World Trade Center 7 Explosion and Controlled Collaspe Caught on Tape.

a reply to: Shadow Herder

Owner of the world trade center made the decision to pull the building after deciding that there were too much loss of life that the smartest thing was to help it down.

That is false, because he was referring to the pulling out of firefighters from WTC 7 due to the danger it posed, and I might add that Silverstein did not have the authority to order the demolition of WTC 7.

originally posted by: skyeagle409Now, let's take another look at the WTC buildings and understand that the WTC buildings are not solid objects and that their interiors are mostly air.

I know - after all, isn't that exactly the point of high-rise buildings? One of the great benefits of this type of construction actually was that there was plenty of open floor space (without columns).

Please note that I could reverse your point and say that it is very unlikely that the weight of mostly air crushes solid concrete and steel. Still, that's what we see.

It would have been impossible for the top of WTC 2 to topple over because there was no support beneath the hinge point.

Exactly! So where did that support go all of a sudden? It's weird enough as it is that the top seems to fall over without being held in place by the core - actually, when you study the fall of WTC1 (North Tower) you can see the antenna fall down BEFORE the rim of the building starts falling down. So, somehow the core suddenly turned into pudding or what?

I will try to work with you here, so I will do a lot of weird assumptions just to support your theory.

So, firstly I will assume that it is normal to see a plane fly into a steel building like it did. After all, we all "saw" it: even the wingtips managed to cut solid steel beams and the tail did not fall down upon impact but continued its trajectory as if no steel was in its path. Amazing. But I will assume it happened. I will also assume that this particular plane could to fly as fast as it did at sea level.

I will assume that the plane broke away a large chunk of the core. Let's also assume that the building was NOT a huge heat sink. Let's also assume that the beams were not coated with heat resisting materials. Let's assume that the fires burned hot enough to weaken the steel and that Edna Cinton was just a figment of our collective imagination. Let's assume all that.

In that case I can imagine that it happens that the 3 remaining sides and the small piece of the core that was left standing gave up and a collapse followed. But that would be a much slower process and it would not be symmetrical. How come the top did not topple and simply fell off? You said it yourself: THERE WAS NO RESISTANCE AT THE HINGEPOINT.

Correct.

Alien Ray. Told ya.

a reply to: skyeagle409

What do you mean it's false? I saw the pictures myself of the structural steel pieces blown out sideways. One piece in particular was stuck in the old American Express building, I saw it myself.

The damage observed could not possibly have been caused by fires and gravity.

a reply to: scottyirnbru

Are you kidding? Those 3 questions you pose are fairly well the heart of the matter.

Who exactly benefitted from the events of the day? How about those who benefit from 14 years of war? Have you ever read President Eisenhower's Farewell Address?

Keep in mind that the government ended up with an entire new bureau--DHS. Have you kept up with the budget for DHS?

2 wars without end is what came of 911. Those who profit from war is who benefitted.

a reply to: Illumina233

Have you ever seen pictures of the airplane storage facility in the desert at Davis-Mothan air force base in Arizona?

Hundreds of airplanes to choose from, for those so inclined.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

I know - after all, isn't that exactly the point of high-rise buildings? One of the great benefits of this type of construction actually was that there was plenty of open floor space (without columns).

Please note that I could reverse your point and say that it is very unlikely that the weight of mostly air crushes solid concrete and steel. Still, that's what we see.

It is just a matter of upper floors crashing down on the lower floors, whose support brackets are unable to arrest the downward momentum of the upper floor mass, which only increases in mass at each floor level.

The internal air is compressed and that is what creates the squibs as the buildings are collapsing.

So, firstly I will assume that it is normal to see a plane fly into a steel building like it did. After all, we all "saw" it: even the wingtips managed to cut solid steel beams and the tail did not fall down upon impact but continued its trajectory as if no steel was in its path. Amazing. But I will assume it happened. I will also assume that this particular plane could to fly as fast as it did at sea level.

I am confused as to why people think that large aircraft cannot fly at high velocities at low altitudes. Let's take a look at this video.

KC-135 Highspeed Flyby

I will assume that the plane broke away a large chunk of the core. Let's also assume that the building was NOT a huge heat sink. Let's also assume that the beams were not coated with heat resisting materials. Let's assume that the fires burned hot enough to weaken the steel and that Edna Cinton was just a figment of our collective imagination. Let's assume all that.

The contents within the buildings are not fireproof and they will create temperatures high enough to weaken steel. That was evident in WTC 5 where that building suffered an internal collapse due solely to fire from office furniture alone.

n that case I can imagine that it happens that the 3 remaining sides and the small piece of the core that was left standing gave up and a collapse followed. But that would be a much slower process and it would not be symmetrical. How come the top did not topple and simply fell off? You said it yourself: THERE WAS NO RESISTANCE AT THE HINGEPOINT.

The two things that made it impossible for the top of WTC 2 to tip over was the location of the center-of-gravity and the lack of support at the hinge point. In other words, the only direction for the upper block to go was straight down.

a reply to: Salander

What do you mean it's false? I saw the pictures myself of the structural steel pieces blown out sideways. One piece in particular was stuck in the old American Express building, I saw it myself.

They were not blown sideways by explosives, they were thrown by the collapse. Ever wondered why the steel beams of the 1993 WTC 1 bombing were not thrown sideways and why the steel beams remained standing within the huge bomb crater?

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: scottyirnbru

Are you kidding? Those 3 questions you pose are fairly well the heart of the matter.

Who exactly benefitted from the events of the day? How about those who benefit from 14 years of war? Have you ever read President Eisenhower's Farewell Address?

Keep in mind that the government ended up with an entire new bureau--DHS. Have you kept up with the budget for DHS?

2 wars without end is what came of 911. Those who profit from war is who benefitted.

Let me point out that you never answered the questions with specifics, just more insinuation and questions. Who? Why? How? I agree they are the meat of the matter but your insinuation is wrong.

We went to war in Iraq not because of 9/11 but because of a false story about wmds. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. In fact you could make a reasonable case that Al Qaeda would look at Iraq as the worst of middle east states. Iraq was a secular country with many different religions inside it's borders. Saddam kept the situation inside mostly under control and maintained the status quo.

A false case for war was built and off we went. No bombs. No terrorist attacks. No case for invasion. And we went regardless. The US led an illegal invasion because bush just wanted to.

So no, 9/11 was not about starting wars. Afghanistan is exceptionally oil poor. We'd have been better off invading Ecuador. Afghanistan barely makes it into the top 75 of proven oil reserves.

The DHS eh? Explain who benefits from this? You've a scattergun approach to this. So you've settled on a conspiracy, how many were involved and how have they managed to all stay silent?

Look at Edward Snowden. Leaks everything and let's Russia play the big man. You don't think the Russians would know and release the information? Or the Chinese? What better way to cement yourself as the only superpower by wiping out the American govt.

There is simply no evidence of a large scale conspiracy at high level. There is another thread here with pictures. Loads of guesswork comments taken as true. "No tearstears, only smirks" That's just a guess. It's not based on any form of fact.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: ForteanOrgI am confused as to why people think that large aircraft cannot fly at high velocities at low altitudes. Let's take a look at this video.

KC-135 Highspeed Flyby

Thanks.

Firstly: of course planes can fly at low altitudes, even the biggest plane - how else could they descend to or ascend from the earth

But the video you refer to is from a plane that just left the runway (to the left). It flies at approximately the normal speed for takeoff and you can see it ascend at the end of the video. Also, check out that YouTube channel: it mostly contains videos of planes leaving the runway. That guy loves to film planes ascending from the runway.

Now, it seems that you confuse the Towers with the Pentagon, as yes, in case of the Pentagon there is a physical impossibility - a big plane has engines and if the fuselage is at six feet above the ground (as it must have been, given the impact hole created by the alien ray) the engines will be IN the ground. I did not see two scars in the ground, did you?

BTW: yes, a 757 or 767 can actually fly very fast at low altitudes. The reason people believe that it can't be done is that no pilot would ever do this as it will damage the engines beyond repair. But Kamikaze flyers would not mind destroying their engines of course - so yes they simply shoved the throttle to "full" and flew into the Towers.

The contents within the buildings are not fireproof and they will create temperatures high enough to weaken steel. That was evident in WTC 5 where that building suffered an internal collapse due solely to fire from office furniture alone.

If you were right many more buildings would have collapsed after suffering from office fires. Actually that does not happen to the best of my knowledge.

The two things that made it impossible for the top of WTC 2 to tip over was the location of the center-of-gravity and the lack of support at the hinge point. In other words, the only direction for the upper block to go was straight down.

Yes, you said so before. But how come there was no support at the hinge point? Right below where 80+ floors of steel and concrete - and each floor was supported by ever thicker beams (the lower parts of the building needed to be capable of carrying all of the weight of all floor above them). Yet we did not see any change in the "collapsing" speed, which remained roughly at free fall speed.

So, why was there no support at the hinge point? Why did the upper part of the building - if it, as you suppose, did not meet any resistance - crumble to dust in mid-air?

Alien ray. Told ya.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: ForteanOrgI am confused as to why people think that large aircraft cannot fly at high velocities at low altitudes. Let's take a look at this video.

KC-135 Highspeed Flyby

Thanks.

Firstly: of course planes can fly at low altitudes, even the biggest plane - how else could they descend to or ascend from the earth

But the video you refer to is from a plane that just left the runway (to the left). It flies at approximately the normal speed for takeoff and you can see it ascend at the end of the video. Also, check out that YouTube channel: it mostly contains videos of planes leaving the runway. That guy loves to film planes ascending from the runway.

Now, it seems that you confuse the Towers with the Pentagon, as yes, in case of the Pentagon there is a physical impossibility - a big plane has engines and if the fuselage is at six feet above the ground (as it must have been, given the impact hole created by the alien ray) the engines will be IN the ground. I did not see two scars in the ground, did you?

BTW: yes, a 757 or 767 can actually fly very fast at low altitudes. The reason people believe that it can't be done is that no pilot would ever do this as it will damage the engines beyond repair. But Kamikaze flyers would not mind destroying their engines of course - so yes they simply shoved the throttle to "full" and flew into the Towers.

The contents within the buildings are not fireproof and they will create temperatures high enough to weaken steel. That was evident in WTC 5 where that building suffered an internal collapse due solely to fire from office furniture alone.

If you were right many more buildings would have collapsed after suffering from office fires. Actually that does not happen to the best of my knowledge.

The two things that made it impossible for the top of WTC 2 to tip over was the location of the center-of-gravity and the lack of support at the hinge point. In other words, the only direction for the upper block to go was straight down.

Yes, you said so before. But how come there was no support at the hinge point? Right below where 80+ floors of steel and concrete - and each floor was supported by ever thicker beams (the lower parts of the building needed to be capable of carrying all of the weight of all floor above them). Yet we did not see any change in the "collapsing" speed, which remained roughly at free fall speed.

So, why was there no support at the hinge point? Why did the upper part of the building - if it, as you suppose, did not meet any resistance - crumble to dust in mid-air?

Alien ray. Told ya.

What are you on about with hinge point? The floors were falling in on themselves. Vertically. This pulled the core columns into the floor area and the outer columns into the floor area. Why do you think this would slow down? The load is increasing with each floor. More load than supports can take. An impact loading as opposed to a static load onto supports. Start using some scientific thought instead of guesswork.

Also. It didn't turn to dust. That's just a nonsense. A fallacy

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: jaffo

Ah, despair strikes

No, I'm not derailing this thread at all. I merely responded to another members questions. I provided a story - like you provide a story - to explain what happened that day. Like your story, mine fits the facts. Like your story, mine is true - of course it is.

Alien Ray. Told ya.

This is utterly moronic. Hey mods, you ever going to put a stop to this idiotic alien ray garbage?

originally posted by: scottyirnbruWhat are you on about with hinge point?

It's just a figure of speech, not a real hinge of course. Check out this image, to see what I mean with "hinge":



In this picture, the yellow line depicts the position of the block of upper floors. See the virtual hinge? That's what I was referring to.

What happens here is that the top floors - as a whole - lean over to the left. You can clearly see that the upper part of the building retains its composure: all floors topple as a whole. Makes sense too: the left side (in this picture) was the side where he exoskeleton was largely cut by the plane. So, the left part of the top "block" crashes down there, making the upper 'block' topple to the left. So far so good.

But the amazing thing here is that inertia seems not to work as you'd expect. The top topples - but instead of continuing the motion (inertia) it somehow stops this movement, crashes right through the remaining 80 floors of concrete and steel that were still standing and then we seem something quite impossible happening: the entire upper block turns to mostly dust way before the remains of this block hit the floor.

The floors were falling in on themselves. Vertically.

Yes, anything that falls moves vertically.

But it is halted if it meets solid steel and concrete. We can see this demonstrated in the picture above: the top leans over to the left because that's the path of least resitance. What should have happened is that the top floors should have continued their path along the line of least resitance. That did not happen because the lower parts were magically disappearing in clouds of dust.

This pulled the core columns into the floor area and the outer columns into the floor area. Why do you think this would slow down? The load is increasing with each floor.

So, let's see: the top of the building toppled as a whole, we can clearly see this. So we must conclude that the core and all floors in that part of the building were still intact at that moment. We can also assume that the core and exoskeleton of the lower floors were all largely still intact too when the picture above was taken - agreed?

So, what you assume happened is that the top - more or less as a whole - fell down on the lower floors. Am I correct? So, you assume that the sheer weight of these falling masses immediately and without much noticable delay ripped the core apart while also turning the entire structure into rubble, right? The rubble then fell downwards and hit the next floor etc. - right?

And all that happened almost totally symmetrically - though the resistance of core, exoskeleton and floors differed dramatically - and at near free fall speed?

I would expect the toppling of the top floors to have continued, which would have lead to an assymmetrical collapse, eventually large parts of the building should have remained standing. In my model, the only reason that all this happened is - the addition of energy.

More load than supports can take. An impact loading as opposed to a static load onto supports. Start using some scientific thought instead of guesswork.

Methinks you're waving one of those red flags again: referring to authority instead of evidence. My method is just as "scientific" as yours, we both try to make sense of what happened using the data we have. I'm merely not as easy convinced by authority, scientific or not.

Also. It didn't turn to dust. That's just a nonsense. A fallacy

Oh, come on, you're not blind are you?



What's that then?

originally posted by: jaffoThis is utterly moronic. Hey mods, you ever going to put a stop to this idiotic alien ray garbage?

By calling my opinion "moronic" and "idiotic" you are implying I'm a moron and an idiot. Methinks that is more of a violation of the terms and conditions than me presenting a theory that does not suit you.

Let's agree to disagree and uphold manners and decorum.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: scottyirnbruWhat are you on about with hinge point?

It's just a figure of speech, not a real hinge of course. Check out this image, to see what I mean with "hinge":

In this picture, the yellow line depicts the position of the block of upper floors. See the virtual hinge? That's what I was referring to.

What happens here is that the top floors - as a whole - lean over to the left. You can clearly see that the upper part of the building retains its composure: all floors topple as a whole. Makes sense too: the left side (in this picture) was the side where he exoskeleton was largely cut by the plane. So, the left part of the top "block" crashes down there, making the upper 'block' topple to the left. So far so good.

But the amazing thing here is that inertia seems not to work as you'd expect. The top topples - but instead of continuing the motion (inertia) it somehow stops this movement, crashes right through the remaining 80 floors of concrete and steel that were still standing and then we seem something quite impossible happening: the entire upper block turns to mostly dust way before the remains of this block hit the floor.

The floors were falling in on themselves. Vertically.

Yes, anything that falls moves vertically.

But it is halted if it meets solid steel and concrete. We can see this demonstrated in the picture above: the top leans over to the left because that's the path of least resitance. What should have happened is that the top floors should have continued their path along the line of least resitance. That did not happen because the lower parts were magically disappearing in clouds of dust.

This pulled the core columns into the floor area and the outer columns into the floor area. Why do you think this would slow down? The load is increasing with each floor.

So, let's see: the top of the building toppled as a whole, we can clearly see this. So we must conclude that the core and all floors in that part of the building were still intact at that moment. We can also assume that the core and exoskeleton of the lower floors were all largely still intact too when the picture above was taken - agreed?

So, what you assume happened is that the top - more or less as a whole - fell down on the lower floors. Am I correct? So, you assume that the sheer weight of these falling masses immediately and without much noticable delay ripped the core apart while also turning the entire structure into rubble, right? The rubble then fell downwards and hit the next floor etc. - right?

And all that happened almost totally symmetrically - though the resistance of core, exoskeleton and floors differed dramatically - and at near free fall speed?

I would expect the toppling of the top floors to have continued, which would have lead to an assymmetrical collapse, eventually large parts of the building should have remained standing. In my model, the only reason that all this happened is - the addition of energy.

More load than supports can take. An impact loading as opposed to a static load onto supports. Start using some scientific thought instead of guesswork.

Methinks you're waving one of those red flags again: referring to authority instead of evidence. My method is just as "scientific" as yours, we both try to make sense of what happened using the data we have. I'm merely not as easy convinced by authority, scientific or not.

Also. It didn't turn to dust. That's just a nonsense. A fallacy

Oh, come on, you're not blind are you?

What's that then?

Great post.
You answered every question thrown at you !
You must be getting to them because all`s they`re doing now is throw insults.

a reply to: lambros56

because all`s they`re doing now is throw insults.

As utterly moronic as it could be.

*tusch*

"The Idiot" from Dostojewski comes to mind. And ForteanOrg starts to look exactly like Lew Myschkin, being ridiculed for his unconventional but perfectly honest way of thinking. Utterly entertaining, indeed!

a reply to: ForteanOrg

Now, it seems that you confuse the Towers with the Pentagon, as yes, in case of the Pentagon there is a physical impossibility - a big plane has engines and if the fuselage is at six feet above the ground (as it must have been, given the impact hole created by the alien ray) the engines will be IN the ground. I did not see two scars in the ground, did you?

First of all, you would be surprised at what can be done with large aircraft. Check out this video.

Barrel Rolling a B-707

Secondly, American 77 did in fact, fly that low and it is not impossible my any means. In fact, the B-757 took out light poles and one of the engines struck a generator.

Damaged Generator Struck by Engine of American 77

Map

Witnesses of American 77 Strike Video

American 77 Video

Depiction of Damage Inside Pentagon by American 77

Light Poles Knocked Down by American 77

American 77 Flight Path

American 77 Flight - 2

American 77 Flight Data

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon

The recent complete decoding of the FDR file has enlarged and clarified the information available and has thereby enabled resolution of the contradictions. It is clear that this file supports the official account of the course of flight AA 77 and the consequent impact with the Pentagon. The file thus also supports the majority of eyewitness reports.

journalof911s...ltimeter..._92.pdf

I might add that flying aircraft in ground effect at low levels is taught during flight training. You can actually float an aircraft in ground effect.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

I want to mention that there is no support beneath the lower left corner of the upper block and the center-of-gravity is too far to the right for the top block to continue to topple to the left. In fact, it was impossible.

We can take a look at this video as they pulled down these steel frame buildngs with cables. You will notice at time line 1:50 the building to the right leans to the left but falls straight down.

Collapse of Steel Frame Buildings Video

a reply to: ForteanOrg

Yes, you said so before. But how come there was no support at the hinge point? Right below where 80+ floors of steel and concrete - and each floor was supported by ever thicker beams (the lower parts of the building needed to be capable of carrying all of the weight of all floor above them). Yet we did not see any change in the "collapsing" speed, which remained roughly at free fall speed.

I think I see the problem you are having. What attaches the floors to the structural beams? Le't's take a look here.

Unscaled schematic of WTC floor joints and attachment to columns.


As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.

It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity.

To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: scottyirnbruWhat are you on about with hinge point?

It's just a figure of speech, not a real hinge of course. Check out this image, to see what I mean with "hinge":

In this picture, the yellow line depicts the position of the block of upper floors. See the virtual hinge? That's what I was referring to.

What happens here is that the top floors - as a whole - lean over to the left. You can clearly see that the upper part of the building retains its composure: all floors topple as a whole. Makes sense too: the left side (in this picture) was the side where he exoskeleton was largely cut by the plane. So, the left part of the top "block" crashes down there, making the upper 'block' topple to the left. So far so good.

But the amazing thing here is that inertia seems not to work as you'd expect. The top topples - but instead of continuing the motion (inertia) it somehow stops this movement, crashes right through the remaining 80 floors of concrete and steel that were still standing and then we seem something quite impossible happening: the entire upper block turns to mostly dust way before the remains of this block hit the floor.

The floors were falling in on themselves. Vertically.

Yes, anything that falls moves vertically.

But it is halted if it meets solid steel and concrete. We can see this demonstrated in the picture above: the top leans over to the left because that's the path of least resitance. What should have happened is that the top floors should have continued their path along the line of least resitance. That did not happen because the lower parts were magically disappearing in clouds of dust.

This pulled the core columns into the floor area and the outer columns into the floor area. Why do you think this would slow down? The load is increasing with each floor.

So, let's see: the top of the building toppled as a whole, we can clearly see this. So we must conclude that the core and all floors in that part of the building were still intact at that moment. We can also assume that the core and exoskeleton of the lower floors were all largely still intact too when the picture above was taken - agreed?

So, what you assume happened is that the top - more or less as a whole - fell down on the lower floors. Am I correct? So, you assume that the sheer weight of these falling masses immediately and without much noticable delay ripped the core apart while also turning the entire structure into rubble, right? The rubble then fell downwards and hit the next floor etc. - right?

And all that happened almost totally symmetrically - though the resistance of core, exoskeleton and floors differed dramatically - and at near free fall speed?

I would expect the toppling of the top floors to have continued, which would have lead to an assymmetrical collapse, eventually large parts of the building should have remained standing. In my model, the only reason that all this happened is - the addition of energy.

More load than supports can take. An impact loading as opposed to a static load onto supports. Start using some scientific thought instead of guesswork.

Methinks you're waving one of those red flags again: referring to authority instead of evidence. My method is just as "scientific" as yours, we both try to make sense of what happened using the data we have. I'm merely not as easy convinced by authority, scientific or not.

Also. It didn't turn to dust. That's just a nonsense. A fallacy

Oh, come on, you're not blind are you?

What's that then?

This imaginary hinge point you are treating it as an actual hinge. You want it to pivot over that point. That would only be the case if the centre of gravity had moved past that point. As it is its still within the building this vertically is still the direction the load is travelling. You've also ignored the possibility that other columns on the opposite side from your hinge point are providing resistance.

Dust. It's dust from a collapse. It's an end result and to be expected as opposed to a cause or something that's occurred by the addition of your flyer saucer guys.

I'm not waving a scientific red flag. I'm pointing out that you've abandoned science completely and are advocating an entirely fictional alien ray.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
First of all, you would be surprised at what can be done with large aircraft.

Thanks again for a valuable contribution. If only all ATS members put in as much effort in defending and presenting their points of view

Secondly, American 77 did in fact, fly that low and it is not impossible my any means. In fact, the B-757 took out light poles and one of the engines struck a generator.

A lot of "evidence" we saw may have been fabricated, added later. Just minutes after the attack a reporter (Jamie McIntyre) reported:

From my close up inspection there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. . . . . The only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you could pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage - nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon. . . . It wasn't till about 45 minutes later . . . that all of the floors collapsed.

We all remember the picture of the grass in front of the impact zone, right after the beam hit: spotless, not a sign of a low flying plane. General Arnold ordered one of his jets to fly over the Pentagon. His pilot reported back that there was no evidence that a plane had hit the building. General Arnold was not "in the know" so he simply honestly tried to figure out what had happened.

Police officers and other eye witnesses saw a plane - and it flew towards the Pentagon. But oddly enough, it did not follow the trajectory presented to the public - the trajectory on which the light posts were. Other light poles, traffic lights, traffic signs, all directly in the presumed flight path were still standing.

Even a trailer, right in the Boeing 757's flight path survived this ordeal - unscathed. Some witnesses reported to have seen a plane fly OVER the Pentagon. A cab driver reported that one of the lightpoles had penetrated the wind shield of his cab. His bonnet was undamaged, weirdly enough. But there were photo's taken, alas none of them showed the pole sticking out of his cab. He did something very strange: he pulled out the pole (was helped by some unknown stranger, he says). I wonder what you would do had something like that happened - I would have left the pole right where it was, as insurance companies are quite fond of not paying a dime if you don't proof that the accident happened as you said it did. But okay, he pulled out the beam. A reporter checked the story, found a lot of contradications and impossibilities - after which the cab driver admitted that the event was staged.



In general, people connect the wrong dots. You see a plane, it flies towards the Pentagon, you see and hear an explosing, lot's of smoke - so the plane MUST have crashed into the Pentagon. That's how it works.

I might add that flying aircraft in ground effect at low levels is taught during flight training. You can actually float an aircraft in ground effect.

Indeed, you can. But it is never done at high speed. Typically one practices this during landing, with reduced speeds. The effects are that the plane 'floats' on the air between the water / runway and the nose of the plane tends to "dip" towards the surface (during landing). However, the effects of the ground effect on a plane going at least 400+ m/h, with a fairly high tail, but at just marginal percentage of its wing span above the landing surface - I honestly don't know what to make of that. I never practiced that during flight training

I know that the ground effect diminishes with high speed, so perhaps we can take it out of the equasion. But to be honest, I find it quite unbelievable that a plane knocks down a number of fairly solid lamp posts (but continues it's flight and nothing breaks away from the plane), then somehow evades other objecs in its path, then hits the Pentagon without even touching the grass in front, only to disappear entirely. And all that done by a pilot who was seen as a total failure at even flying a small plane. You're a pilot too, methinks, and you know that it is quite infeasible for even an experience pilot to do this. So, perhaps this pilots hand was indeed guided by some dark and sinister god - or it was an ..

Alien ray. Told ya.