Possible reason for no debris at pentagon.

Originally posted by AgentSmith

The tail fin is angled and relatively fragile, it may have disintegrated, following the rest of the plane into the building.

And once again, even if it was some other aircraft - where is it's tailfin and the corresponding mark on the wall?

Are you really this daft?

The tail fin is "relatively fragile"?

You are actually going to say that after I just posted all those pics of the tail section/fins still intacts after a plane crash?


Didn't see the video (faked or not) has the tail being ejected across the top of the building. The plane didn't even enter the building.

How many times do I have to explain this to you?





And by the way, how come you don't have to resize your images?

Why are you ignoring all the questions I've asked? Don't you have any answers? Using straw man tactics I see - the traits of a disinformationist!

How do you know it was the tail? are you guessing?

AgentSmith... as regards your wing impact pictures: If you notice, the two areas that are suggested as where the leading edge of the wing struck are (coincidentally?) where the buildings vertical columns meet the 2nd story floor slab. Any deformation of the slab or column would stress that point and likely blow out the concrete there. All the forces being handled by the columns would focus there.

Personally, I simply cannot accept the fact that a substantial portion of a huge aircraft could vaporize as easily as some are suggesting. I would imagine that whatever force was sufficient to vaporize the aircraft would have been sufficient to nearly destroy the building. Most especially if we are relying almost entirely of the ballistic force of the aircraft in flight.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Why are you ignoring all the questions I've asked? Don't you have any answers? Using straw man tactics I see - the traits of a disinformationist!

How do you know it was the tail? are you guessing?

It's the tail section, look close.

You're the only disinformationist I see here.

Are you even American?

Your questions suck. I've addressed all I need to.

There is nothing you can say, you're obsessed with not being made a fool, and yet they made a fool of you. Stick to flying saucers tin foil hat man. Move on. Howard and the other agents have.

Originally posted by Merc_the_Perp
Your questions suck. I've addressed all I need to.

Why do my questions suck? Can you please answer them? They are perfectly valid.
You seem to be so knowledgable and as you point out I am so simple, please teach me your knowledge or are you not sharing! You have to be prepared to answer questions, you can't just present your information and expect everyone to just take it as fact because you say so!
When someone as intelligent as yourself holds the key to the truth, it is also mean to not share it and scorn those who are less fortunate than yourself and have difficulty understanding.

Can you also post the high resolution version you have of the video stills, you seem to have posted a low-res image where all you can see is a vague blob rather than a definitive tail section. It seems rather hypocritical to expect anyone to see a tailsection from that when you are so critical about other details.

If it is the tailsection, then why no photos? If it's because it was not a 757 one, then why not plant the evidence like everything else apparantly was and then photograph it?
Why did they go to such great lengths yet fail to provide this vital clue?
If there was a photo of 757 tail section parts, would you believe it?

-------

Regarding the lack of large pieces of debris:

Bearing in mind that the Pentagon wall is not 3.66 metres thick and that an F4 is no where near as large as a 757 - it still gives a good idea of some of the forces involved.
In this well known test the aircraft was vapourised:

The purpose of the test was to determine the impact force, versus time, due to the impact, of a complete F-4 Phantom — including both engines — onto a massive, essentially rigid reinforced concrete target (3.66 meters thick). Previous tests used F-4 engines at similar speeds. The test was not intended to demonstrate the performance (survivability) of any particular type of concrete structure to aircraft impact. The impact occurred at the nominal velocity of 215 meters per second (about 480 mph). The mass of the jet fuel was simulated by water; the effects of fire following such a collision was not a part of the test. The test established that the major impact force was from the engines. The test was performed by Sandia National Laboratories under terms of a contract with the Muto Institute of Structural Mechanics, Inc., of Tokyo.



www.sandia.gov...

Where are the large pieces of plane from the Iran C-130 crash?



[edit on 6-3-2006 by AgentSmith]

I take it that the large chunk of twisted metal just under the firefighters is the much talked about piece of the plane that was found. Well talk a look arround it. What do u see.

I see lots of much smaller metal fragments.

Oh some people say that was planted, they question why it was photographed so much and stuff. Probably because it was one of the few larger pieces that had the livery on it, was in an area viewable by onlookers and stood out I imagine.

OK...

How is divebombing the Pentagon harder than maneuvering the plane into a landing type flight pattern where it's belly is hugging the ground? And, we all saw what happened when the planes hit the twins. They sliced through, wings and all, and it was NOT a nice, neat little hole. I'm also shocked at those guys who were just carrying around bits of wrecked plane with their bare hands, so soon after the wreck. Hot hands...

And to the guy who says no tapes were confiscated, like Basement Jaxx said, where's your head at? They confiscated all kinds of tapes from gas stations in the area, out of NATIONAL SECURITY.

Originally posted by truthseeka
OK...

How is divebombing the Pentagon harder than maneuvering the plane into a landing type flight pattern where it's belly is hugging the ground?

Ah you have flying experience then! You'll know all about ground-effect for starters.. Flying a plane to use it as a missile is pretty easy, following proper procedures and following virtual highways in the air is much harder. It's quite insulting to those of us with even a small amount of experience that you think the two can be compared.

And, we all saw what happened when the planes hit the twins. They sliced through, wings and all, and it was NOT a nice, neat little hole.

Completely different building and construction.

I'm also shocked at those guys who were just carrying around bits of wrecked plane with their bare hands, so soon after the wreck. Hot hands...

Why do you think the pieces they were picking up would be hot? They didn't even appear to have scorch marks.

And to the guy who says no tapes were confiscated, like Basement Jaxx said, where's your head at?

They confiscated all kinds of tapes from gas stations in the area, out of NATIONAL SECURITY.

Well I agree with you on that, tapes were confiscated - but luckily at least some of them are due to be released hopefully within the next year when Zacarias Moussaou's sentencing trial is over. The vital piece is clear video of the aircraft impacting the Pentagon.
It only started about a month ago so it may be some time yet.

[edit on 6-3-2006 by AgentSmith]

AgentSmith...

No, I don't have any piloting experience. But, I don't need that to see which scenario would be easier. COMMON SENSE would tell you that! Ok, maybe I shouldn't say dive bomb. How about crash land? It would be a lot more believable if these 3rd rate pilots had crash landed on the Pentagon. But noooo, these "aces" were able to thread the needle and come in like they were landing. Riiiiiight...

It wasn't quite like a landing, for a start, and maybe you should look up ground effect too It would have helped the aircraft glide along without hitting the ground. He'd have to jerk the yoke forward pretty hard to try and get it to nose dive.
Adrenaline can also do marvellous things for people's skills - know what I mean? Maybe you don't...

EDIT:

Oh I see I misunderstood your misuse of terminology, I thought when you meant a landing pattern you meant what it actually means.
Looking at the diagrams of the flight's path and how it was described, it seems to me they overshot the Pentagon either on purpose or accidently and then in his panic he but the aircraft into a spiral descent causing it to lost altitude quickly and turn back towards the pentagon. He then levelled out and aimed at the building. I imagine he will have intentionally wanted to hit it as near to horizontal as possible so as to cause maximum damage rather than a crater in the ground in front of it. He probably didn't plan most of the manoevers he would perform however and probably didn't even know about ground effect - like most people in adrenaline fuelled situations he probably reacted accordingly at the time and was 'lucky'.

I don't want to belittle the skill required to fly properly, but aiming aircraft at things you can see is easy, practically anyone can do it. The Human brain quickly learns to adapt to situations and can work out what input is required for desired effect, it's not even like he had no experience. A larger aircraft is easier to fly in a lot of ways to a smaller one which gets buffeted around everytime a bird farts.
If it was a case of him jumping in, taking off, flying proper routes, using correct patterns, landing, etc then that would be amazing. Pointing aircraft at targets and programming flight computers to take you to an area, however, is not.

I know the air traffic controllers said that the maneuvers were like a military plane, but how many civilian aircraft routinely carry out such maneuvers? The terrorists were hardly following usual procedures, an airliner doesn;t normall do barrel rolls, but they can. So when one is carried out does it stop being the aircraft it is? No, of course not, it's just what they said - not usual practise, but then nor is flying them into buildings.

It is amusing how people like you laugh at the idea that they accomplished what they did piloting wise, yet have no knowledge of flying yourself. I assume you take your stance from pro-911conspiracy sites that tell you what your opinon should be and why rather than experience then. Isn't it dangerous blindly following them as much so as it is to follow the mainstream version?

[edit on 6-3-2006 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by kmrod


A friend who's local says there is no gas station. Show me the gas station.

He's wrong. There is a gas station across from the 395 exit. Not sure if it faces the pentagon or not. The funny thing about it is that it is a military gas station. I was running out of gas one day and stopped there. It's a good thing I read the sign before I started pumping. It read something like only pentagon personal and military personal are allowed to use this station. So, naturally I left. So, long story short...yes there is a gas station near the pentagon.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
But how do you explain the impact damage which is clearly present?



It is there, something caused it - how would you cause it with explosives?
It seems pretty consistant with the dimensions of the wing itself.

Why on earth would you assume it was from a wing? There is NOTHING that indicates that at all and I fail to see how you can say it "seems pretty consistent" with the dimension of the wing. In fact the "damage" within the drawn in lines is rather insignificant and certainly not constant and is only visible on 2 columns. The notion that this was from the wing was merely dreamt up and there is nothing that backs it up. It could have been from anything in the impact. You can't even tell from that pic where on the facade this was taken from.

The tail fin is angled and relatively fragile, it may have disintegrated, following the rest of the plane into the building.

So it disintegrated BEFORE it hit the building? This contradicts the video and all laws of physics. How could it disintegrate without even leaving a scratch on the building? Ludicrous.

And once again, even if it was some other aircraft - where is it's tailfin and the corresponding mark on the wall? You still have the same problem to prove your version.

This is why merc said your questions are "dumb". Because they are DUMB! This has been explained to your thick skull already. The potential alternative crafts we are talking about are MUCH smaller and were likely packed with explosives. Any pieces that were obviously not part of a 757 were whisked away and only pics of the planted parts were presented.

ATC did have a contact which they tracked down to the Pentagon, as well as the countless witnesses so there had to be an aircraft of some sort at least -

Yeah so? Whoopdy do for ATS. Did they try contacting any of the witnesses that saw a smaller craft? Didn't think so. The drone would have been painted like a commercial airliner AND there was a decoy commercial plane that flew low over the building to land at reagan airport simultaneous with the attack. This could have been timed deliberately for confusion.

Where are the holes from the alternative craft's engines?

Again for the billionth time.....THE DRONE CRAFTS WERE SMALLER. A global hawk has a single engine mounted on top of the fuselage. Not all craft have wing mounted engines. And even if it did the width between them would have been much smaller as would be the engines themselves and the damage would be more consistent.

Where are the holes from the wings and if they disintegrated with only those marks I showed visible why can they not be 757 wings?

Why do you keep repeating the same questions? It doesn't make you look like you know what you are talking about. The wingspan was much smaller and explosives and/or a missle could have easily helped destroy the much smaller craft. Perhaps those marks were from the wings of the drone. I do not know. Neither do you. Point is there is no point speculating that since those marks are in no way definitively from the wings of anything.

Where is the tailfin of the 'real' aircraft and why is it possible it is not visible for some reason but the same can't apply to the 757?

Same question again????? Because it is MUCH SMALLER and designed differently.

Global Hawk....(no vertical stabilizer at all! Just a small tail fin.)


A-3 skywarrior




Height: 22 ft. 9.5 in

And the impact hole was 26 feet high. Perfect!

How could so many people confuse a missile, disguised or not, for a 757?

How come you switched from talking about a drone aircraft painted like a commercial airliner to missle for this question? This is another reason why your questions are DUMB.

What caused the circular cutout in the fence around the generator that looks the same shape and size as an engine?

What about the dent in the top of the trailer? What caused that? Although I see a blown out fence I see no definitive "circular cut-out" in the fence but I do see a big dent in the trailer. The craft was at least 10 feet off the ground because you can plainly see that it hit the trailer.

In the image at the top of this post, why is the impact damage obviously caused from the outside if it was caused by bombs inside?
If it wasn't caused from the outside, how come outer layers are damaged and inner layers are intact? How do these bombs work?

Why do you insist on being obtuse? I never claimed that this particular damage was caused by bombs. I was pointing out the blown out columns near the ground. That damage could have been caused by other debris from the explosive impact. All I know is there is NOTHING that indicates it would definitively be from the wings. Although I suppose it's possible that it was from the wings of the drone. I don't know. I'm not sure from where on the facade those pics come.

What was the edged piece of something that caused those marks?

Same questions over and over? Why? As I said.....it could have been from debris. The damage is not "wing shaped" by any means so there is ZERO reason to assume it was from a wing.

Why are you saying the columns are blown out? They look like they have tipped to the right in my opinon.

The fact that they are still exisiting at all after the impact of a 757 engine is suspect. But yes....the pic with a better view from closer up clearly shows that they were blown out.


Now quit asking the same STUPID questions over and over.

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

Originally posted by AgentSmith
ATC did have a contact which they tracked down to the Pentagon, as well as the countless witnesses so there had to be an aircraft of some sort at least -

Yeah so? Whoopdy do for ATS. Did they try contacting any of the witnesses that saw a smaller craft? Didn't think so. The drone would have been painted like a commercial airliner AND there was a decoy commercial plane that flew low over the building to land at reagan airport simultaneous with the attack. This could have been timed deliberately for confusion.

I said ATC, not ATS - Air Traffic Control? Understand?
I wonder what the ATC staff at Reagen airport made of all of it, were they on it? How did they confuse radar contacts?
How did they not notice two aircraft?
Did they get visual confirmation? Do we know - sadly not because the interview tape was destroyed suspiciously..

How did these aircraft you present cause the damage we saw? No matter what, the images show the central hole with two spans of relatively minor damage which tapers out consistant with the shape of an aircraft and it's wings. The craft you show have smaller wingspans.


www.oilempire.us...

Global hawk has 116' wings which are pretty pathetic anyway and the A-3 only 72.6'.

The Global Hawks wings look incapable of holding fuel which is the usual place, but even if they do not much. What caused the extensive fireball then? You realise normal explosives don't create such spectacular fireballs?

It saddens me that you call me stupid and dumb sir, I know you have superior intellect but you do not have to be so unpleasant about it. I thought we were friends

[edit on 6-3-2006 by AgentSmith]

That damage is above the ground floor windows at grid lines 19/20.

The fireball could have been caused by additional explosives on the craft or in the building. (for the billionth and one time)

Remember.....people smelled cordite......not burning fuel.

I don't believe that that "damage" was caused by a wing at all and there is nothing that indicates as much.

If that damage was ABOVE the ground floor windows as you say then that puts the entire craft even higher up which makes the official story even less believable.

Plus why wouldn't it extend beyond 2 columns?

I have no idea if it was a global hawk or an a-3 skywarrior or something else.

I just know that it wasn't a 757.

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
It could have been from anything in the impact. You can't even tell from that pic where on the facade this was taken from.

It was from here, outlined in red:



I thought you'd studied these images to come to your conclusions? Anyone that has knows where that picture was taken. If you have barely glanced at them, how come you are so certain?

Do you:

a) Copy other people's ideas and repeat them as your own
b) Allow others to form your opinons
c) Not know what you are talking about
d) All of the above?

Do you want to :

Phone a friend?
Ask the Audience?
Take 50/50?

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by Merc_the_Perp
Your questions suck. I've addressed all I need to.

Why do my questions suck? Can you please answer them? They are perfectly valid.
You seem to be so knowledgable and as you point out I am so simple, please teach me your knowledge or are you not sharing! You have to be prepared to answer questions, you can't just present your information and expect everyone to just take it as fact because you say so!
When someone as intelligent as yourself holds the key to the truth, it is also mean to not share it and scorn those who are less fortunate than yourself and have difficulty understanding.

Can you also post the high resolution version you have of the video stills, you seem to have posted a low-res image where all you can see is a vague blob rather than a definitive tail section. It seems rather hypocritical to expect anyone to see a tailsection from that when you are so critical about other details.

If it is the tailsection, then why no photos? If it's because it was not a 757 one, then why not plant the evidence like everything else apparantly was and then photograph it?
Why did they go to such great lengths yet fail to provide this vital clue?
If there was a photo of 757 tail section parts, would you believe it?

-------

Regarding the lack of large pieces of debris:

Bearing in mind that the Pentagon wall is not 3.66 metres thick and that an F4 is no where near as large as a 757 - it still gives a good idea of some of the forces involved.
In this well known test the aircraft was vapourised:

The purpose of the test was to determine the impact force, versus time, due to the impact, of a complete F-4 Phantom — including both engines — onto a massive, essentially rigid reinforced concrete target (3.66 meters thick). Previous tests used F-4 engines at similar speeds. The test was not intended to demonstrate the performance (survivability) of any particular type of concrete structure to aircraft impact. The impact occurred at the nominal velocity of 215 meters per second (about 480 mph). The mass of the jet fuel was simulated by water; the effects of fire following such a collision was not a part of the test. The test established that the major impact force was from the engines. The test was performed by Sandia National Laboratories under terms of a contract with the Muto Institute of Structural Mechanics, Inc., of Tokyo.



www.sandia.gov...

Where are the large pieces of plane from the Iran C-130 crash?



[edit on 6-3-2006 by AgentSmith]

Well the video clips of the F-4 bring up the question that if the F-4 being made mostly of steel and traveling at a lot faster speed could barely penatrate a reinforced wall, how does an airliner that is mostly made of aluminum penatrate several layers of reinforced walls. I was a Crew Chief on RF-4's and can testify to thier construction.

[edit on 6-3-2006 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 6-3-2006 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
The fireball could have been caused by additional explosives on the craft or in the building. (for the billionth and one time)

How did they make it cover such a great expanse if it was on the craft?
How did they make it behave like an explosion on the outside if it was inside?

Remember.....people smelled cordite......not burning fuel.

Allegedly

I don't believe that that "damage" was caused by a wing at all and there is nothing that indicates as much.

What was it then?

If that damage was ABOVE the ground floor windows as you say then that puts the entire craft even higher up which makes the official story even less believable.

Plus why wouldn't it extend beyond 2 columns?

It puts it pitched to the left which is consistant with reports of the engine hitting the helipad. You also have to bear in mind the wings of the aircraft lift considerably (by several feet at the tip) once it is in motion due to the lift generated. They are highly flexible you know, I'm sure you've seen when you look out the window on a flight.

I have no idea if it was a global hawk or an a-3 skywarrior or something else.

I just know that it wasn't a 757.

You should write books man, that's beautiful. If you were saying it on stage would you have your hand clutched to your chest and a tear in the eye? I can see the torn stars and stripes fluttering behind you as I write this.. Hell man I'm going to cry

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well the video clips of the F-4 bring up the question that if the F-4 being made mostly of steel and traveling at a lot faster speed could barely penatrate a reinforced wall, how does an airliner that is mostly made of aluminum penatrate several layers of reinforced walls. I was a Crew Chief on RF-4's and can testify to thier construction.

The purpose of the test was to determine the impact force, versus time, due to the impact, of a complete F-4 Phantom — including both engines — onto a massive, essentially rigid reinforced concrete target (3.66 meters thick). Previous tests used F-4 engines at similar speeds. The test was not intended to demonstrate the performance (survivability) of any particular type of concrete structure to aircraft impact.

The pentagon's walls were only 24" thick, though the columns were highly reinforced and could essentially shred the plane. There is more than a slight difference, not bearing in mind the size difference even.

[edit on 6-3-2006 by AgentSmith]