisely this reason that the block became self-aware and took it upon itself to subvert this evil and inexplicable plot, and as you can see, not only destroyed the rocket driven robodevilry with its rebel concrete power, but directed the majority of its remains upwards into the atmosphere.
The debris was about to reach its intended space destination where it would be analysed by clever boffins and turned into a self-replenishing source of food for the world's poor. Alas! 'Twas not to be. Travelling silently, invisibly and at exactly nine miles per hour, it was intercepted by equine outlaw Shergar from his Moon base stable, where his mind had been subtly altered by weeks of drug abuse and jam.
Taking the initiative from his binary-brained cohorts, he fashioned the miniscule bits into a giant laser (which also fired conventional bullets, for backwards compatibility) and used it - YES! - to go back in time and assassinate the President.
OR DID HE?
editor
hiraethified
Good job I am too, because you're sure taking a very, very long time to answer my questions.DrJazzz said:
Your story seems to be shifting about a bit too, so I'd be obliged if you could clarify what it was that you think hit the Pentagon.
Was it:
(a) an invisible missile?
(b) an invisible missile fired by an invisible fighter plane guided by a suicidal pilot?
(c) an invisible missile fired by an invisible fighter plane guided by remote control?
(d) a proportion-fooling "mini me" version of a 757 piloted by a suicidal dwarf?
(e) a proportion-fooling "mini me" version of a 757 piloted by a missile-firing suicidal dwarf?
(f) a proportion-fooling Dinky toy version of a 757 piloted by remote control?
...or - call me crazy here -
(g) the hijacked Flight 77 757 passenger aircraft as seen by a host of independent eye witnesses?
Thanks awfully.
alphaDelta
◘◘\«ˆ»/◘◘
They don't call you Editor for nothing 
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Well, it's relatively polite, even if it doesn't make a lot of sense.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Are yours?
DrJazzz said:With respect, you haven't spent quite as much time as me yet
The superimposition are on this page http://0911.site.voila.fr/index2.htm
To my knowledge, no-one has attempted any account as to how the wings and tail vanished into the structure of the Pentagon. You must admit that this is somewhat puzzling.
And there's no need to be rude - I'm a patient chap and we are here, ostensibly, to help each reason.
for what it's worth DrJazz...i follow what the point your trying to make is. i also agree and have found much regarding the fact that a 757 is not responsible for the damage to the pentagon. the evidence clearly shows that the impact site is far too small and the damage is not consistent with being hit by a 757.
so then what did? good question...and that's what is worth discussing and finding out. sooner or later the actual truth will come out...we might be not around by then. but it will.
editor
hiraethified
I'm trying to get a straight answer out of you.DrJazzz said:let's be honest editor... your questions aren't really in the spirit of genuine enquiry, are they?
In this thread you've variously suggested that it was a missile, a missile firing fighter jet and, more recently, a perspective-challenging mini version of a 757 that hit the Pentagon.
So I'll ask you again. Which one is it and how was it flown? How come no one spotted it?
And what happened to the original plane and passengers?
Why can't you give a straight answer to these central questions?
With each fresh wriggle, your 'argument' looks more and more ridiculous.
editor
hiraethified
Ah! An expert on the impact of 757s into reinforced concrete structures! What are you basing your claim on? What research have you seen into this kind of incident? Please share it.NuTbAr said:
And did you not watch that video of the fighter jet being smashed into zillions of tiny little pieces when it hit a concrete structure at high speed? Was that 'inconsistent' too?
And how about the University study into the impact? What was 'inconsistent' about their findings?
What damage do you think would be 'consistent' with a 757 hitting the Pentagon? A Tom and Jerry-style outline of the jet stamped into the structure?
And, err, how do you explain all the eye witness reports of a 757 passenger jet? And what happened to the original plane and its passengers? Where did it go? Any ideas? Any evidence?
Anything?!
I just finished watching a video about Rumsfield and it showed the plane crash at the pentagon. Rumsfield was working their at the time of the crash and there was massive amounts of debri on the pentagon lawn....The photo's you've seen are fakes that have been circulating the net since it happened by the usual groups of nutters.
DR. J. you dismiss all photo's except a couple out of many that support what your saying but accuse others of Cherry Picking?...c'mon mate, lets get at least a bit fair dinkum here....
alphaDelta
◘◘\«ˆ»/◘◘
In seriousness, I should point out some things about the F4/concrete block video, and what happened to the debris. I too initially thought: where did it go?
The aircraft in the video is an old (1958-1979) military jet. These are typically made out of stronger materials and heavily armored as they get not only shot at but subjected to stronger physical forces.
The Boeing 757-200 was first built in 1983. Civil airliners are made of lighter materials and designed for efficiency, not survivability, as you would expect. This is especially true of modern aircraft; I discussed this at length with some aviation engineers after the recent talk of introducing air marshals, and the general concensus was that with new thin-skinned airliners, a single bullet impacting the fuselage would have disastrous potential.
The video is from Sandia and you can get stills and information at http://www.sandia.gov/media/NRgallery00-03.htm . The website there states that the experiment was carried out with the jet fuel mass replaced by water. This negates any effect of fire and fuel-driven explosion which would have further destroyed any intact debris.
It also states that "The test established that the major impact force was from the engines" which is demonstrated in the Pentagon aftermath. There are neat round holes/tunnels running through the building where the engines have passed. One of the conspiricock presentations asks "are we really supposed to believe that the engine punched a neat hole in this wall?"
The answer is "yes". The engines are the only significant solid part of any airliner. Their disproportionate mass means that they therefore going to maintain more inertia than any other part of the aircraft and thus, essentially act as a battering ram on anything they encounter.
Here's two picture of a tower block hit by a larger 747. The website I found it on is a proponent of the conspiracy theory but in actual fact I think it supports the official account.
http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/w921004-1.jpg -- the block
http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/donley_z.jpg -- close up
757: 220,000lb max weight., 38m wingspan
747: 775,000lb max weight., 60m wingspan
The aircraft in the video is an old (1958-1979) military jet. These are typically made out of stronger materials and heavily armored as they get not only shot at but subjected to stronger physical forces.
The Boeing 757-200 was first built in 1983. Civil airliners are made of lighter materials and designed for efficiency, not survivability, as you would expect. This is especially true of modern aircraft; I discussed this at length with some aviation engineers after the recent talk of introducing air marshals, and the general concensus was that with new thin-skinned airliners, a single bullet impacting the fuselage would have disastrous potential.
The video is from Sandia and you can get stills and information at http://www.sandia.gov/media/NRgallery00-03.htm . The website there states that the experiment was carried out with the jet fuel mass replaced by water. This negates any effect of fire and fuel-driven explosion which would have further destroyed any intact debris.
It also states that "The test established that the major impact force was from the engines" which is demonstrated in the Pentagon aftermath. There are neat round holes/tunnels running through the building where the engines have passed. One of the conspiricock presentations asks "are we really supposed to believe that the engine punched a neat hole in this wall?"
The answer is "yes". The engines are the only significant solid part of any airliner. Their disproportionate mass means that they therefore going to maintain more inertia than any other part of the aircraft and thus, essentially act as a battering ram on anything they encounter.
Here's two picture of a tower block hit by a larger 747. The website I found it on is a proponent of the conspiracy theory but in actual fact I think it supports the official account.
http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/w921004-1.jpg -- the block
http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/donley_z.jpg -- close up
757: 220,000lb max weight., 38m wingspan
747: 775,000lb max weight., 60m wingspan
Personally, I think it was Batman or MmmSkyScraper
My reasonings are a montage of clip and paste material from the esteemed folk at ww.write-your-own-nutcase-randomn-conspiracy-theory.com/bollocks.html and the compelling and undeniable evidence that is brought forward in this photo which clearly shows the Batplane over a white object of somekind, possibly the Pentagon
and I'd also like to streneously deny any rumours that I'm not taking Jazz's 4 billionth conspiracy theory thread seriously.
My reasonings are a montage of clip and paste material from the esteemed folk at ww.write-your-own-nutcase-randomn-conspiracy-theory.com/bollocks.html and the compelling and undeniable evidence that is brought forward in this photo which clearly shows the Batplane over a white object of somekind, possibly the Pentagon
and I'd also like to streneously deny any rumours that I'm not taking Jazz's 4 billionth conspiracy theory thread seriously.
Stigmata
sexual tyrannosaurus
DrJazzz said:
Really the burden of answering questions is on you though. After all, you started this thread, you should defend it and answer some questions . For example, what are you trying to persuade us was in the big box carried out of the Pentagon? And what is wrong with Editor's eyewitnesses?
alphaDelta
◘◘\«ˆ»/◘◘
So is the question of the damage area / lack of identifiable debris solved for you? If not, why not?
editor
hiraethified
You started this thread to discuss the 'aircraft in Pentagon security camera video'.DrJazzz said:
You appear to have changed your story several times so it is entirely reasonable to ask what you believe this mysterious aircraft was.
So was it a missile, a missile-firing fighter jet or a perspective-challenging mini version of a 757 that hit the Pentagon - and if so who piloted it?
Then we can move on to why this missile/fighter jet/mini 757 was not seen by a living soul while there are eye witnesses galore saying that they saw the 757 hit the Pentagon.
Similar threads
- Locked
