Pentagon: 9/11. - Page 3

sfbruin · #21 10-29-2004, 06:07 PM

First of all, this is the dumbest post I have read here and I have read some dumb posts. The comment that the airplane would have stalled because radar showed it turning around is utterly ridiculous because the premise is flawed. If you read the 9/11 report, it says that the transponder on the plane was turned off and then primary radar contact was lost. The plane turned around somewhere in that timeframe. I don't believe your father is a NASA engineer if he believes that a 757 would not cause the damage shown at the Pentagon. Simple physics 1/2mv^2 shows the force of impact of the plane would cause damage consistent with what we saw at the Pentagon. I know this because I'm a structural engineer and when my friend told me about this missing plane theory, I was curious to see the results. By the way, the simple physics I just talked about was used to show why the WTC towers didn't fall on impact. You can search the web if you're interested...I don't remember where I saw it.

PITTM · #22 10-29-2004, 06:15 PM

what does that equation have anything to do with the issue at hand? I understand it is a physics equation, but it shows nothing of whether it was a plane or a missile that hit the pentagon. Also, the turn i spoke of was made before the transponder was turned off. They made the turn back towards Washington DC, and then contact was lost.

rj

slickpoppa · #23 10-29-2004, 06:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
so if i ask people for proof that it hit the building, have none given to me

[/ QUOTE ]
Here ya go:

PITTM · #24 10-29-2004, 06:23 PM

wow, that section of the building that has already collapsed shows without any doubt that it was DEFINITLY a boeing 757 that hit that spot, it could not have been ANYTHING else.

rj

sfbruin · #25 10-29-2004, 06:38 PM

Your argument was that a 757 couldn't cause that little amount of damage. I guess the amount of damage is what you are trying to argue, even though there are countless pictures proving that at least 3 of the concentric circles had been breached. Therefore my argument was trying to rectify the amount of damage seen at the Pentagon with the amount of damage an aircraft of that size and speed could cause. And they are equal.

PITTM · #26 10-29-2004, 06:55 PM

my arguement was more that 80 ton airplanes traveling at 500 mph dont make neat little holes in walls, they destroy the walls entirely.

rj

wacki · #27 10-29-2004, 07:17 PM

PITTM that airplane was made mostly of aircraft aluminum. Aluminum catches on fire and burns extremely hot. The plane probably didn't disappear. The plane probably caught on fire.

Basically, the only parts that wouldn't burn are the turbines, there are others, but that is the most easily identifiable parts. Problem with that is that those thin blades probably didn't survive the impact.

I must admit there are many curious circumstances about this wreck. I wouldn't think the wings would fold up like that, but I have seen much stranger things occur with my own eyes.

I saw a video on TV of a skydiver who jumped out of a plane at 10,000 feet. He pulled his rip cord and the chute came out but didn't open. It was a small streamer. A bedsheet would of provided more drag. He fell all the way twisting and turning at high speeds. He hit the ground, bounced, landed on his feet and yelled "WOOOHOOOO!!!!!".

The man didn't have 1 broken bone. It was on one of those "Ripley Believe it or not" like shows

Sometimes [censored] just happens. There is a saying in the field of science. If it is possible, then it will happen, no matter what the odds say. It's only a matter of time.

Feel free to keep investigating. I really would like to learn more of the physics behind the folding wings.

wacki · #28 10-29-2004, 07:25 PM

On a side note.... The fact that the FBI refuses to release all of those tapes really annoys me. Why don't the just release them, what's the point?

PITTM · #29 10-29-2004, 07:33 PM

exactly. what everyone fails to realize is, i am not saying that this is a giant conspiracy theory and it definitly happened. but i am saying that too much has been covered up and i would like to see what really happened.

rj

jslag · #30 10-29-2004, 07:55 PM

The video has some interesting points, but I agree with others that it still doesn't explain where the missing 757 went.

What I don't get is where they show that smaller hole and question how a 757 could do that and penetrate different sections of the Pentagon... then they show the picture that was posted in this thread already of a big piece of the Pentagon all caved in. The video kinda went chewbacca on that one..

My conspiracy theory is that they tried to shoot down the plane, but were too late... the plane hit the Pentagon and the missile did too. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Before you all flame me for this one, I'm just joking. Although it wouldn't surprise me if they did try to ground the 757 before it hit the Pentagon, why shouldn't they... rather hit the lawn than the building.

It is interesting that the FBI was at the gas station taking the video 10 minutes after the crash... 10 minutes. You'd think they might have other priorities first, but I guess gathering evidence is important... not releasing it is also strange. Most of the twin towers footage has been released.