Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by prof-rabbit

 

Yeah? So? What do the construction materials or spin speed have to do with it?

Please feel free to review this analysis: Pentagon and Boeing 757 Investigation. I think this link was included earlier in the thread, but you may have ignored it.

[edit on 9/2/2010 by rnaa]

They have everything to do with it. What is harder, a person's hand or a brick? Well, when both are at rest, a brick is certainly harder. But, if an expert in Karate moves his hand very quickly with a driving force, he can smash the brick without damaging his hand! Why is that? The FORCE that comes from MASS + MOMENTUM.

If you would bother to read the entire thread, you will see that I addressed both of your points in earlier posts.

If you slowly push a piano wire into a foot-thick tree, the piano wire will bend and not even make a dent in the tree. If, however, you propel that same piano wire at 350 MPH, it will not only penetrate the tree, it will also go through a several-inch-thick piece of wood and then embed itself several inches into a block of solid concrete!

Also, regarding your so-called analysis document that you made reference to... in that very document there is a side-by-side photo of a Rolls Royce RB211 and the engine part supposedly found in the Pentagon. In an earlier post of THIS thread, I posted an analysis of that side-by-side photo, showing that they are obviously NOT from the same engine type. For your convenience, I will attach the same diagram that I made here:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/717afa785984.jpg[/atsimg]

So, the momentum of the aircraft gave it tremendous force, and yet in every analysis I have seen, this factor is totally ignored. When something traveling very quickly strikes something that is stationary, the stationary object is the thing that sustains the most damage. This can easily be seen in auto accidents as well. If a fast moving car hits a stationary car, the car that was struck gets massively totaled, while the moving car is usually less damaged... sometimes not even at all.

My point is this:

If an aircraft would have struck the Pentagon going as fast as claimed, it would have not only done far more damage, but there would also be much more remaining of the craft... especially lots of SEATS! Yes, that's right, lots of SEATS! Even if the seat covers were all burned, there would be lots of frames or pieces of frames. There would also be at least some evidence of LUGGAGE, suitcases and such.

I challenge all of you to watch a recreation of a train crash, particularly one where the train crashes into the end-terminal. Because of the momentum, the train just plows through the concrete, iron and steel, ripping the building to shreds. While the train engine is indeed strong, the cars are not much stronger than an airliner, and the airliner engine is certainly as strong as any other type of engine. Remember, jet engines are built for strength and durability above all else, even efficiency or weight... safety is their main concern.


[edit on 9-2-2010 by downisreallyup]

Originally posted by downisreallyup
showing that they are obviously NOT from the same engine type. For your convenience, I will attach the same diagram that I made here:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/717afa785984.jpg[/atsimg]

oh dear, you are still persisting with that lie- why did you highlight the compressor blades comparing them to exhaust turbine?

You should have highlighted the part the man in the picture is looking at, which matches the 757 part found in the Pentagon!

When something traveling very quickly strikes something that is stationary, the stationary object is the thing that sustains the most damage. This can easily be seen in auto accidents as well. If a fast moving car hits a stationary car, the car that was struck gets massively totaled, while the moving car is usually less damaged... sometimes not even at all.

More "truther" grade claims that are wrong! Just what physics books do they get their information from?


[edit on 9-2-2010 by downisreallyup]

Great post, although I think most people have come to this conclusion. By looking at the debris and the amount of damage it is absolutely safe to say that an airliner did NOT hit this building. At least we have established that much.

Originally posted by downisreallyup
When something traveling very quickly strikes something that is stationary, the stationary object is the thing that sustains the most damage. This can easily be seen in auto accidents as well. If a fast moving car hits a stationary car, the car that was struck gets massively totaled, while the moving car is usually less damaged... sometimes not even at all.

Using your hypothesis if I were to drive a car real hard into a steel wall I could survive the crash if I were going fast enough?

Sorry wrong!! This is what I keep trying to explain.

When objects collide the force is EQUAL on both object, NEWTON.

The only difference velocity makes is the damage is increased on BOTH objects, because the forces on each object at the time of impact are still EQUAL. So just because something is moving fast does not automatically make it possible to do what you want to have happened at the pentacon. You want the damage to the wall to increase from the velocity of the plane, but you forget that the force on the plane from the wall will also INCREASE.
If one of the objects is going to be completely demolished by the impact it's because the object it hit had more mass, both objects cannot be demolished, they cannot demolish each other.
One is going to win. But at the pentacon you have both the wall and the plane being destroyed. Can't have it both ways and if you understand the physics, and don't cherry pick the concepts to fit your hypothesis, you'd understand this.

As far as chopping bricks, your bones have more mass than a brick that is pretty unstable in it's construction. Try chopping a steel bar in half, go ahead try it...According to your hypothesis if you do it fast enough you'll have no problems.

Guys you really need to learn how to put physics concepts in context, and learn how each of them effects the other and how none of them work in isolation...

[edit on 2/9/2010 by ANOK]

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Or maybe you have a better explanation for why the flight data recorder didn't survive in this particular instance.

Actually, both the FDR (flight data recorder) and the CVR (cockpit voice recorder) from AA77 did survive the Pentagon impact and both had their data extracted. The FDR data is available and has been the topic of ongoing arguments since its release but the extract from the CVR was handed over to the FBI and the last advice on it was that there 'was nothing of interest' or words to that effect (I don''t have a link just now). Maybe I'm furthering conspiracy theories but 'nothing useful' is not the same as 'nothing'.

Thanks for correcting me and after re-reading the OP I see I should have said CVR instead of FDR.

so what's the scoop on this photo from the OP?

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

PICTURE 8
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/649027ae960c.jpg[/atsimg]
Allegedly a black box, Cockpit Voice Recorder. Since the wall was still intact after the explosion and no flight 77 debris is outside the Pentagon this is obviously not the actual black box (which would indicate the flight path, voices in the cockpit, whether the cockpit door was open, airspeed, etc.)

Is that the casing of the CVR? And were they able to recover the data from the CVR in spite of this damage? Or is this photo misidentified in the OP?

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by downisreallyup
When something traveling very quickly strikes something that is stationary, the stationary object is the thing that sustains the most damage. This can easily be seen in auto accidents as well. If a fast moving car hits a stationary car, the car that was struck gets massively totaled, while the moving car is usually less damaged... sometimes not even at all.

Using your hypothesis if I were to drive a car real hard into a steel wall I could survive the crash if I were going fast enough?

[edit on 2/9/2010 by ANOK]

The force required to change the momentum of some object is proportional to how much the momentum changes and inversely proportional to the time it takes to change it

Source

Every time the fast moving aircraft came into contact with a brick or steel girder, a momentum change would occur in both the aircraft and the particular stationary object. If at initial impact the aircraft is traveling at 350 MPH (max. speed at ground level), then the force issues would be:

1) How much force is required to accelerate the concrete or steel item to the speed of 350 MPH in a fraction of a second? Clearly if this requirement is higher than the force required to fracture or shatter the stationary object, the object will break apart, thereby getting out of the way of the moving aircraft.

2) How much force is required to slow the traveling aircraft to a complete standstill in a fraction of a second? If this requirement is higher than the force required to bend and fracture the aircraft, the aircraft will fracture, making way for the stationary object.

As the aircraft penetrates the building, the softer aircraft parts will break apart if they encounter steel girders, and the harder aircraft components will slow down with each obstacle they encounters. Undoubtedly the seats will continue to fly forward, going through the openings made by the fuselage. If some of the seats encountered steel girders that were not taken out by the aircraft, those particular seats would shatter, but not beyond recognition.

Jet engines are made of nickel, steel, aluminum, and titanium alloys, specifically designed for high strength, heat, and stress. Therefore, the force required to disintegrate a jet engine is higher than the force required to shatter stone, concrete, and steel girders.

REMEMBER - A soft lead bullet can easily punch through a 1/8-inch steel plate given enough speed!

[edit on 9-2-2010 by downisreallyup]

if it was a cruise missle it would have eaten that building like a fat man eating a dominos pizza!!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Thermo Klein
SIR (or Madam) I find increasingly interesting that YOU brought up the word "emotion"....because I have seen that, lately, invoked by a certain other ATS member, "impressme"....

It is almost as if there are "talking points" being spread amongst these so-called 'truthers'....

IN ORDER to try to keep their 'message' about the same, even as they keep shifting the goal-posts!!!

Folks....watch out for, and be wary of such tactics!!!!! It is manipulation, pure and simple!!!

I bring up emotion for a few reasons:
1) 9/11 was an exceptionally emotional day for many people on this planet. People may have more reason to NOT look at facts because they just want to forget this whole thing and live their lives. The people who ignore facts and pictures yet still fight on (OSers) are really an enigma.

2) I'm 4 months from having a Master's degree in Psychology. It is well known in Neuro-Psychology that emotion can skew the way memories are formed. If someone is in shock and has just witnessed a traumatic event, such as a plane flying over or a missile flying by, it is VERY easy for them to be confused for a bit. The memory can actually change when new information is added. The news telling them it was an airplane they saw might actually convince them it was, even if they doubted it before.

Speaking about emotion is not manipulation - it is an attempt to allow people to heal.

Why do you think we still have these conversations? So some moron can eventually prove he's right!??
This is about a country, our world, two or three generations learning to NOT be stupid, and to start questioning the news media before it's too late.

[edit on 9-2-2010 by Thermo Klein]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


The picture I posted in the OP shows the remains of a Cockpit Voice Recorder allegedly from AA flt 77, from what I've heard. I put it under the heading "The cover-up" because I think that part was planted. They allegedly have some flight recorders but there are a lot of questions about them - namely there was no airplane that hit the Pentagon, but also, that NORAD gave information on the flight to the newsmedia EVEN THOUGH the transponder and tracking 'things' (help me out with the name Weedwhacker) were turned off.

If the picture I posted is not of the alleged black box, FDR, CVR please let me know.

reply to post by jakemill


No it wouldn't and thats a common myth-perception by everyone who doubts the missile theory. Go search Google for the missile attack on Slobadon Milosivich's house by Clinton in the 1990's and look at the similiar damage to that and the Pentagon. With pinpoint precision missiles you do not need a missile that creates massive damage anymore.

reply to post by downisreallyup

I challenge all of you to watch a recreation of a train crash, particularly one where the train crashes into the end-terminal. Because of the momentum, the train just plows through the concrete, iron and steel, ripping the building to shreds.

The train engine is indeed severely damaged. But it is way more massive than the end-terminal stuff. This situation was reversed in the Pentagon crash. The Pentagon is way more massive than the engines and was blast reinforced.

While the train engine is indeed strong, the cars are not much stronger than an airliner, and the airliner engine is certainly as strong as any other type of engine.

Absolutely wrong. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.

A train engine is MUCH MUCH MUCH stronger than an airliner. An airliner is NOT stiff, it flexes, a train engine is stiff, it cannot be allowed to flex.

You like comparisons, ok here's one for you. I'm pretty sure you can do it mentally, but if you want to do it for real, please film it.

Obtain a quantity of stainless steel toothpicks and a lump of pine. Using white glue (or any suitable glue of your choice) to hold the parts together, build a little model of a house. Now carve a little model of a house into the lump of pine.

Now climb up on the roof of a building and drop the two models onto a lump of concrete. Which model sustains the most damage? But wait! Stainless steel is harder than pine! How did that happen?

The jet engine is not a solid lump. It is thousands of pieces stuck together. It is going to shatter when it hits the Pentagon wall.

Remember, jet engines are built for strength and durability above all else, even efficiency or weight... safety is their main concern.

No, they are built for efficiency and durability. Both characteristics dictate minimizing weight and contribute to safety. Remember, the heavier they are the more stress they put on their mountings... and safety is the main concern.

reply to post by downisreallyup

If you slowly push a piano wire into a foot-thick tree, the piano wire will bend and not even make a dent in the tree. If, however, you propel that same piano wire at 350 MPH, it will not only penetrate the tree, it will also go through a several-inch-thick piece of wood and then embed itself several inches into a block of solid concrete!

ONLY if it hits the tree 'point' end on so that all the force is applied in a very small surface area. And I can put pieces of wire into a tree without accelerating them to 350mph. They are called nails. And notice that the tree is not blown apart in the process either way.

This just has no relevance to the jet engine hitting the Pentagon wall.

Originally posted by Nichiren
reply to post by Nola213

 

The guy clicking on his Quicktime app doesn't understand the concept of frame rates and syncing them. If the Pentagon cam was on 3 frames per second (to save data), but his computer based Quicktime app is on let's say 24 frames he'd have to click 8 times as much to sync them up. The plane doesn't suspend physics and just sits there in mid-air. It's just a matter of taking 24 or 3 pics per second.

This part of his video is total BS. Sorry! I don't believe the OS for a second, but the antidote is not more ignorance from our side.

Best,

N

[edit on 6-2-2010 by Nichiren]

Actually, if the Pentagon camera is taking 3 frames a second, then 24 clicks at 24 frames a second would equal 8 seconds. After all, if you want to speed something up, you record it at less frames per second, then play it back at normal (more) frames per second.

Most likely the video the person is using is not the actual source video, but one downloaded from a news station or some other rebroadcast of it, which I assume would be normalized at 29.97 or 30 frames a second.

But by focusing on the frame rate, you miss the valid and pertinent point of his analysis: the object does not move from its position once entering the frame for some amount of time X (since verifiable reference points are unavailable, we cannot say how long that time actually is), but it does change in brightness. Then, without forward movement it disappears from the frame and simultaneously there is an explosion at the wall of the Pentagon.

Something else I noticed about this "footage" prompts me to ask everyone and anyone this: what happened to the time/date stamp that was on the still frames allegedly taken from these same videos?

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by downisreallyup

 

Absolutely wrong. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.

A train engine is MUCH MUCH MUCH stronger than an airliner. An airliner is NOT stiff, it flexes, a train engine is stiff, it cannot be allowed to flex.

A typical Amtrak 2-stroke diesel train engine weighs in at around 30,000 pounds. The Rolls Royce engines for a 747 weight between 46,000 pounds and 50,100 pounds.

I am not talking about an old iron-horse type of steam engine, I'm talking about modern diesel trains. And we aren't talking about dropping a solid wooden block vs. a light structure of toothpicks. We're talking about solid titanium components traveling at very fast speeds, much faster than anything dropped from a building.

Jet engines may have a lot of parts, but the housings that keep the engine together are extremely strong and well bonded together. Just like a diesel locomotive is made up of bolted together parts attached to a solid frame, the jet liner also has a solid and strong "backbone" that runs the length of the fuselage.

Listen, don't just pull out a couple sentences of mine and regard that as a response. When I respond to someone I try to address every point they have made.

You like comparisons, ok here's one for you. I'm pretty sure you can do it mentally, but if you want to do it for real, please film it.

Obtain a quantity of stainless steel toothpicks and a lump of pine. Using white glue (or any suitable glue of your choice) to hold the parts together, build a little model of a house. Now carve a little model of a house into the lump of pine.

This is a false analogy. The parts of a jet engine are not bonded with glue, and besides, there are some epoxy glues that would bond things together tighter than the objects own molecular bond, so if I wanted to do your little exercise, I'd choose one of those glues. What would be much more illustrative is to propel both objects at nearly 500 mph and have them strike a 1" piece of stone with a few rods of steel going through it. So, at those speeds, I am certain that if any of the steel toothpicks were aligned in a longitudinally perpendicular orientation with the stone surface, they would punch right through the stone. The wooden house may crack the stone, but I do not think it would punch through it. What you are talking about here is pounds/sq. inch of pressure, and a small steel toothpick has a higher PSI than a solid piece of wood traveling at the same speed.

If you'd like to see where I got my info on modern locomotives, here is a video:

How Diesel Locomotives Work

Also, please remember that the jet engine would still be on at full throttle. Just because the engine crashes, that does not instantly stop the thrust, for as long as the engine still has some fuel going to it, it will continue to work.

Unlike normal crashes where the pilot tries to avoid hitting something, this was a case where the pilot would have been trying to hit the building as fast as possible, so as to do the most damage.

I'm sorry, but there just wasn't enough evidence that a plane had crashed... NO SEAT REMNANTS, no BODY PARTS, no MAJOR ENGINE PARTS, no Flight Data Recorder... Had a real plane crashed, we'd see all these things, and the damage would have been MUCH WORSE.

No amount of screaming WRONG, WRONG, WRONG will ever change that fact.


[edit on 9-2-2010 by downisreallyup]

Originally posted by prof-rabbit

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by prof-rabbit
No, simple excuse, CM was fired to protect the Pentagon from aircraft "X".
Give these people enough intelligence to create plan "B"

So...you are claiming a cruise missile was launched as a defense against an aircraft coming in aiming at the Pentagon?

Is that what you are saying?

Not in the slightest, the question was raised, "what happens if plan "A" fails, I simply point out that there would be backup plans and excuses.

Is this your best display of logic? You say in one post "A CM was fired to protect the Pentagon from aircraft "X" " and in a follow-up post you say "No, I did not say that".

No wonder the Truther world will be content for the rest of time doing nothing but arguing on the Internet. With this sort of logic they would not want anyone in the real world to to see it.

Originally posted by downisreallyup

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by downisreallyup

 

Absolutely wrong. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.

A train engine is MUCH MUCH MUCH stronger than an airliner. An airliner is NOT stiff, it flexes, a train engine is stiff, it cannot be allowed to flex.

A typical Amtrak 2-stroke diesel train engine weighs in at around 30,000 pounds. The Rolls Royce engines for a 747 weight between 46,000 pounds and 50,100 pounds.

Airplane engines don't weigh anything near that! I think you looked at the THRUST provided by the engines. The entire 757 that allegedly hit the Pentagon was only around 160,000 pounds.

Looked it up: according to Rolls Royce info on Wikipedia, each 747 engine weighs around 9,400 pounds

Wow - you had some really misinformed guesses there!!

Weight of a train locomotive, according to some people on Trains.com was between 140 tons and 206 tons! That's 280,000 pounds on these guy's low end estimate compared to your 30,000 pounds! Is it that worth being right?

p.s. I have no intention of getting into your argument or say who's side I agree with, etc - those weights just seemed way off to me so I checked 'em out.


[edit on 10-2-2010 by Thermo Klein]

reply to post by Alfie1


What a very poor effort going into that apology.

Patriots are going to string the neocons high for treason. These idiots think they can murder 3000 New Yorkers and get away with it, forget about it.

If someone can misplace or badly manage the disappearance of $2.3 trillion and comes from a company specializing on remote controlled aircraft, I think it’s easy to prove to a jury they had means, motive, and opportunity to pull it off.

Patriots are going to hang the baby killing, war criminals like Zac. Anyone running cover for this cabal are not going to have a good time of it either.

Patriots going to hunt them down, strip them of all their money, and put them in a noose.

Bad luck is coming to neocons and their quisling minions.

Zionism is a political movement that hijacked a religion. Hatred of a political movement has nothing to do with anti Semitism. Zionism is the same political movement that sacrificed Jews to achieve their goals. Because at the end of the day, Yitzchak Greenbaum, the infamous Zionist rat said it best. "One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Europe.”

Neocons better look both ways before they cross the street.

Have a good day!

[edit on 10-2-2010 by beijingyank]

[edit on 10-2-2010 by beijingyank]

Originally posted by downisreallyup
The Rolls Royce engines for a 747 weight between 46,000 pounds and 50,100 pounds.

More "truther" quality research there, a RB211 Rolls Royce engine for a 747 weighs between 9470 and 9874 pounds
en.wikipedia.org...

NO SEAT REMNANTS, no BODY PARTS, no MAJOR ENGINE PARTS, no Flight Data Recorder

and again we have a truther telling lies....

seats seen
www.usatoday.com...
"When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him."It was the worst thing you can imagine," said Williams, whose squad from Fort Belvoir, Va., entered the building, less than four hours after the terrorist attack. "I wanted to cry from the minute I walked in. But I have soldiers under me and I had to put my feelings aside."

body parts, pictures of and where they were found
www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

major 757 engine parts
www.aerospaceweb.org...

Flight 77 FDR data
forums.randi.org...
so it was found....

why do some "truthers" lie so much, when their lies are so easily shown?

reply to post by dereks

why do some "truthers" lie so much, when their lies are so easily shown?

Because finding "Truth" is not their motive.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by downisreallyup
The Rolls Royce engines for a 747 weight between 46,000 pounds and 50,100 pounds.

More "truther" quality research there, a RB211 Rolls Royce engine for a 747 weighs between 9470 and 9874 pounds
en.wikipedia.org...

NO SEAT REMNANTS, no BODY PARTS, no MAJOR ENGINE PARTS, no Flight Data Recorder

and again we have a truther telling lies....

seats seen
www.usatoday.com...
"When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him."It was the worst thing you can imagine," said Williams, whose squad from Fort Belvoir, Va., entered the building, less than four hours after the terrorist attack. "I wanted to cry from the minute I walked in. But I have soldiers under me and I had to put my feelings aside."

body parts, pictures of and where they were found
www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

major 757 engine parts
www.aerospaceweb.org...

Flight 77 FDR data
forums.randi.org...
so it was found....

why do some "truthers" lie so much, when their lies are so easily shown?

Why do OSers believe EVERYTHING THEY READ?

Where are the pictures of seats and bodies? Articles about them is really not proof. All you have is proof that someone said something. Why do you just believe everything you are told with no proof. Even when much of it makes little sense and real proof contradicts it?

Where are those body parts and seats again?


edit to replace "truthers" with "OSers." Fixing it to match my intention and not my fingers actual deed.

[edit on 2/10/10 by Lillydale]