where is the airliner crash debris in the 911 Pentagon attack?

geistkiesel

You still haven't answered how close I was on my description of the KC-97 incident, or answered my question about the difference in speed which would make both incidents not comparable.

Another point, the ground is a total solid, the Pentagon is a building with open interiors, do you think that this would make the crash results comparable?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I highly doubt this. If you cannot recognize the side of a passenger airplane and its windows, then you would seem to lack much observational skill.

Watch any video of the building collapsing.

No, I definitely said everyone in the world overinsures. Your statement is incorrect, as can be seen from scanning above.

No, I still have no such knowledge. I have seen no evidence from you whatsoever in this area.

You assume I have infinite time to joust with retards. I do not. Locate the video. You will find therein that which you did not seek...or want to know.

A cast shadow from a conventional explosive several hundreds of yards away in broad daylight.

Sure.

Also, you know that the flash you're seeing isn't primarily the camera exposure? Have you worked with cameras before?

So if you can't recognize a frigging security barrier, I'm rendered almost speechlessly dubious of your observational abilities. I assume you weren't involved in security barrier ground attack during your, uh, tenure in the US forces.

Anyway, I vomit on your pathetic insults. :barf: "Boob-traitor". Good god.

No, my entire thesis is designed to shitcan the absurd and the impossible, in order to contain meme-lunacy.

I laughed so hard when I read this that I slapped my desk in the J. Edgar Hoover Building. Then I wiped my eyes with a piece of the CReEP transcripts. Oh, the other Lizardoids and I had a ball.

Yes. Are you? Anyway, I'm a foreigner; but better you lock me up than someone who was actually responsible for 9/11.

"PHONEY"?? You're mad. You're utterly mad. The explosion would have to be sun-bright to see from the foreground location. And how do you explain the shadows visible camera-side from the TREES AT THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING?? You get that a dark object at that range is, indeed, technically a shadow?

Sure. Maybe they could crash another airplane into the building. Just to see, you know.

My eyes and a fully functional brain. Years of experience in photographic morphological analysis, including at the microscopic level. Other than that, nada.

Yes. Well mostly. I'm a ten-year old Lizardoid clone grown in a test tube and then fed on a strict diet of In and Out Burger and Karl Rove's blood. But sure I’m in the employ (not employee) of liars and traitors: I work in biology, for crying out loud.

I sure can. As an approximation of the relative intensities of light involved, I can test the ability of my cigarette lighter, held next to my leg, of providing a shadow in full sunlight. Surprisingly, no shadow is visible from the lighter effect. Again, you are comparing a distant fireball with the full frigging sunlight in the south-central Eastern seaboard. Be reasonable, please.

That’s curious. Are all your attacks from the rear? Good luck with that, though; pitchfork defense is one of the first things they teach in Lizardoid school.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

GeoffP: "You assume I have infinite time to joust with retards. "

It's not good for this place to leave too much stupidity unchallenged. Good show, well said, and thanks for saving others the trouble. When we have common cause, I hope I can return the favor. *Lizardoid Salute*

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Indeed, they're simple. One of my drug dealers started going batty at one point, installing cameras all over his house. He would sit with the music turned up, smoking dope, staring at the split-screen from his security system. I remember that the simple event of someone walking onto the porch could throw the contrasts into chaos. Sad, since that was part of what the cameras were for.

However, you seem to have missed a point. I did not suggest the cameras were responsible for the lack of shadows.

Contrasts harden.

I only think they would stop to test the situation if they didn't already know the answer. Think about it for a minute, please. If you were about to attempt the biggest hoax in history this side of God itself, would you have amateurs do it? I mean, really, man ... for fuck's sake.

The wings would have clipped off and continued forward at a lesser velocity than the fuselage.

(I am re-evaluating this assertion.)

I would ask you to provide some coherent resources, but this is one of the problems I have with conspiracy theorists. They're in such a rush to get the message out, they don't bother with presentation. And I've looked through those links a couple times ... I still don't see the bit about the columns bending the wrong way, so I can't respond to the point.

But I did want to make a point about the resources you're using. From the CosmicPenguin site:

I'd like you to consider three statements out of that one:

• the crumpled piece of metal on top are the walls of the trailer

• Another possibility, is that the crumpled piece of metal is the remains of the aircraft that hit it

• It seems more likely that this trailer had explosives in it.​

Now ... let's just think about this one for a minute.

The crumpled piece of metal on top of the trailer represents the walls of the trailer that was packed with explosives powerful enough to blow that kind of hole in the Pentagon.

Just ... just think about it. Read the simple paragraph above again, and just think about it.

I'm asking you to use your brain on this one, sir. It ain't tough. If you need the hint on this one, I can't promise to give it without at least a hint of contempt. As a matter of fact, I'll probably turn to the gallery first. Come on, man ... it really is quite obvious.

And that's where I'm stopping, in large part because while looking around for other material, I came across a better conspiracy theory than the crap you're putting forward. That you failed to spot an error in my considerations may or may not be significant; it only complicates the consideration for me, but such is the problem of relying on shite websites as the basis of a theory. I will, however, note that there are many degrees between the wings neatly jackknifing, and the wings shattering in the explosion.

And I will make the point that it's true: "You and I aren't that far apart in this matter." However, one of the points of separation is that I need something more substantial before I'm ready to hang this one on an American conspiracy. That we let it happen is one thing, and a bit of a stretch. That we actually did the job? Well, I don't have a hyperdrive that enables me to make that leap.

Look at the resources you're putting forward. If this is really that important to you, I urge you to find a better, more stable, more reliable basis for the conspiracy assertion.

 

Here's a likely conspiracy that still bothers me: Who were those pilots? They were never plausibly identified.

 

Not at all. My father once said (though now denies the quote, in his semi-paranoid flux) "Do what you have to, push if you must, but never, ever, let the stupids win."

*Lizardoid salute*

 

I just realized some one was making the claim that the building were over insured, under American Insurance Laws this is illegal, you can insure a building in two ways, first for a Straight insurance which is for the original value, or for replacement cost, but you cannot insure it for more than the replacement cost value, or as some one was saying over insure it, the companies will not pay more than replacement cost, and by law they don't have to, and they decided what that cost is, and they don't pay a Penney more no matter how much insurance you have on the Building, and if you take out insurance with more than one company only one company will pay, and if you try to collect from both companies, neither will pay, and they are covered by law in doing so.

 

Meh.

 

I have 3,300 hr, of Military Flight time, and your are the one who is ready for the fork, your are so over done that you fall to pieces, and no the Pentagon wasn't constructed of reinforced Concrete, it was in the process of being rein, and that was only the outer wall, but still that would not have stopped a 255,000lb., aircraft at 500 knts. in the first ring, the energy impact of that aircraft would be in the neighbor hood of 3,400,000,000 lbs of kinetic energy, and that is going to be stopped by a one concrete wall?, two walls?, how about five walls?

Knots to Feet per second, 1.6878099 X 550 = 928.295445fps.

1lb = 700 grains

Energy per grain of weight = 1.92 ft. lbs.

1.92 ft, lbs. of energy per grain of weight X 7,000 = 13,440 ft. lbs of energy per pound.

13,440 ft.lbs of energy per pound X 255,000 = 3,427,200,000 ft. lbs. of energy hitting the outter wall of the Pentagon.

 

Troofers suck.

 

Check out the calculations on the energy impact of a 757.

 

Also, they have bad hygiene.

 

geistkiesel

Destructive force comes from the kinetic energy of the projectile impacting at very high velocities. The resulting extreme force can be explained by the formula EK = 0.5mv2, where Ek is the kinetic energy, m the mass of the object and v its velocity.

 

And Troofers don't like babies. They really dislike them. Also Victoria Zdrok, apparently, even though she's really hot.

 

The Physics of the 2001 World Trade Center Terrorism
The terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 produced enormous destruction and killed thousands of people. To put the loss of life in perspective, in just a few hours on September 11 as many people died as 1/10th of the American solders in Vietnam over a ten-year period!
The World Trade Towers initially withstood the impact of the Boeing 767 jets, which they were designed to do, but the subsequent fire generated by burning jet fuel melted steel eventually causing an implosion in which upper level floors fell upon lower level floors to create a complete collapse, like a toppling row of dominoes. Here is some physics of the catastrophe.
A jet typically travels at around 500 miles per hour, which is equivalent to about 225 meter per second (=500 miles x 1600 kilometer per mile / (60 minutes per hour x 60 seconds per minute)). The weight of a Boeing 767 is about 400,000 pounds, which is roughly 180,000 kilograms (= 400,000 pounds x 0.45 kilograms per pound). The kinetic energy KE of a moving object is determined from the formula


KE = 1/2 mv2

Using, m = 180,000 kilograms and v = 225 meters/second, one finds that a jet's kinetic energy is about 4.5 billion Joules (a Joule is a unit of energy often used in physics). Since almost all this energy was deposited into a tower at impact, the equivalent of a little more than a ton of TNT was released in the crash (one ton of TNT is equivalent to about 4 billion Joules).

And that energy was focused in a single direction, at a focused point, 65 feet across.

 

I'll bet Troofers don't like women wrestling in jello either. The bastards. Probably never even heard of East Korea.

 

The energy was not expended at a point. The wings, engines, gear and fuselage all must ruptured more or less imn three separate explosions: 1. the right wings struck, 2. The nose struck, 3 the left wing struck.
Where is there damage on the outer surface of the building due to wing impact?

What is all of this arithematic supposd to prove? Those numbers must indicate that the wings should have left evidence of physical impact, fire etc.when they ruptured spewing all that gas extrnally to the building.

It would have been nice to have had the NAtional GTreanportation and Safety Board do an an lysis, but alas, the evidence is far off shore, the building is repaired and we only have you to tell us the reality of it all.

Did the tail assembly vaporize?

Where do you get this '500 knot' ground speed number? Was there someone there measuring the aircraft speed? Maybe a Pentagon Official gave the informtion out in a press congerence?

 

To melt steel temperature of over 2000 degree C would be necessary for hours, but thermite, HDX, CDX or combinations ("super thermites"), could do the trick.

The fires could never generate heat sufficient to melt the steel support structures, and probably never exceeded 450 degrees C. Even if the temperature reached 650 degrees C, the maximum expected under the conditions of a diffuse flame such as the Twin Tower conditions provided, the structure could still have supported 3 times what was above the impact points. See Dr. Stephen Jones, Physicist, BYU and hos essay in '"911 and the The American Empire".

The building did not topple like dominoes, the building collapsed in free fall which required preset explosive charges at critical points. Remnember, GWB's brother was Director of Security at the TT for months immediately prior to 911.

You and Geoffp fail to recognize concepts of possibilities, probabilities, probable cause and are competely oblivious to any concept of "worst case scenario", but then that is your job isn't it? The evidence demands deep an complete examination iof all parameters that have been replaced by political dialogue - this is propaganda, you guys.= not in the J Edgar Hoover Building, well how about in the Pentagon? or are you contract employees?

In the second tower the aircraft was video taped at entering one face of the tower and exiting almost immediately from an adjacent wall - the direction of impact was not perpendicular to the building, it was more like 45 degree. The bulk of the onboard fuel left the building almost as fast as it entered. The support structures was not subject to any mechanical damage suggested by your arithematic.

The 500 mph "normal jet speed" is usually at cruise altitude, correct? The pilots of these aircraft had a few hours of flight simulator training, yet they handled the aircraft like experienced jet fighter pilots. I read an analysis by experineced pilots with no axe to grind that copuld not be convinced that the simple minded training supposedly completed by the cadre of Islamic Terrorist could have not only handled the aircraft without crashing, but then there is the tricky problem of navigation from the alleged takeover point to the target points. Remember you are constantly reminding us that all the various attitude changes that the aircraft, especially at the Pentagon, would have had to go through occurred at 500 mph as if you and your trusty stop watch made all the necessary measurements of the speeds at all the target and crash sites.

I know for a fact that the technology for computerized inertial guidance systems is orders of magnitude advanced over that required for auto-piloted hands off control of the aircraft. Lockheed developed a remote piloted vehicle (RPV), The Aquila, that could be progremmed to fly to a designated set of way points (latitude and longitude), perfom autiomatic scans of the terrain with a TV cameras (while telemetering the lat/lon and altitude of the scanning TV on the ground back to the control station) that could bear on a target, say a moving tank, then automatically loiter in a figure 8 mode, say 4 kliks from the target, while keeping a laser beam focused on the turret of the tank which would then reflect outward where a Hellfire or Copperhead missile would track the reflected beam and strike the tank basically dead center of the beam which had expanded to approximately 3 feet in diameter.

Insatalling a similar system in a 767 size aircraft would be trivially simple. A control center could be installed in any convenient building to correct for navigation drift errors etc.

I know the RPV story to be true as I was a member of the test crew that tested the RPV at Ft. Huachuca, where I performed data reduction and flight test data analysis functions for hundreds of flights, and crashes sometimes. The complete data base consisted of hundreds of various parameters down loaded from from the RPV in say, 10 second intervals, to near millionth of a second intervals.

This intertial navigation and target acquisition system was perfected by 1986.
:shrug:

 

What is this inanity have to do with 911? Silliness doesn 't fly with most persons following this thread - you think you got points here didn't you?:shrug:

 

geistkiesel, you go on and on about possibilities, but present nothing at all in truth or proof. This is why you are known as "Troofers".

As for points - bud, I pwned you. Big-time.