Why use a missile for pentagon instead of a plane?

reply to post by Damocles



There should have been more debri if it was a plane too.



Its only my imagination, but i cannot imagine how you can get 3 or 4 millimeter aluminum (whatever commercial planes are made from) to penetrate concrete and steel, i dont care how fast it impacts.

Same as the twin towers. If it was just a plane and no missile fired first, the plane would have just smacked up against the side of the building and fell to the street. How did alluminum manage to cut through so much iron and concrete. Makes me wonder.

remember it is just my imagination.

Originally posted by Damocles


the video shows a big fireball, missile explosives dont do that, fuel does. ok sure, plant a tanker truck outside the building and blow it up and theres your fireball but seems someone might have wondered why a tanker truck was outside the pentagon...

1. The video was controlled and provided for solely by the suspect.

2. A suspect who had the control, access, and resources to plant the explosives to simulate this damage would surely have had the control, access, and resources to simulate a fireball as well.

The physical damage is anomalous because the evidence proves the plane was in the wrong place to be the cause.

The evidence also proves that the plane could not have aeronautically achieved what it has been accused of doing.

Originally posted by Damocles
my biggest problem with a missile or preplanted explosives at the pentagon is a combination of the video of the explosion and the damage pattern. both inconsistant with a missile.

the video shows a big fireball, missile explosives dont do that, fuel does. ok sure, plant a tanker truck outside the building and blow it up and theres your fireball but seems someone might have wondered why a tanker truck was outside the pentagon...

but the blast pattern is wrong, there should have been a good sized semicircular pattern of building debris out on the pentagon lawn and there just wasnt, even if it was a penetrating type missile, there should have been more debris out on the lawn, but msot of the building from the impact site was pulled inward or layed right on the edge. its inconsistant with most conventional explosives.

just my OPINION of course so take it with a grain, or a bag of salt if you like.

I'm with you on most of this. I'm not convinced it was a missile, but I guess my problem is that I'm not convinced it was a the plane they are telling us it was either. I do think it was an American Airlines painted plane or object being flowing into the pentagon. I would think that too many witnesses would say it was a missile if it actually was. Of course, Rumsfield called it a missile so that can make you wonder as well. Rumsfield isn't as slick as Cheney when he is being interviewed and I think he tends to slip up more. Anyhow, of course, this is just my opinion and I'll provide the salt for free to take it with...

JPT

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


"The physical damage is anomalous because the evidence proves the plane was in the wrong place to be the cause.

The evidence also proves that the plane could not have aeronautically achieved what it has been accused of doing."



Craig,

can you show any proof of the above two statements you've made. I've seen so called proof of this not being a plane on a few websites, but they were so far biased that it wasn't even funny. Believing them is like believing what the gov has told us happened. Is there a site with pilots on it that states this is physically impossible for this airplane? I would love to hear from pilots who have actually flown this type of aircraft, or even from engineers who know this aircraft's design and real world limitations. I'm not trying to pick your post apart, but I see too many that say this or that and then there is no real proof to back it up. It goes both ways also. What I mean by that is that there are those who believe what the gov has told us and they won't waver, even in the face of logic. There are many holes in the gov story, BUT, I have yet to see any real proof to the contrary, just opinions from people who aren't even experts. I think it was a website made by pilots for the truth on 9/11 that I read a while back and I do not remember any of them stating that this was an impossible maneuver for this aircraft. Hey, I could be wrong, and if I am, please post the link. I will gladly apologize or update the original post or whatever to make things right. Thanks for the post!

JPT

Originally posted by tom goose
reply to post by Damocles

 

There should have been more debri if it was a plane too.

i cant really disagree with that honestly but i also have no reasonable explaination for it either.

Its only my imagination, but i cannot imagine how you can get 3 or 4 millimeter aluminum (whatever commercial planes are made from) to penetrate concrete and steel, i dont care how fast it impacts.

well i dont mean to be presumptuous here but dont fall into the trap many do of comparing a jumbo jet to a soda can. yeah, the skin of the plane is thin aluminum, but what about its skeleton? thats a lot heavier and more durable so there were some pretty significant components of the plane that while being made of aluminum were actually pretty hefty chunks of metal. i have a few "figure 8 decenders" from when i was still climbing/rapelling that are made of forged aluminum and weigh several ounces. if i built an air cannon and rigged a sabot case for one of them and fired it at a brick wall at 500mph i think the wall would get a new hole.

Same as the twin towers. If it was just a plane and no missile fired first, the plane would have just smacked up against the side of the building and fell to the street. How did alluminum manage to cut through so much iron and concrete. Makes me wonder.

remember it is just my imagination.

well even the max take off weight is 115,680lbs so it really doesnt matter what the material is, that much mass at 500mph (or whatever it was) hitting anything is going to do damage. if we took and made a 115000lb ball of foam rubber and launched it at a building i have a feeling it would mess the building up.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
1. The video was controlled and provided for solely by the suspect.

fair enough, i used the video as a reference because i was simply too lazy to post quotes from the witnesses that saw a massive fireball.

can we at least agree that there WAS a massive fireball? or is even that report suspect?

2. A suspect who had the control, access, and resources to plant the explosives to simulate this damage would surely have had the control, access, and resources to simulate a fireball as well.

so then are we to assume that all of the security officers at the pentagon are "in on it" too? i dont recall ever hearing of anyone mentioning a large truck outside the area that was destroyed...i mean youre not going to get a fireball like that from a 55gal drum.
but past that sure, hollywood simulates fireballs all the time so i wont insult anyones intelligence or sacrifice my integrity by saying it couldnt be done, but thats just a small part of the larger problem with preplaced explosive theories.

The physical damage is anomalous because the evidence proves the plane was in the wrong place to be the cause.

well first, lets be fair here. the evidence youve collected SUGGESTS the plane was in the wrong place. to me youve yet to PROVE anything. i admire your work and i really respect your tenacity but evidence doesnt equal proof. i mean to me the evidence suggests that it was NOT preplaced explosives but that doesnt PROVE anything to anyone.

The evidence also proves that the plane could not have aeronautically achieved what it has been accused of doing.

heh ill give you a little more latitude on that one but it does nothing to change anything as far as the damage pattern to the building is fairly inconsistant with a missile strike or with preplaced explosives.

but in the spirit of being fair, if i had to pick between preplaced explosives or a missile, id go with the preplaced explosives even though i still dont see it. theres just not enough to support either theory for me.

Originally posted by justpassingthrough
Of course, Rumsfield called it a missile so that can make you wonder as well. Rumsfield isn't as slick as Cheney when he is being interviewed and I think he tends to slip up more. Anyhow, of course, this is just my opinion and I'll provide the salt for free to take it with...

JPT

after the attack, how many times did you hear on the news etc "the terrorists used the planes as missiles...."

so, for ole rummy to use that term really isnt any big stretch for me personally. far less suspicious than buddy larrys pull it comment, which still amuses me personally but hey, thats just me.

cuz heres the thing. the damage pattern from point of impact to where the last wall was busted out was, in an abstract way, fairly conical. it started wide then got narrower as it went into the buildings and, and i could have this bit wrong, but it seemed to take out the lower floors after which the upper floors collapsed. (someone please feel free to correct me if i got that bit wrong, i wont be offended as long as yer not a prick about it lol)
typically explosives blow up in a spherical pattern as the pressure wave extends from the point of detonation. had it been a missile that detonated upon impact, particularly with the reinforced walls, the outter wall should have absorbed most of the blast and we'd have seen kind of a half sphere chunk taken out of the building. of course it wouldnt be a perfect cookie cutter pattern but it would be there.

now, if the missile was a penetrator, we'd expect that the outter wall would have ended up out on the lawn and much of that part of the building would have been lost immediatly. but still roughly in a hemisphere pattern. granted the building construction would have had an effect on that but what we shouldnt see is a fairly conical pattern of damage. unless of course it was a shaped charge, which we'd have seen the cone of the damage in mirror image to what we saw unless it was preplaced and fired towards the outter wall, in which case parts of the outter wall would have been out on the lawn and they werent.

another thing is that explosives detonate at 24000fps and up (save anfo and that would have taken a large truck and wouldnt have made that damage pattern) many of the military personel at the pentagon have heard, at least once in their careers, a HE detonation and id bet money they could tell the difference between the sounds of a plane crash and an HE detonation.

so are ALL of the pentagon employees (military at least) in on it? and plz no one give me that "oh they take orders blah blah" BS, we're (they're, im not in anymore) only obligated to follow LAWFUL orders and covering up smething like that isnt lawful.

but please, dont take my word for it any of you, go research explosives and check for yourself. if you have any questions feel free to U2U me. short of telling anyone HOW to make stuff ill answer questions honestly and without bias and ill do it in such a way you can verify what i say so that my integrity stays intact.

but based on whats been released to the public, i dont see anything that indicates High Explosives. i saw/read testimony about a fireball which is consistant with a large amount of fuel going up and have yet to read anything that supports explosives. (for the love of god no one bring up the guy who "knew it was a bomb cuz i smelled cordite" 3 mins on yahoo looking up cordite will explain why)

[edit on 6-5-2008 by Damocles]

Originally posted by tom goose

Its only my imagination, but i cannot imagine how you can get 3 or 4 millimeter aluminum (whatever commercial planes are made from) to penetrate concrete and steel, i dont care how fast it impacts.

It's hard to imagine it could happen as you sstate, but there's a factor that you're forgetting that NIST spends a considerable time discussing.

Fuel in the wings. Not for the fire potential, but for the addition to kinetic energy to inflict damage.

Think of it this way- your question asks, how can I be hurt when my buddy throws an empty coke can at me? Can't happen, we agree on that.

But what if it's full, but open? You're gonna get hit by more weight, even though it's contained in the same thin shell. And it's gonna hurt.

Now just scale everything up and you get what happens when a plane impacts a building at 500 mph....

Originally posted by justpassingthrough

Craig,

can you show any proof of the above two statements you've made.

Sure.

We have confirmed and corroborated evidence that the plane came from east of the river and flew north of the former citgo gas station.

This fatally contradicts the NTSB and 84 RADES flight path and is also irreconcilable with all the physical evidence.

Watch this and then this for the north and east side evidence.

Is there a site with pilots on it that states this is physically impossible for this airplane?

Yes.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth are almost finished with their new presentation demonstrating how the alleged FDR does not reflect the G's necessary for the plane to have pulled out of the descent necessary in the topography to be low and level with the ground as shown in the security video.

I'm not talking about the final loop but rather the final descent in the very last moment before it allegedly hit the light poles.

This crude image is not to scale but it makes the point of what I am talking about:


Pilots for 9/11 Truth put out an article in this regard but has admitted errors in the calculations. A full update with corrections and a video presentation will be available soon. The main point still stands but stay tuned to this page for more details:

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Originally posted by Damocles

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
1. The video was controlled and provided for solely by the suspect.

fair enough, i used the video as a reference because i was simply too lazy to post quotes from the witnesses that saw a massive fireball.

can we at least agree that there WAS a massive fireball? or is even that report suspect?

Yes this is confirmed and corroborated via independent verifiable evidence many times over.

but past that sure, hollywood simulates fireballs all the time so i wont insult anyones intelligence or sacrifice my integrity by saying it couldnt be done, but thats just a small part of the larger problem with preplaced explosive theories.

Exactly.

If Hollywood can do it then certainly the richest most powerful and secretive defense agency on earth could do it.

Not only that but they could do it covertly without using the Pentagon police officers who were working the security gate.

This would not be a "problem" for them particularly when you consider the fact that this particular area had been under renovation for years and they were wrapping it up the day before by moving trailers etc.....plus Bush had left from the helipad the day before and was scheduled to arrive on 9/11 at 12:30. They had "secret service" crawling all over that place. They really could have gotten away with anything in preparation for the event under this cover.

well first, lets be fair here. the evidence youve collected SUGGESTS the plane was in the wrong place. to me youve yet to PROVE anything. i admire your work and i really respect your tenacity but evidence doesnt equal proof. i mean to me the evidence suggests that it was NOT preplaced explosives but that doesnt PROVE anything to anyone.

Yes it is proof.

It has been confirmed and corroborated now 7 times over and it has been further supported in the newly released CMH interviews (more on this soon).

None of the witnesses direct refute it.

The evidence is so strong that it constitutes proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The evidence also proves that the plane could not have aeronautically achieved what it has been accused of doing.

heh ill give you a little more latitude on that one but it does nothing to change anything as far as the damage pattern to the building is fairly inconsistant with a missile strike or with preplaced explosives.

Huh?

If it's aeronautically impossible for the plane to have hit then it had to have been caused by something else. While I agree that the damage is inconsistent with a missile you have no basis to say that it could not have been achieved with directional explosives that had been strategically planted throughout the building during the renovation.

This would be a breeze to achieve with explosives compared to what they pulled off in New York.

The damage to the building is inconsistent to a plane impact and a plane impact as reported is impossible.

Read this for more info.

but in the spirit of being fair, if i had to pick between preplaced explosives or a missile, id go with the preplaced explosives even though i still dont see it. theres just not enough to support either theory for me.

There is proof the plane did not and COULD NOT have hit.

If there were 7 people who independently reported SEEING bombs being PLANTED in the WTC would you believe them? The north and east side claims are even MORE confirmed than this and are just as much of a smoking gun.

That should be all the support you should need but frankly it shouldn't matter what caused the damage to the Pentagon.

The north and east side claims prove a military deception REGARDLESS of how the physical damage was achieved.





[edit on 6-5-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

reply to post by Boone 870


Learn something from that crash? You think they would have a defense system of some kind during the Cold War. But then many of the bases in the states don't have air defense system of some kind. Notice that after 9/11 you see Avenger Humvee equipped SAMs positioned around the Pentagon. There is no evidence that there was a SAM system around. Nobody has yet to prove it when claiming that the Pentagon was open for attack. The Patriot Battery system is large and not easy to hide around in urban areas when protecting a target like the Pentagon that is in Crystal City.

Originally posted by deltaboy
Notice that after 9/11 you see Avenger Humvee equipped SAMs positioned around the Pentagon. There is no evidence that there was a SAM system around.

The only reports i know of is the Secret Service having Stingers stored at WTC building 7, and the Woolworth building missile.

[edit on 8-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by deltaboy


There were SAM batteries at the Pentagon for a short time in the early 60s, I believe during the Cuban missile crisis. There were also around 100 alert bases for defense also.

I still haven't seen any evidence that convinces me that the Pentagon had any type of defense on 9/11.

Originally posted by Boone 870
There were SAM batteries at the Pentagon for a short time in the early 60s, I believe during the Cuban missile crisis. There were also around 100 alert bases for defense also.

There were 2 Nike SAM sites in New York in the 60's and 70's.

Craig,

sorry it took so long to reply. Not sure if you will read this, but here's my reply. So, the witnesses on that video all agreed they saw an airplane. Now, as far as the plane flying over the pentagon and there was maybe explosives in the pentagon, this I don't think there's much proof of. In fact, one of the officers in the first video said he saw the airplane crash into the pentagon I believe. He also said it was an American Airlines jet. He seemed to be very knowledgeable and had a great memory. He did mess up at first about where his cruiser was parked, but remembered correctly before anyone corrected him. Now, where the damage to the light poles happened, that is a HUGE question. I think it all smells of a coverup, but with all I've read, I'm leaning more to believe a plane crashed into the pentagon. The only thing that I hesitate on is the damage to the building. I have seen various crashes online and they all have different turnouts. Some planes seem to disintegrate on impact and not leave an exact outline of their fuselage while others left decent holes that definitely leave and imprint of a jet image.

Now, as far as the pilots saying the jet could not handle the g forces, I'll wait until they release a final say, because as of right now, to me, it's still up in the air. They do bring up good points though and I'll keep an eye on their site.

I guess overall, there are too many holes in what we are being told. There are also too many anomalies, so most likely we are being lied to. It's simply amazing that the public, in general, will just believe what they are told, and not think twice about evidence showing some things that don't make sense. In fact, the other day I was telling a friend about some of the issues of fighters not intercepting ANY of the airplanes that day. I've read the gov excuses, but none of them make any real sense. Our military is very, very smart and have great technology. If there was a REAL hijacking, even on the days of terror drills, they would have everything together. When asked if the hijackings were drills on the tapes released, it was obvious when the answers were a solid no! People were saying the military and FAA got all confused on what was real and what was a drill. This is not something the military would screw up, trust me. If they can coordinate all their military efforts between the 5 branches (army, AF, Navy, Marines, CG) during WWII, then they surely have the technology and smarts to keep it together and have the info streamlined in this day and age. They were fed misleading things on purpose. I don't know how the hierarchy goes exactly, but there is too much redundancy in the military to get confused. If the hijackings were real, I'm pretty sure ALL 4 of the airlines would have been intercepted and escorted within 15 minutes, if not sooner.


well, I'm steering away from my own original topic again. Sorry. Sometimes I get on rants. Thanks for all who have contributed to this thread!


JPT