Aircraft in Pentagon security camera video

[laptop]

One of the conspiricock presentations asks "are we really supposed to believe that the engine punched a neat hole in this wall?"

One of the problems the conspiricocks )) have is that their arguments - like creationists' - take the form "I cannot imagine that X happened..." They then forget that the main verb in this sentence is "imagine", not "happen".

And what is their intuitive engineering based on? Hollywood representations of car crashes, probably.

"At that speed, the plane itself is like a sausage skin," Sozen said. "It doesn't have much strength and virtually crumbles on impact."

But the combined mass of everything inside the plane – particularly the large amount of fuel onboard – can be likened to a huge river crashing into the building.

So of course what happened is not what they imagine happening. How many people - other than real engineers - think of a plane as essentially a Flußwurst?


* big-river-sausage

 

[Jazzz]

One of the problems the conspiricocks )) have is that their arguments - like creationists' - take the form "I cannot imagine that X happened..." They then forget that the main verb in this sentence is "imagine", not "happen".

And what is their intuitive engineering based on? Hollywood representations of car crashes, probably.



So of course what happened is not what they imagine happening. How many people - other than real engineers - think of a plane as essentially a Flußwurst?


* big-river-sausage

If you had bothered to read the thread, you would have seen that my objections to the flight 77 theory are not based on the lack of debris.

And your 'Hollywood' observation is an interesting one, because the WTC south tower fireballs was just that - a 'Hollywood' plane crash. No way should it have exploded like that.

 

[alphaDelta]

And what is their intuitive engineering based on? Hollywood representations of car crashes, probably.

And no Harrison Ford running from/into/from-then-into the fire? An abject impossibility!

My favourite bit of conspiricock (I do love that) and conclusion for the day is this:

Take note of the time posted in the white area. Why does it say Sep. 12, 2001, 17:37:19 when we all know the plane hit on the morning of September 11th?

Erm... yeees... but, why does it also say 'plane'? I told you, time-travelling robohorses with a penchant for labels

 

[alphaDelta]

If you had bothered to read the thread, you would have seen that my objections to the flight 77 theory are not based on the lack of debris.

Oh?

There are questions of much harder evidence such as impact hole size/identifiable debris/missing wings which are of much greater import to me.

 

[editor]

If you had bothered to read the thread, you would have seen that my objections to the flight 77 theory are not based on the lack of debris.

Seeing as you started this interminable thread, will you kindly express an opinion about what it was that 'really' hit the Pentagon, please?

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. Maybe next week it'll be a holographic boomerang.

So what hit the Pentagon and how was it flown? If it wasn't flight 77 how come no one noticed it?

And what happened to the original plane and passengers?

If you're not prepared to answer questions directly related to the thread title, there's no point in posting such threads.

 

[WouldBe]

And your 'Hollywood' observation is an interesting one, because the WTC south tower fireballs was just that - a 'Hollywood' plane crash. No way should it have exploded like that.

When was the last time you saw a 757 crash into a tower block in real life to know what the explosion should look like?

 

[cynical_bastard]

No way should it have exploded like that.

It was full of aviation fuel. What did you expect it to do, splutter and then go out?

 

[Loki]

It was full of aviation fuel. What did you expect it to do, splutter and then go out?

Exactly! All the planes hijacked were long haul flights, carefully chosen because they were full of aviation fuel which as we all know is extremely volatile.

 

[WouldBe]

It was full of aviation fuel. What did you expect it to do, splutter and then go out?

He'll be telling us next that the Concorde crash was faked as that was a 'hollywood' style explosion as well !!!

 

[alphaDelta]

http://www.sandia.gov/media/images/jpg/f4_image3.jpg (2.5mb)

It's that bloody Phantom again (turning out rather handy, that) and that didn't even have any fuel in it!

 

[editor]

It's that bloody Phantom again (turning out rather handy, that) and that didn't even have any fuel in it!

Pah! Those Hollywood special effects guys get everywhere! (that image must surely silence DrJ's claims about the WTC explosion being 'too Hollywood!).

But back on topic, I'm still waiting for DrJ to FINALLY tell me what it was he thinks hit the Pentagon if it wasn't Flight 77...

Was it an invisible missile? Was it an invisible fighter jet firing invisible missiles? Or was it the incredible shrinking 757?!

Only DrJ apparently knows....

 

[almeria]

Well it sure wasn't a 757, otherwise it would be all over the lawn, and there are no photos showing any wreckage, which, let's face it if that was the case, there would be. Rumsfeld said it was a missile, and he should know. Various people said various things, and there was a definite PR job going on on the day, with moving taxi shots and strange cut-off light poles. What I want to know is, what happened to the super pentagon foolproof auto missile shooting down prevention system. Did someone forget to turn it on?

 

[editor]

Well it sure wasn't a 757, otherwise it would be all over the lawn

You haven't bothered to read any of this thread have you?

Why would there be big parts of the 757 "all over the lawn"? Do you expect it to bounce back off the Pentagon or something?

The movie link posted up a few pages back proved conclusively that a plane hitting a solid object at high speed will be smashed to tiny, tiny pieces.



PS What did all the eye witnesses see if it "definitely wasn't a 757'?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

and there are photos showing wreckage

 

[alphaDelta]

there are no photos showing any wreckage

http://members.shaw.ca/freedomtwo/wreckage.jpg What's that, a robot hoof?

 

[editor]

and there are photos showing wreckage

Apparently, an invisible delivery van dropped them off on the lawn after the invisible missile/fighter/Airfix-sized 757 smashed into the Pentagon.

 

[almeria]

OK whatever you say.

 

[editor]

OK whatever you say.

If you're going to charge in here making big exciting conspiracy claims, how about you back them up?

 

[alphaDelta]

Even the interpretation of the crap quality photos is bollocks! I mean, I had a look, and I thought the more obvious outline was this:

Not one where half the damn thing is sky and where the nose of it points in such a direction that would carry it over the target

 

[almeria]

I'm not barging in making any claims, merely reading this interesting thread and adding my two cents. I would have thought that there should be some wreckage of a 100-ton airliner, even small pieces, the five frames of film and the spare bits of metal on the ground are not convincing to me. Also, I don't have a theory, I don't care what hit the place, my point was that nothing is supposed to get near the pentagon... the failsafe missile defence system should have destroyed any incoming plane, missile, or truckbomb, but apparently it didn't work. Or wasn't switched on? That's much more interesting.

 

[alphaDelta]

What's a Patriot/Stinger missile going to do to a one hundred tonne object travelling at four hundred miles an hour? Other than miss it?

 

[almeria]

Well then the defence system isn't much good is it? Isn't that exactly what it's supposed to deal with?

 

[almeria]

oh I see.. that was a joke. .. sorry

 

[editor]

I'm not barging in making any claims, merely reading this interesting thread and adding my two cents. I would have thought that there should be some wreckage of a 100-ton airliner, even small pieces, the five frames of film and the spare bits of metal on the ground are not convincing to me. .

Right. So what level of debris would you find 'convincing' and what experience/analysis of 757 jets hitting reinforced concrete structures are you drawing on to make your conclusion?

Another poster has linked to academic research on the Pentagon crash and included a video clearly showing the devastating damage that happened to a jet fighter hitting a concrete object.

These findings appear to be completely in line with the Pentagon crash site, but if you're not 'convinced' could you highlight the areas of research you're disputing please and list your source material?

 

[alphaDelta]

No, that's what the air force is for. Tom Clancy, an author who generally does good military research, wrote about a 747 being flown into the Capitol building in "Debt of Honor" (1994) and it in he wrote that a Stinger missile would have no chance and no time to be effective.

Recently a BBC programme, although not as accurate, detailed a scenario of a hijacked airliner headed for London. There was described a "point of no return" after which the RAF were not permitted to shoot it down because of the civilian casualties on the ground.

Imagine that they shot it down and saved the Pentagon, but its burning wreckage landed in neighbourhoods, on offices, in playgrounds. Would that be acceptable?

I think it can be argued that if they did have the opportunity, the correct response, at the time it became visible from the Pentagon building, would be to do nothing.

Edit: No, it wasn't a joke. It is inherently futile and nothing can be done.

 

[editor]

Imagine that they shot it down and saved the Pentagon, but its burning wreckage landed in neighbourhoods, on offices, in playgrounds. Would that be acceptable?

Imagine the outcry if the Stinger/Patriot missiles missed their target and smashed into local buildings, houses, schools etc

 

[almeria]

Hmm... you're missing my point. The pentagon famously has an AUTOMATIC missile defence system that kicks in regardless of people, traffic or other aircraft. In other words, any flying object that gets too close... BOOM. So what went wrong?

 

[alphaDelta]

The pentagon famously has an AUTOMATIC missile defence system

Does it? Can you link to an official source about it? It may well be the case than in wartime it would be protected by SAM sites and air defences, but all the time? Ak-ak on the roof?

As I've said, it might be useful against Cessnas or helicopters, but ultimately, it is inherently useless and what's more, you don't go shooting things out of the sky without (a) being very sure and (b) making a huge deadly mess.

Plus, I don't believe that any such defence system is automatic. That'd be truly disastrous by design.

 

[editor]

The pentagon famously has an AUTOMATIC missile defence system that kicks in regardless of people, traffic or other aircraft.

Could you provide a credible link to this 'famous' automated missile defence system please?

 

[snadge]

Hmm... you're missing my point. The pentagon famously has an AUTOMATIC missile defence system that kicks in regardless of people, traffic or other aircraft. In other words, any flying object that gets too close... BOOM. So what went wrong?

you've sussed it

it did fire and the missile boomeranged back into the pentagon....dr jazz you were right