The strangest Coincidence regarding the Pentagon attack on 9/11

a reply to: D8Tee

It's up to the aircraft owner to cancel the registration number. It's not done automatically. American cancelled their registration, which is why Flight 11 and 77 were shown destroyed. United didn't cancel theirs until later.

Sometimes the aircraft owner, if they have more than one aircraft, will wait until they have multiple aircraft and cancel them all at once. A parts company a few years ago bought all the Southern Air DC-8s to strip and salvage. Their registration remained valid for something like 2 years after they bought them, when they suddenly cancelled all of them but one, along with a number of other aircraft they owned.

a reply to: Zaphod58

A friend of mine spent some years with Flying Tiger, shielded by CIA. Oh the stories they can tell...

a reply to: Salander

Please do tell the stories? What does your innuendo of a cargo line sold off In 1988 have to do with anything?

a reply to: neutronflux

Because the Southern Air DC-8s I used as an example in my post, used to be Southern Air Transport aircraft, and both were known CIA airlines.

a reply to: Zaphod58


Has anyone looked into the owner of the Twin towers and his amazing piece of luck when not turning up at ground zero with his kids for breakfast?vwww.darkmoon.me...

a reply to: anonentity

What piece of luck...??

Silverstein is not the ownner of the WTC complex, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is

He was leasing it

Silverstein had a doctors appointment that day - his wife had made him schedule it . So you can blame her

a reply to: firerescue

Yes, and husbands and wives never cover each others rear, eh?

"you lie and I'll swear to it" does operate within human relations.

just one question not answered were is teh plane they say hit it if it didnt then it must still be someware .
even though getting people tpo belive the plane hit makes it easy to disapire people in it

a reply to: firerescue


It was fishy, and needs a proper independent investigation. That was the reason the West went to War ,and many lives were lost. Theirs too much shady stuff going on.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: firerescue


It was fishy, and needs a proper independent investigation. That was the reason the West went to War ,and many lives were lost. Theirs too much shady stuff going on.

Start with an example of what was not proper?

Hope you are not going to start with the WTC steel was sent to China overnight? Or no jet at the pentagon?

a reply to: neutronflux


The examples are all around the internet, but the glaring one is that all the countries that decided to exit the Rothschild controlled banks were invaded on excuses . Some coincidence that one.

a reply to: anonentity

Who is going to pay for the "independent" investigation?

The government? Would that be independent?

NIST and proper peer review is about as far as you are going to get from the CIA?

The court case of Aegis insurance Vs the WTC 7 owner/builder is about as independent as it gets?

originally posted by: AnAbsoluteCreation

I find it absolutely impossible that an aluminum nose and fuselage can penetrate reinforced concrete through three sectors of the Pentagon. This is literally what these missile are meant to do, not airplanes.

And that's the essential key.

Aluminum is a soft metal, and very lightweight. Good for floating on air, but bad for penetrating matter.

There's no way aluminum could penetrate the pentagon like that. It would just buckle and fold up.

So, where does that leave us?

With the knowledge that this was an inside job by factions within the USA.

And, of course, certainty that there's a cover up.

The most alarming thing, is that nobody can do anything with this knowledge.

That means the control over the government and population is so absolute and total, that

"the truth does not matter."

a reply to: AMPTAH

According to that statement an aircraft is nothing but an aluminum tube.

Too bad you ignore the keel beam, which is essentially an I-beam at the bottom of the aircraft, the landing gear, which would have punched through and weakened the wall, and all that nice heavy framing that supports that lightweight aluminum shell and keeps it in an aircraft shape.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: AMPTAH

According to that statement an aircraft is nothing but an aluminum tube.

Too bad you ignore the .. etc..

Sure, lots of materials make up the plane.

HOWEVER, this is about total mass and density.

There's a reason that armored plated warheads use "depleted uranium", the densest material available.

You want to "penetrate" matter, you need "density" on impact.

The aluminum is there to do the exact opposite, lower the density of the plane.

An Airplane is not designed to "penetrate" materials.

It's designed to "float".

So, the parts of the plane that are denser than aluminum, have to be kept "low in mass",
which means thin, and hence "brittle" relative to, say a warhead.

a reply to: AMPTAH

An Airplane is not designed to "penetrate" materials. It's designed to "float".

Please show us where any non sea plane is designed to float.

a reply to: AMPTAH

You want to "penetrate" matter, you need "density" on impact.

Explain that to the families of those killed in kamikaze attacks in WW2.
Odds how those wooden planes punched through steel decks.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: AMPTAH

An Airplane is not designed to "penetrate" materials. It's designed to "float".

Please show us where any non sea plane is designed to float.

It "floats" on air via Bernoulli's principle.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: AMPTAH

According to that statement an aircraft is nothing but an aluminum tube.

Too bad you ignore the .. etc..

You want to "penetrate" matter, you need "density" on impact.

Ponder this : a video was posted of a ping pong ball making a hole through a ping pong paddle.

Pp balls don’t have any density like a paddle, yet it penetrates with lotsa speed.

So what are you missing?

Why is density only part of the equation?

a reply to: AMPTAH

You have no idea what you're talking about. Yes, aircraft are designed to be light, but light is a relative term. A completely empty 757 is just under 129,000 pounds. Add fuel, cargo, and passengers and you're over 200,000 pounds.

The outer wall of the Pentagon was 18 inches thick. No wall that size is going to stop 200,000 pounds traveling at that speed, no matter what it's made out of.

I've changed out "light" brakes that weighed over 600 pounds. That's per wheel, on an aircraft that has 10 sets of brakes. Each one weighing that much. "Light" struts that are 400+ pounds.