you know what's astonishing?

[chunky]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

I saw some footage of lloyd england before. The bloke looks like a Crystal Meth addict. I will have a look

[runningman]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

what cabbie doesn't have his problems??

[Miroslav]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

This isn't very convincing either. You could probably ID these parts as Silo or Fork Truck parts if you wanted. Its a just like the plane footage they released, They should have better pictures and video evidence but we are not seeing it. .

Dude. The plane impacted at very high speed and exploded and burned. They tend to disassemble into little pieces when that happens; a huge portion of the mass is liquid fuel. So I'm sorry that there are no "better pictures" left for you. What exactly do you want? An intact aircraft with a big neon sign that says "this was a 757 jet and it crashed and here is a detailed view of what it looked like"? There are also pictures like this:


But I'm sure that's a fake too, right.. the government just brought in wheelbarrows of broken parts at night and strategically placed them all around so that it would only look a little bit like a plane crashed there. If the government really wanted to plant evidence to make it look like a plane had hit there when it hadn't, don't you think they could and would have picked more recognizable and convincing parts??

[QUOTE=chunky;783138]If you look at the area where the 2 planes hit the twin towers the entry point has clearly shows the area where the wings went into the building, not just a round hole. At the Pentagon all I see is a round hole. Did the wings fold up into the undercarriage?
[QUOTE=chunky;783272]The Wings Folded In. Now I'm really scared of flying.


1. Guess what, that is not the entry hole on the outer wall, but AN EXIT HOLE FROM SOME OF THE DEBRIS BETWEEN THE INNER C AND D RINGS of the Pentagon. You can't conclude much about the state of the wings at the initial impact from it.

It seems that everyone assumes that this has something to do with the entry hole, and it DOESN'T. The original entry on the outer ring isn't so clearly visible because the entire facade of the building collapsed about 20 minutes after the initial impact (yeah I know, no doubt part of the "conspiracy", huh?). By the time the plane got there, it was a hurtling mass of debris with mainly the mass of objects within the long tube of the plane still determining the momentum and direction of the debris traveling inward. The wings also serve as gas tanks; they are basically relatively thin aluminum alloys filled with liquid fuel that EXPLODED; by the time you're at the inner rings, those wings are long gone. The best theory is that this was a hole caused by a big chunk of the landing gear system that separated from the plane (don't think anyone can ever prove it, though).

2.Structural engineers at Purdue University developed a very complex computerized physics simulation that concluded that the physical aftermath is actually quite within the real of reality.

It's the most advanced simulation of it that I know of, taking all characteristics possible into account (characteristics/ dimensions of aircraft, composition of building, speed/altitude/attitude of the aircraft, etc.

http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html

http://wiki.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/doku.php?id=projects:visualization_large-scale_simulations

http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/...Sozen.WTC.html (they also did this for WTC a few years ago)

The model indicates the most critical effects were from the mass moving at high velocity.

"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.

3. Even with regard to the entry hole (if you could still clearly see it), you can't easily compare the WTC impact to the Pentagon - WTC had the steel columns towards the middle core of the building, but the Pentagon was REINFORCED STEEL CONCRETE ON THE OUTSIDE = MUCH TOUGHER than the WTC outer wall.

Purdue took this into account:

The simulation deals specifically with steel-reinforced concrete buildings, as opposed to skyscrapers like the World Trade Center's twin towers, in which structural steel provided the required strength and stiffness. Reinforced concrete is inherently fire resistant, unlike structural steel, which is vulnerable to fire and must undergo special fireproofing.

"Because the structural skeleton of the Pentagon had a high level of toughness, it was able to absorb much of the kinetic energy from the impact," said Christoph M. Hoffmann, a professor in the Department of Computer Sciences and at Purdue's Computing Research Institute.

And there are plenty of other places online where you can read about the structure and composition of the Pentagon (what's not classified, of course).

4. At any rate, other documented cases exist where the entry hole of an aircraft hitting a building wasn't as big as the wings for a variety of reasons, and visuals of the entry damage shows that there was damage caused by the wings - but since they are basically thin aluminum over huge fuel tanks, they promptly exploded.

http://users.erols.com/igoddard/pentagon.htm

5. There is still a ton of other evidence that you continue to consistently overlook - eyewitnesses, phone calls from passengers on the aircraft, and DNA tests that confirmed the remnants of the passengers all throughout the Pentagon impact area.

A. Lots of people SAW THE PLANE - about 104 on record.

See lots of sources here:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

From the lists above, 136 people saw the plane approach the Pentagon, and
104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.

26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.

7 said it was a Boeing 757.

8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.

4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.

2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.

15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.

3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.

3 took photographs of the aftermath.

Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."

And of course,

0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.

0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.

B. Two passengers on the plane - Rene May and Barbara Olsen - even called their family members telling them the plane had been hijacked.

http://debunk911myths.org/topics/Phone_calls

C. DNA tests were painstakingly performed and confirmed the remains of LOTS of the passengers of the flight

Remains of the passengers and those victims on the ground at the Pentagon were found and identified.

Photographs of victim remains at the Pentagon were presented at the Moussaoui trial:

P200042, P200045, P200047, P200048


Location of remains recovered at the Pentagon (first floor)


Location of remains recovered at the Pentagon (second floor)


Remains of one passenger, Lang Steuerle, were recovered on the third floor. (see diagram)

Remains of additional passengers were recovered during debris sifting operations: Mary Jane Booth, Charles F. Burlingame III (pilot), David M. Charlebois (first officer), Eddie A. Dillard, Barbara Edwards, Dana Falkenberg, Stanley R. Hall, Yvonne E. Kennedy, Christopher C. Newton, Robert Penninger, Zandra F. Ploger, Lisa J. Raines, Diane M. Simmons, John D. Yamnicky, Sr., Shuyin Yang. Remains of other victims (non-passengers) at the Pentagon were also recovered during debris sifting operations: John J. Chada, Julian T. Cooper, Brenda C. Gibson, Ronald F. Golinski, ET1 Ronald J. Hemenway, James T. Lynhc, Rhonda S. Rasmussen, Antoinette M. Sherman.

[B]D. Assessment of some of the engine parts that remained and the landing gear suggest it is very consistent with that of a 757.[/B

]

I'll make a separate post about this for runningman - see that one. Here are the links for now (you can visually see how they match up):

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0290.shtml

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...cy/q0265.shtml

So now what will it be, chunky? Are you going to accept that the most likely explanation for what happened that day, based on the entire network of all of the aggregate evidence that we've been able to collect, is that a 757 hit the Pentagon?

Or are you going to
1. deny the eyewitness reports
2. deny the DNA reports
3. deny the people who made phone calls from the plane
4. deny the debris remaining
5. deny the advanced computer simulation assessment
6. deny the fact that the exit hole in the inner rings can't tell you anything about the wings at the point of the entry hole
7. deny the difference in composition between the Pentagon and the WTC, and
8. deny the analysis that matches the more identifiable debris to a 757...

...so that you can maintain your conspiracy theory?

I would suggest that you adjust your unrealistic layman expectations of what happens to an aircraft under these scenarios based on this network of direct and circumstantial evidence, as well as on the analysis and assessment of experts. But that's just me...

...and I can hear you now... "all that evidence was planted; it's part of the conspiracy..."

[chunky]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Dude. The plane impacted at very high speed and exploded and burned. They tend to disassemble into little pieces when that happens; a huge portion of the mass is liquid fuel. So I'm sorry that there are no "better pictures" left for you. What exactly do you want? An intact aircraft with a big neon sign that says "this was a 757 jet and it crashed and here is a detailed view of what it looked like"? There are also pictures like this:


But I'm sure that's a fake too, right.. the government just brought in wheelbarrows of broken parts at night and strategically placed them all around so that it would only look a little bit like a plane crashed there. If the government really wanted to plant evidence to make it look like a plane had hit there when it hadn't, don't you think they could and would have picked more recognizable and convincing parts??

They didnt have to the place was under reconstrution.

Is the roof of the Pentagon is still intact in this photo? Is that fire truck 61 in the photo?

[runningman]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

look what this comes down to is either you believe that some guys in a cave got NORAD to stand down and scrambled your fighters all over the country and allowed 4 planes to get hijacked with a 75% success rate of hitting WTC 1, 2 and the Pentagon. As well as turned off over 20 cameras that would have caught the plane hitting the pentagon. As well as make building 7 fall down for no apparent reason into its own footprint.

Or you believe that there was more to it and want a new investigation. Miro you always come back with gov't documents and we always come back with;

Independant interviews saying otherwise
Scientific fact that Thermite or thermate was used
Secrecy over the Pentagon cameras that they won't release
Donald rumsfeld admitting they shot down United 93
The owner of Building 7 saying to pull it
Firefighters in the buildings saying there were bombs in the buildings

Nobody even talks about United 93

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX78zSjnY1s[/YOUTUBE]

I mean what a strange day,

3 buildings for the first time ever fell from fire.
The Pentagon got hit(Who would have thought that).
The Pentagon plane was incinerated, as well as the black boxes in the WTC's, but Hani Hanjour's passport survived the explosion. Oh not to mention that Hani couldn't fly a plane. His instructor coulsn't believe that Hani could do those maneuvers because he was horrible.


New Investigation for sure!!

[chunky]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

1. Guess what, that is not the entry hole on the outer wall, but AN EXIT HOLE FROM SOME OF THE DEBRIS BETWEEN THE INNER C AND D RINGS of the Pentagon. You can't conclude much about the state of the wings at the initial impact from it.

It seems that everyone assumes that this has something to do with the entry hole, and it DOESN'T. The original entry on the outer ring isn't so clearly visible because the entire facade of the building collapsed about 20 minutes after the initial impact (yeah I know, no doubt part of the "conspiracy", huh?). By the time the plane got there, it was a hurtling mass of debris with mainly the mass of objects within the long tube of the plane still determining the momentum and direction of the debris traveling inward. The wings also serve as gas tanks; they are basically filled with liquid fuel that EXPLODED; by the time you're at the inner rings, those wings gone. The best theory is that this was a hole caused by a big chunk of the landing gear system that separated from the plane (don't think anyone can ever prove it, though).

3. Even with regard to the entry hole (if you could still clearly see it), you can't easily compare the WTC impact to the Pentagon - WTC had the steel columns towards the middle core of the building, but the Pentagon was REINFORCED STEEL CONCRETE ON THE OUTSIDE = MUCH TOUGHER than the WTC outer wall.

So the wings folded in like butter but the plane fuselage remaned a nice round circular shape as it penetrated the walls? There is also no damage to the floor in the photo either. That must be some smoove crash.

2.Structural engineers at Purdue University developed a very complex computerized physics simulation that concluded that the physical aftermath is actually quite within the real of reality.

It's the most advanced simulation of it that I know of, taking all characteristics possible into account (characteristics/ dimensions of aircraft, composition of building, speed/altitude/attitude of the aircraft, etc.

Isn't this what NIST did when they couldn't recreate the twin tower in the furnaces?

[runningman]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

they always go to visual simulization because that is the best way to manipulate the science. But it was "complex" i'm sure.

[Miroslav]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

So the wings folded in like butter but the plane fuselage remaned a nice round cirular shape as it penatrated the walls? There is also no damage to the floor in the photo either. That must be some smooove crash.

I really wonder if you read anything that I wrote... How much clearer can I make this for you? I would scream this into your ear canal in person, if I could, to see if it might register with you:

1. The pentagon is made up of a bunch of rings - by the time you get to those inner rings, THE WINGS NO LONGER EXIST. They are thin aluminum alloys filled with liquid gas and they go kaboom already when they impact the outer walls at such a high speed. Nothing magically "folded" anywhere. Get it?


2. And that's not the hole for the fuselage anyways, because it didn't exist by that time (was already just a hurtling mass of debris). No one can be exactly 100% sure of every detail of circumstance that created that hole, because it wasn't documentable and a lot of the evidence was burning. The most accepted explanation is that it was a portion of the landing gear apparatus that somehow managed to separate, not necessarily all of the debris of the aircraft.

3. You're still ignoring the entire mountain of the rest of the evidence I posted up there.
Look, I fully admit that I can't explain EVERY DETAIL of how this happened to you. I wasn't there, and even fully trained experts couldn't explain it to you because they weren't there and don't have perfect documentation.

But how much like a conspiracy theorist you are... You ignore or blithely dismiss the mass of evidence that clearly suggests an outcome that you don't like and pick at one or two things that can't be fully explained, and you assume that this is sufficient to refute that entire mountain of evidence.

I don't have much faith in your willingness or ability to weight the aggregate evidence and return a reasonable verdict. I'm convinced that there is NOTHING that anyone could ever show you that would convince you otherwise, short of bringing the pilots and passengers back from the dead and having the tell it to you, and miraculously recreating the plane out of the smoldering debris - and even then, you'd probably find SOME way to cling to your conspiracy. So go ahead and stick to your misinterpreted picture and your one or two facts that no one can explain 100% and believe that the earth is flat...

Isnt this what NIST did when they couldnt recreate the twin tower in the furnaces?

This actually is a completely independent assessment and has nothing to do with that.

[chunky]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Or are you going to
1. deny the eyewitness reports
2. deny the DNA reports
3. deny the people who made phone calls from the plane
4. deny the debris remaining
5. deny the advanced computer simulation assessment
6. deny the fact that the exit hole in the inner rings can't tell you anything about the wings at the point of the entry hole
7. deny the difference in composition between the Pentagon and the WTC, and
8. deny the analysis that matches the more identifiable debris to a 757...

...so that you can maintain your conspiracy theory?

No I'm not going to deny any of them. But I am going to question every one of them.

[runningman]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Miro why are you wearing your Captain America suit again? I mean I explained it great a couple posts ago.

What happened to NORAD?
How did the planes even make it there?
What more do you need to realize something is fishy?

[chunky]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

I I don't have much faith in your willingness or ability to weight the aggregate evidence and return a reasonable verdict. I'm convinced that there is NOTHING that anyone could ever show you that would convince you otherwise, short of bringing the pilots and passengers back from the dead and having the tell it to you, and miraculously recreating the plane out of the smoldering debris - and even then, you'd probably find SOME way to cling to your conspiracy. So go ahead and stick to your misinterpreted picture and your one or two facts that no one can explain 100% and believe that the earth is flat...

No just some of the large amount of video footage of the plane that the pentagon will be enough?

How did you get on with Bush's ambition that he saw a terrible pilot cause a terrible accident when he saw the first plane on TV on 9/11 ?

[runningman]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Ya or why wasn't Bush run out by the Secret Service when they figured they were attacked?

How did they know that there wasn't terrorists outside of that school coming for him if it was an attack?

[floridaorange]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

From facts we can all agree that:
The length of the outside wall on any side of the pentagon is 921 feet.
The wingspan of a 757 is 124 feet 10 inches.
Now, everyone can agree that 921/125= roughly 7.4 right?



Given the size of the 757, and the size of the Pentagon, the damaged area fits in peftectly with the dimensions of both the aircraft and the building.

Look at the hole in the building


Here is the hole in the building - it's been reported by at least a dozen different sources (including conspiracy theory sites) to be a 16 to 20 foot hole. That is really interesting when you take into account the fact that the 757 body is 12 ft 4in wide and 13 ft 6in high. (Here is where I was mistaken in the past, like so very many others I was led astray by the HEIGHT of the aircraft, which is actually the measurement from the wheels-down to the tip of the tail. That measurement is for aircraft hangar clearance, not the SIZE of the aircraft.) The 757 is basically a cylinder that is 13 feet across. It then should not be surprising that it would create something around a thirteen foot hole in the side of the building.

Look at the nose-on view of a 757 - you can see the body is slightly less than 1/3 the size of the height of the aircraft. The tail certainly isn't going to punch a hole through a reinforced concrete wall; that is why there is no 40 foot hole in the front of the Pentagon in any photos. A 40 foot object didn't hit it, a 13 foot object did.







It's obvious a 757 hit the pentagon, what makes it hard for some to believe is that the Government took their time when it came to releasing the evidence and videos.

[chunky]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Look at the hole in the building


Here is the hole in the building - it's been reported by at least a dozen different sources (including conspiracy theory sites) to be a 16 to 20 foot hole. That is really interesting when you take into account the fact that the 757 body is 12 ft 4in wide and 13 ft 6in high. (Here is where I was mistaken in the past, like so very many others I was led astray by the HEIGHT of the aircraft, which is actually the measurement from the wheels-down to the tip of the tail. That measurement is for aircraft hangar clearance, not the SIZE of the aircraft.) The 757 is basically a cylinder that is 13 feet across. It then should not be surprising that it would create something around a thirteen foot hole in the side of the building.

That is one very square shaped hole. That must of been one of them now I'm square, now I'm round aeroplane fuselage's that have the folding wings and tails that don't damage the walls on the way in?

A plane like this made a hole like that

[YOUTUBE]uG4btRom9tE[/YOUTUBE]

[runningman]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

hahahaha^^ I laughed for a good 2 mins after that..thx. Don't forget the super duper paint that is what kept it square..