Why a missile could NOT have hit the pentagon

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
...................
So you gave me a NSA archive link (I work at NSA). That have basic ATC recordings. What we need are the FBI and / or NTSB incident reports on the 4 aircraft crash scenes?

As stated i have seen all the infomration Catherder had posted, the photos of the parts do not have a source of who took them, thier are no reports matching those parts found to Flight 77.
[edit on 11-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]

Well, since you work at a government agency why don't you ask the FBI to give you some information about it?


If you are not going to believe the pictures with the parts that were found in the crash you are not going to believe anything else given to you...

[edit on 11-12-2006 by Muaddib]

I have tried to find the FBI reports but i have yet to find them.

I would believe the photos of the parts more if they had a source and if thier were more photos of parts that should have survived along with the reports of them matching flight 77.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Anyways... how about you start here. THere are some FBI reports there about 9/11.

www.gpoaccess.gov...

Here is a link to the FBI about 9/11 reports...

search.fbi.gov...

Have fun.

Nice try but none of those links have the incident reports for the 911 crash scene investigations.

[edit on 11-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]

So send a letter to the FBI and ask them what they found, you obviously don't want to believe them, so ask them yourself.

Originally posted by Muaddib
So send a letter to the FBI and ask them what they found, you obviously don't want to believe them, so ask them yourself.

I would believe the reports (as long as the did not have blatent wrong things), but as stated thier are no aviation investigation reports to be found on the 4 aircraft crashes that happened on 911.




[edit on 11-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

I would believe the reports (as long as the did not have blatent wrong things), but as stated thier are no aviation investigation reports to be found on the 4 aircraft crashes that happened on 911.

You wouldn't.. you are not believing those photos, or that the people involved in the rescue operations such as those of "Collapse Rescue Team Montgomery CO" and others would come forward to deny what happened that day...

As for not finding any reports with part numbers, again...contact the FBI and see what they say instead of making assumptions.

C'mon people...the govenrment couldn't hide what happened in Abu Ghraib halfway around the world because military personnel came forward with the information and yet you want to claim the govenrment can hide something like this for real and none of the people involved in the recovery can deny that any airplane parts were recovered?...

[edit on 11-12-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

I would believe the reports (as long as the did not have blatent wrong things), but as stated thier are no aviation investigation reports to be found on the 4 aircraft crashes that happened on 911.

You wouldn't.. you are not believing those photos, or that the people involved in the rescue operations such as those of "Collapse Rescue Team Montgomery CO" and others would come forward to deny what happened that day...

As for not finding any reports with part numbers, again...contact the FBI and see what they say instead of making assumptions.

As stated i would belive the photos if their were a source of who took them and the reports that those parts match flight 77. i am happy that you are ok with that for proof but for me it takes more real evidence and reports.

Well here are reports from a rescue team.

www.stripes.com...

Rescue workers who have been through the building have reported seeing the fuselage; however, the largest pieces of the plane are about 1 by 2 feet.

James Schwartz, assistant fire chief of Arlington County, says his unit has assumed leadership of the incident site for fire and rescue.

"There is little to no indication of an airplane in there," Schwartz reported.

Well seems like you are making all the assumptions, you have little to no physical proof or actual reports.

Muaddib
Good points, all. If it was a missile though, I doubt very seriously that it was a Tomahawk. I was thinking more along the lines of an AGM-86C/D variant missile which might be carrying a 3k lb warhead.

bsl4doc
So, you're suggesting that somehow the US government recruited 59 individuals, told them they were assuming false identities and boarding a plane which would land elsewhere and they would be back home, and none of these people spoke out?

You really think it's possible to keep even one person out of 59 from squealing?


Well, how much do you know about mind control?

I don't claim to know what happened. I'm just entertaining some hypotheticals.

For one thing though, I find it highly implausible that 'The US Government' would, or coudl, do anything of the sort. As a collective they can't do a damn thing - and I suspect it was designed that way.

No, if elements of the government, such as rogue CIA agents, had a hand in the atrocities, it had no official government sanction - I am sure of few things in life, but I'm relatively sure of that.

People often make the mistake of assuming that the government is a monolithic entity. It's not. There are disparate factions, working against the citizens, against each other, against other nations, for and against various business empires, and so on.

Saying that elements of the US Government may have had a hand in 9/11 is very different from saying that the US Government had a hand in 9/11.



[edit on 11-12-2006 by WyrdeOne]

Hm.... I find it amusing that the biggest argument against the missile theory is that it couldn't have flown that low and parallell to the ground without hitting other buildings and whatnot. You would think that argument would be just as true for a plane? If there is no room for a missile to fly then how the flippin' heck do you fit a plane in there???

Originally posted by DrLeary
Hm.... I find it amusing that the biggest argument against the missile theory is that it couldn't have flown that low and parallell to the ground without hitting other buildings and whatnot. You would think that argument would be just as true for a plane? If there is no room for a missile to fly then how the flippin' heck do you fit a plane in there???

Well thats why there are still questions about flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. Also with a plane hitting light poles would do damage or even shear off the wings, other planes have had thier wings sheared off by hitting light poles.

Too many people on the ground saw the plane streak through the sky and hit the building for anyone to be able to say with confidence that it was something else. It was definately a plane.

I took a taxi cab ride one day down there and even the taxi driver said he saw it.

It was a plane.

Hello all ,
first of all i would like to say that i am no way condoning the missile theory allthough i think it is important to look at all elements to establish a stable outlook on things,

I have just done abit of research on penetration missiles and i have found a small article on bunker busters,

The U.S. military has developed several different weapons to attack these underground fortresses. Known as bunker busters, these bombs penetrate deep into the earth or right through a dozen feet of reinforced concrete before exploding. These bombs have made it possible to reach and destroy facilities that would have been impossible to attack otherwise.

Now the basic principle of these things is simple phisics and newtons law,
these things are made to be heavy and aerodynamic ensuring that the thing is like a pole in a driver.
simply the thing loses alltitude very fast gaining in kinetic energy and it is this very principle that ensures that a GBU-28 or the BLU-113 as it is sometimes called is allmost certain to drive itself deep into the ground and or reinforced structure (This is what these things were made for specifically)

There are also variables in this aswell, Room for improvement if you will...
There are splinter versions of this bomb that have different incindiary and weight specs, for example it is possible that you could make this thing more deadly by replacing the casing that it is in ,
here is a image of one.



Now on to the incindiary specs of this thing,
normally these things have a explosive in them known as Tritonol Explosive ,
this is for the most part , part 80 percent TNT and twenty percent alluminium powder BUT as i said before , there are variables .

It is possible to make the bomb faster by making it heavier in turn this means that it will cause more damage allthough the only thing that is heavier then steel is lead and that is to plyable in the sence that it would warp and misform most probably disintergrate on impact.

You could also change the explosives in the weapon changing the damage specs and properties of this thing, Traditionally this weapon class is known as Penetrator/Blast - Fragmentation .

Now

There is a material which would give this weapon extremely good weight differential and a more powerfull explosion , that material is
DU or what is better known as Depleted Uranium , This element is extremely dense and when ignited holds similar properties to that of burning magnesium sulphate and as we all know that is pretty damn hot, but that was just some research ,

doctor leary
Hm.... I find it amusing that the biggest argument against the missile theory is that it couldn't have flown that low and parallell to the ground without hitting other buildings and whatnot. You would think that argument would be just as true for a plane? If there is no room for a missile to fly then how the flippin' heck do you fit a plane in there???

THis is very true unless it landed a few blocks away then took a left, a right went through the pentagon gates did a little circle around the pentagon and decided "Hey *%$** this , i know what will really *#&% em ! " then done a headon with the pentagon outa wall,
One must really consider the skill a person must have in order to fly so low to the ground and whats more one would have to consider the skill needed to fly at that speed that low to the ground , so quick in fact that there are only apparently small bits of the plane left. ,

There are lots of things really that could have caused this, missile, big plane, small plane, or something else.

I wonder if it is possible that the explosion came from inside the pentagon?
there was noone in that part becuase it was being refurbished, some might also ask that if it was a plane or a missile (if u believe that terrorists did it ) isnt it a bit conveniant that they hit the only spot in the pentagon without any people in it??

This is a very interesting subject, and i would like to remind everyone that i am not taking sides just expressing thought and research ,
i respect you all .

Omega

This link shows a picture of US Air Flight 427 a Boeing 737 that crashed outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Notice how broken up the airframe is. I helped clear the wreckage and with the reconstruction. This was an impact with the ground in a wooded area at about 320 mph. If there was this much destruction here I can only imagine what a 500mph into a reinforced concrete structure must be like.

Flight 427

Originally posted by JIMC5499
This link shows a picture of US Air Flight 427 a Boeing 737 that crashed outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Notice how broken up the airframe is. I helped clear the wreckage and with the reconstruction. This was an impact with the ground in a wooded area at about 320 mph. If there was this much destruction here I can only imagine what a 500mph into a reinforced concrete structure must be like.

Flight 427

Well the problem is how is an aluminum airframe strong enough to penatrate a reinforced concrete wall, 13 collums and interior walls and punch through the other side, but was fragile enough to be almost completely destroyed by fire. As stated above by rescue crews the peices found were about 1 foot by 2 feet. Also if the fire was hot enough to destroy the plane it would have also destroyed the bodies in the plane and DNA evidence.

In the photo you posted i see that a good bit of the tail section survived, why don't we see any tail section left at the Pentagon ?

[edit on 11-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by DrLeary
Hm.... I find it amusing that the biggest argument against the missile theory is that it couldn't have flown that low and parallell to the ground without hitting other buildings and whatnot. You would think that argument would be just as true for a plane? If there is no room for a missile to fly then how the flippin' heck do you fit a plane in there???

Well thats why there are still questions about flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. Also with a plane hitting light poles would do damage or even shear off the wings, other planes have had thier wings sheared off by hitting light poles.

That is another good point! There is just no way that those light poles were hit by a plane, because that plane would have shredded itself long before reaching the pentagon. There would be debris everywhere, yet we see none...

Has anyone seen the (I think) national geographics documentary Seconds from Disaster? It's supposed to explain how the plane hit the pentagon and whatnot. The interesting bit is where they do computer simulation and the plane dematerializes into tiny bits! I'd like to see what kind of physics they are basing these calculations on...

Anyway, the real giveaway is where they show the plane flying just over the freeway towards the pentagon (superimposed CGI on real video) and you can actually see a huge roadsign over the road just in the path of the plane. And If I remember right the plane sort of makes a jump over the sign in the computer simulation. That cracked me up!

EDIT:

On a more serious note. I see the debate rages about whether or not aluminium can pierce reinforced concrete. I tried to find a picture on google where a straw has pierced a piece of wood during a hurricane, but I couldn't find it. Might even be a fake, but it seems to me the strength of the material is not as important as the speed and mass. Force equals speed times mass squared, am I right? (Long since I've done physics) So in theory aluminium should be able to pierce concrete if traveling at a high enough speed. Can any physicist elaborate on this?

[edit on 11-12-2006 by DrLeary]

Originally posted by Think About IT
This is where I am making perhaps, one of my strongest arguments. When a missile is fired it gains significant altitude depending on the type. A low-altitude missile could not have possibly worked because the pentagon is surrounded by buildings as it is right across the river from D.C, the missile could not have stayed parallel to the ground and hit the pentagon without first hitting buildings or trees or whatnot. Therefore, the missile would have to come in at a very sharp angle.
Here is a video of a Tamohawk Cruise missile making impact
video.google.com...
Notice the angle at which it engages the target, it hits the target from the top. The video that aired immediatly after 911 showed the object hitting the pentagon appear to be almost parallel to the ground. Missiles do not work like that. It would have hit the pentagon at more of an angle, it could not have possibly been parallel to the ground because if it were at such a low altitutde it would have struck other objects first before hitting the pentagon. The missile would have most likely impacted the top of the pentagon, not the side.

Wouldn't a 767 have the same exact difficulties? Not that I go for the no plane theory at the pentagon.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

What were they trying to HIDE at the pentagon?

Possibly records of the TRILLIONS of dollars lost by the pentagon? Remember Rumsfeldt announced 9/10/01 that this money couldn't be located. How in the hell do you lose trillions of dollars? I know we are talking about the incompetent US government, but come on.

Griff... are you saying "trillions" of dollars are missing? Do you have that quote from Rumsfield?

As far as the lamp posts go...some say that trail of white smoke is the damage that was dont to that engine after it hit the pole.

God, I don't know how or why I get sucked into this debate....over ONE HUNDERED and FIFTY people saw a plane !!!

Do you have that quote from Rumsfield?

"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.

www.cbsnews.com...

Originally posted by DrLeary
On a more serious note. I see the debate rages about whether or not aluminium can pierce reinforced concrete. I tried to find a picture on google where a straw has pierced a piece of wood during a hurricane, but I couldn't find it. Might even be a fake, but it seems to me the strength of the material is not as important as the speed and mass. Force equals speed times mass squared, am I right? (Long since I've done physics) So in theory aluminium should be able to pierce concrete if traveling at a high enough speed. Can any physicist elaborate on this?

I saw a clip of a fighter jet piercing through a reinforced concrete wall. It was a test of some sort. In the clip, you can even see the wings penetrate the concrete.

BTW, Force equals mass times acceleration.

Well that sums that up. Typical record keeping of the government. This does prove that there are no transactions for possibly trillions of dollars. Wonder where it went? We will never know. BUT...since there are no records of where it is..no transactions...Why would you blow up a building that doesnt have it? The reason makes no sence at all. ( to me)