Why they didn't use a 757 to hit the Pentagon.

Originally posted by diggs
Possible? Yes, anything is possible. Probability of hitting that exact spot without hitting the lawn or fly over and all the other coincidences tied to it (you guys left that part out)? Nill.

OK, what about posing it like this: probability of hitting close to the middle of 912 ft wide target is? Esp. in a guided projectile (ie 757)? And why it HAS to hit the lawn? Oh and btw what probability there is no witness would notice govt agents clipping off the lamp poles?

some good stuff you have there diggs i wasnt aware of some of this stuff.
good reserch on your part

Originally posted by tuccy
OK, what about posing it like this: probability of hitting close to the middle of 912 ft wide target is? Esp. in a guided projectile (ie 757)? And why it HAS to hit the lawn? Oh and btw what probability there is no witness would notice govt agents clipping off the lamp poles?

Guided? Who guided it?

Because odds are the lawn would have been hit or it would overshoot the short building.

About those lamp poles, funny their tops were sliced off by a 530mph aircraft and yet ALL of them snapped off from their bases too. One even landed the WRONG WAY! How does all that happen?

Originally posted by diggs
About those lamp poles, funny their tops were sliced off by a 530mph aircraft and yet ALL of them snapped off from their bases too. One even landed the WRONG WAY! How does all that happen?

Breakaway Safety Bases meeting AASHTO requirements are available.

Source
The reason all of them snapped at their bases is that are designed to. No other reason.

With regard to how they landed - unfortunately, by now a lot of that's speculation. Parts of a lamp pole may have been ingested into the 757's engine/s, causing a change in the way the poles ended up lying, some may have been moved by motorists to get them out of the way of traffic for obvious safety reasons, some may have had their orientation changed by impact by vehicles. Not one of the photos I've seen has been date/time stamped, leaving the actual time of the photo in doubt.

Originally posted by Aotearoa

Originally posted by diggs
About those lamp poles, funny their tops were sliced off by a 530mph aircraft and yet ALL of them snapped off from their bases too. One even landed the WRONG WAY! How does all that happen?

Breakaway Safety Bases meeting AASHTO requirements are available.

Source
The reason all of them snapped at their bases is that are designed to. No other reason.

But the plane supposedly traveled at 530mph and sliced just the tops off. Surely no great force was exerted to the base.

With regard to how they landed - unfortunately, by now a lot of that's speculation. Parts of a lamp pole may have been ingested into the 757's engine/s, causing a change in the way the poles ended up lying, some may have been moved by motorists to get them out of the way of traffic for obvious safety reasons, some may have had their orientation changed by impact by vehicles. Not one of the photos I've seen has been date/time stamped, leaving the actual time of the photo in doubt.

Some pretty crazy theories of your own there!

I'm unsure why the idea of motorists moving the broken poles out of harm's way or vehicle impact of a pole are "crazy theories". My thought here is you're fishing for a way to debunk my arguments without doing any research of your own. But, of course, that's just another "crazy theory", right?

Physics is not my strong point but I suspect these poles were designed to snap off at the base anywhere from a speed of around 30mph up when hit by a vehicle. The poles are relatively rigid (not totally rigid or they wouldn't withstand high winds). I'm guessing that a pole hit by something travelling between 350-530mph, even if it hit at the top of the pole, would send enough energy through the pole to snap the base. Maybe someone with more knowledge can answer that one.

diggs, unless you're going to do your own research to rebut my replies, don't call my theories any crazier than yours, okay?

Originally posted by Aotearoa
I'm unsure why the idea of motorists moving the broken poles out of harm's way or vehicle impact of a pole are "crazy theories". My thought here is you're fishing for a way to debunk my arguments without doing any research of your own. But, of course, that's just another "crazy theory", right?

I was speaking of this one only: "Parts of a lamp pole may have been ingested into the 757's engine/s, causing a change in the way the poles ended up lying,"

Guess I should have said "theory," not theories.

The ingestion of one (or more) of the lamps from the poles by the engine/s was posited by one of the many "conspiracy websites" I visited. As I can't find the source at the moment, consider that theory deleted.

Originally posted by diggs
But the plane supposedly traveled at 530mph and sliced just the tops off. Surely no great force was exerted to the base.

Contrary there'd be MUCH more force applied to the base than in an ordinary car crash. Let's say a two ton car hits the pole at the speed of say 100mph 30 centimeters above the base. Now compare it with a hit of 100ton plane travelling at say 530mph and hitting considerably higher (too lazy to go calcullating exact height just now) - or make yourself an experiment. Open the door, then pust them near the inner edge, then hit them hard with your fist near the outer edge. Which one causes them to move faster?

Originally posted by diggs
Guided? Who guided it?

Pilot.

Because odds are the lawn would have been hit or it would overshoot the short building.

Who calcullated these odds? Who said so? Once you'll set the height (where you can use surroundings as reference) you have rather wide target to hit.

How it is possible the lamp poles broke was explained elsewhere, so I just repeat my question: WHAT broke them and clipped their tips off had it not been the 757?

Originally posted by tuccy
Contrary there'd be MUCH more force applied to the base than in an ordinary car crash. Let's say a two ton car hits the pole at the speed of say 100mph 30 centimeters above the base. Now compare it with a hit of 100ton plane travelling at say 530mph and hitting considerably higher (too lazy to go calcullating exact height just now) - or make yourself an experiment. Open the door, then pust them near the inner edge, then hit them hard with your fist near the outer edge. Which one causes them to move faster?

What ever you just tried to say, I still think they shouldn't have all snapped, but this is a subject for a different thread.

Originally posted by diggs
What ever you just tried to say, I still think they shouldn't have all snapped, but this is a subject for a different thread.

And WHY do you think they shouldn't have snapped? While the force applied was much more than they're designed for and in the same moment it was applied in a larger distance from the base, actually multiplying the effect?

Originally posted by tuccy
And WHY do you think they shouldn't have snapped? While the force applied was much more than they're designed for and in the same moment it was applied in a larger distance from the base, actually multiplying the effect?

I think of a sword chopping off the tip of a candle (or whatever). Anyways, find a light pole thread to continue this if you want.

Originally posted by diggs
What ever you just tried to say, I still think they shouldn't have all snapped, but this is a subject for a different thread.

... but this is a subject for a different thread ...

At this rate, if you keep creating new threads for every topic, you'll be able to assemble a B757 out of them.

Originally posted by diggs
I think of a sword chopping off the tip of a candle (or whatever). Anyways, find a light pole thread to continue this if you want.

Why a different thread? The subject clearly belongs to the "Why they didn't use a 757 to hit the Pentagon." topic, no? It is a fully legitimate question to ask in this thread a question what clipped those lamp poles if not a 757...

I don't know diggs,

Why don't you ask these people...

Click Here

Kat Gaines
Fairfax County

As she approached the parking lots, she saw a low-flying jetliner strike the top of nearby telephone poles. She then heard the plane power up and plunge into the Pentagon.

Steve Riskus
Interview with humanunderground.com

I am sorry to rain on your parade, but I saw the plane hit the building. It did not hit the ground first.... It did not hit the roof first... It hit dead center on the side... I was close enough (about 100 feet or so) that I could see the "American Airlines" logo on the tail as it headed towards the building... The plane looked like it was coming in about where you have the "MAX APPROACH" on that picture... I was at about where the "E" in "ANGLE OF CAMERA" is written when the plane hit... It was not completely level, but it was not going straight down, kind of like it was landing with no gear down... It knocked over a few light poles in its way... I did not see any smoke or debris coming from the plane. I clearly saw the "AA" logo with the eagle in the middle... I don't really remember the engine configuration, but it did have those turbine engines on the wing... and yes, it did impact the Pentagon... There was none of this hitting-the-ground first crap I keep hearing... It was definitely an American Airlines jet... There is no doubt about that... When I got to work I checked it out."

PLEASE give me an explanation to those witness testimonies. An honest and correct one that can be explained.

You watched airliners fly into the World Trade Centers - they were pretty accurate? No?

Please diggs - inform me of your piloting experience seeing as you know so much about flying a plane.

And as for this comment

Posted by diggs
I think of a sword chopping off the tip of a candle (or whatever). Anyways, find a light pole thread to continue this if you want.

I think a better analogy could be used. A sword is extremley sharp (unline a plane wing) and a telegraph pole is strong and designed to fall instead of snap (hardly the same as a candle).

Your theory is laughable mate - You can't even explain it properly. WHY ON EARTH WOULD ANYONE FIRE A MISSILE AT THE PENTAGON (a public building) AND NOT EXPECT ANYONE TO SEE IT!?

Why isn't there any webpage on the internet with 100 testimonies from people saying "I saw a missile hit the pentagon"?

Why are over 100 people saying they saw a plane hit the pentagon?

All questions you can't correctly explain short of a childish "nu-uh!" kind of answer.

[edit on 6-6-2006 by shanemcbain]

This whole argument is based on a fallacy, as many threads in this forum are. You are assuming that the people flying the plane targetted an exact bit of the building, and then with some skill (apparently beyond their training) hit it. Where in fact:

You have no idea what they were aiming at!


They may have just aimed the plane vaguely at the Pentagon and then hit that part by accident. In fact the hijackers may have been aiming at the middle of the Pentagon and due to lack of skill hit that wall. We might run that attack over 100 times and they would hit a different bit each time (and maybe completely miss a few times). As the OP said: in terms of death and destruction that section of the Pentagon wasn't the best to attack anyway, so might not have been the plan.

To say that Rumsfield ordered a missle attack on his own HQ to cover up an investigation that he initiated is just silly. The investigation into waste at the Pentagon would never have been politically damaging (at least to Bush) anyway, as it was a chronic problem that they had inherited. In fact if it found evidence of corruption and mismanagement it could have been used to hammer the Clinton administration and the Democrats in general, as much of it would have been on their watch.

You're going to have to do better than this to convince anyone but the "hardcore" of consipircy theorists that anything but a passenger plane hit the Pentagon.

Originally posted by shanemcbain
I don't know diggs,

Why don't you ask these people...
Why are over 100 people saying they saw a plane hit the pentagon?
[edit on 6-6-2006 by shanemcbain]

So tell me why out of all these 100 so called witnesses, not one can verify it was a 757.

EDIT: Quote of previous post deleted

How many of them would be able to recognize a 757 standing still on the ground? I won't without a reference at hand. Now the jet wasn't stationary, what was the time frame to recognise the craft? One second when it was passing close enough? What they would be able to see would be whether it is a big two-engined jet or not.

[edit on 11-6-2006 by tuccy]

A note to all members posting in this thread.

Please review the ATS guidelines for quoting other members, here.
Quoting on ATS – Please Review This Link.

Quoting the post directly preceeding yours truly serves no purpose and has a rather adverse effect on the "flow" of the thread.

When quoting another member's post Please quote only that portion you are responding to. Quoting the entirety of the post directly preceeding yours is highly frowned upon and could result in a Big/Excessive Quote points deduction.

Just a heads-up to current and future participants as excessive quoting habits seem to have taken root within this thread.

Thank you.



... and now ... back to the discussion:
Why they didn't use a 757 to hit the Pentagon.