Sept. 11 redux: Video shows jet vaporizing

hmmm...

So they are testing to see what happens when planes hit nuclear power plants eh?

wonder what terrorist attack will be next...

Again we hear the catch phrase "the plane atomized..."

Oh really?

Just because the video shows an impressive high-velocity impact and explosion, does not mean the plane actually "atomized." I want to see the COMPLETE video, which would include the debris field after all the dust has settled. Then, and only then, could this test prove one way or the other what sort of debris might be expected after such an impact.

This video is just more propaganda in my opinion. Looks impressive, but tells us nothing.

Also, as mentioned by other members, you can't have it both ways. Either the plane vaporizes on impact, OR it makes its way through the whole building.

[edit on 3/2/0808 by jackinthebox]

A longer version on youtube:

www.youtube.com...

"The wall designed to move and absorb energy, did it's job well."

You suppose Pentagon had some of that constructed in it's walls?

Enough said

[edit on 2-3-2008 by Iseek]

Responding to what I posted earlier, and many other good points raised since, by others...

Security camera footage missing? I don't know, it IS a military installation, after all...maybe the focus of most survelliance was outward? Not sure we will ever know, since it is likely classified.

Eyewitness testimony to refute the missile theory? I don't know, except that I personally know a man who saw a jet flying low down Columbia Pike from his eighth floor apartment balcony...the jet wasn't yet below the height of the various apartment and office buildings that line the street, but it was still about 2 or 3 miles from the Pentagon at that point. Something like that can happen very fast, and it takes a non-pilot (mening a casual, random observer) a few seconds to translate what they see into a rational thought, such as, 'Whaaaa?'

Design of the Pentagon (I drive buy it frequently, you get quite close from I-395 or Rte 110) consists of fairly thick concret columns, with windows in between. Based on the video of the F-4 into a solid concrete block, it would stand to reason that perhaps a B757 would 'shred', with the parts that impact the columns being fragmented (maybe 'atomized' gave a wrong impression) and the larger fragments carry-through the windows into the structure.

I know that there was an event, approx 30 minutes after the initial...let's call it 'impact' which I felt in my home, in Lyon Park, a suburb of Arlington Virginia, just a few miles from the Pentagon (just off Pershing Drive, which Ts into Rte 50, past Ft. Myer, which takes one into DC, via the TR Bridge, for those Google mapping it). The event I felt was a shake...very similar to a natural aftershock, following an earthquake (I used to live in Calilfornia). I later learned that it was a tremor from the upper floors collapsing. SO, whatever hit the building caused substantial and extensive damage. Anyone have any data on what a cruise missile would do, for comparison?

reply to post by weedwhacker

...and the larger fragments carry-through the windows into the structure.

Larger pieces big enough, and with the right shape to do this?



This is a nice presentation that I saw years ago, but still raises a lot of questions:

pentagonstrike.co.uk...

Direct loader





[edit on 3/2/0808 by jackinthebox]

[edit on 3/2/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by jackinthebox


I don't know, jack....or, I could say that on this subject, I only know what has been told.

Couldn't get your video to play, so not sure of the context of that hole you showed.

I CAN say that I SAW the entire section of that wall, one of the five walls, while driving by on I-395. It was a VERY large scene of destruction, not a little hole that I just saw in your post.

Just saying, it's a stretch of imagination to suppose that, MORE damage was done in the aftermath, in the few days after 9/11 without anyone knowing.

I am not here to debunk, just so you know...I am just providing my personal opinions, thoughts and observations, along with some hearsay from people I know, who DO NOT work for the military.

If it comes to pass that the entire event was, in fact, perpetrated by forces within (there is a new thread here on ATS, check it out) then I will pack up my meager belongings and emigrate far, far from here. Because I will not live under a regime that, if proven, is capable of these sorts of acts.

The plane in question "supposedly" did remain in tact whether it be a crumpling mass of rolling fire and aluminum, and had enough force and mass, to go through 9 feel of reinforce steel concrete, and punch out a perfectly round 10 foot diameter hole in the back of the C- Ring. So you've just shot down your own argument. Then you show us a video where a similiar plane cannot go through 3-6 feet of concrete?

Just one problem - there are no walls on the lowest floors of the Pentagon
from the E to C ring. The debris swarm from the aircraft impact slid
across an large office expanse until punched hole in the exterior wall
of the C ring.

911research.wtc7.net...

Impact damage to the interior of the Pentagon was primarily on the first floor, and extended in a tapering swath from the first-floor facade puncture to the vicinity of the C-Ring punch-out hole.

On the first and second floors, the Pentagon has continuous interior space extending from the facade to the inner-facing wall of the C-Ring, joining the C-, D-, and E-Rings. This is because the light wells between the C- and D-Rings and between the D- and E-Rings only descend to the bottom of the third floor. The only structural elements interrupting this space are columns apparently spaced on 10-foot centers along the direction perpendicular to the facade, with each first-floor column having a square cross-section measuring 21 inches on a side.

A figure on the left shows a path from the center of the facade impact puncture to the center of the C-Ring punch-out hole. That path could describe the path of fuselage debris from the facade to the C-Ring wall, where it could have produced the punch-out hole. It shows that there was a narrow path for that debris between the columns left standing by the crash.

Big difference between debris cloud traveling through office area or
smashing through multiple walls. In Pentagon the the aircraft penetrated
the outer facade of E ring, which is not concrete but made of limestone
panels. The debris cloud formed as aircraft broke up continued across
office floors impeded only by furnishing and steel columns until reached
outer wall of C ring.

reply to post by thedman


thedman, could you clarify? I know about the A thru E 'rings'...are they labeled 'A' from the center outward, or 'A' from out to in?

Guess I'm asking, some have posted a small hole in a wall at the Pentagon, and tried to tell us it is the 'impact' point...when, in fact, it may just be a hole blown through a wall on the INSIDE!! Am I correct?

adding, when I say 'inside' I mean into the 'courtyard' area (sarcastically referred to during the Cold War, I am told, as 'Ground Zero')???

[edit on 2-3-2008 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


You shouldn't believe anything unless you actually believe it. I didn't believe the conspiracies either, so I started looking. I admire your critical discernment.

EDIT to add: I edited the post above with a "direct load" link. The main page that I had linked originally, you have to click the little British flag to load in English language.

[edit on 3/2/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by jackinthebox


jack, I gave the video a look, thanks for the clue about clicking on the appropriate flag to get the language (noticed it was the Union Jack I clicked on)...for English.

I would invite you to very carefully 'vet' the sources...of this video.

There were many 'red-herrings', one I remember was a shot of a small "American Eagle" commuter airplane, looked like a poorly photo-shopped composite, actually. American Eagle does fly the EMB-135 and the EMB-145, but I have never seen one of those airplanes, even with the winglets, that has such a short fuselage.

The video was severely edited, and as you know, editing can serve many purposes...it is often done HERE, on ATS!! I am referring to the way some can 'pull' various sentences from another's post, and 'spin' it...

Trust, but VERIFY!! That is a basic tenet when it comes to these subjects.

Yeah, I know, it COULD be a complete 'Psy-Ops' as many have proposed, and when real proof comes in, I will be one of the first to admit I was fooled, and will jump on the band wagon. Some strong evidence is coming up, on other threads, so I am keeping an open mind.

It's just, this video isn't up to standard, sorry.

Keep looking, and keep bring stuff to ATS, because it IS important!

reply to post by weedwhacker


Obviously it was edited, to make a concise visual presentation of important facts. The "stock" photo of the pictured airplanes were merely for visual concept, not scientific analyses. It really made no difference one way or the other to the presentation, what pictures they showed. They were just pointing out "big plane, small plane, military plane."

There are a lot more images and facts presented there which are certainly verifiable independently.

More importantly, this video points directly to the lack of verifiable evidence. Why isn't the public allowed to see the traffic cam video, the gas station video, the hotel video, or any video actually showing the airliner? And how did the FBI manage to snatch up every piece of footage within minutes of the impact? I have seen murder cases where surveillance footage turned up days later. Was the FBI so well trained and drilled on such a scenario that they knew exactly where every single camera was, and how to recover the footage so quickly?

It's just, this video isn't up to standard, sorry.

I fail to see how you reach this conclusion so arbitrarily.

[edit on 3/3/0808 by jackinthebox]

I saw the hole before it was lifted from the internet. The virginal landscaping, the 20x40 hole with all the finest yellow fire trucks about. I might be short a couple aces but my God there is no way I will EVER believe that official story. Never.

reply to post by jackinthebox


jack,
I have referred to your post of 2/3/2008 at 2208 EST, that would be 2/4/2008 at 0308 UTC, showing a smoking hole, and the resulting video. It needs to be verified, not accepted as 'truth' unless it is vetted.

reply to post by weedwhacker


The still-frame image I posted is a government exhibit photo.

Seven years later they are now coming out with vid to show how this most improbrable, impossible sit could be real?
Really!

Let's face it people. We got scammed to chant usa usa in a 2001 northwind op to take over Iraq.
It is plane as the nose on your face.
I also remember an upside down American flag during the first days of the occupation. I remember it like yesterday.
Now heavy hitting generals are re questioning this debacle. Interesting.

[edit on 3-3-2008 by jpm1602]

[edit on 3-3-2008 by jpm1602]

Funny thing is, people can be talking about the same thing, but language being what it is, communication may not happen...it comes down to perception.

And culture...

I do not wish to take the thread off, but I think this is a salient point: I saw this many years ago, and memorized it, because it hit home, to me, about how it is difficult to convey thoughts, in words...and how we can actually be saying the same things to each other, and not realize it!

This is the quote: "I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."

This is the crux of many 'arguments'...whether on ATS, or with your partner or spouse.

I think the OP of this thread poses a salient point, I have provided my personal opinions as well...I think this requires a civil discussion.

I SAW an upside down American flag while they were preparing to drag off Saddam's gilded ornament.
I know what I saw.
With all due respect, and in my humble opinion.

What is 'is'.
I very sorry but that is the biggest piece of horse malarkey I have ever heard.
Saliently and humbly spoken.

[edit on 3-3-2008 by jpm1602]

reply to post by jpm1602


jpm1602,

I know, I have seen the link, and it is disturbing. For everyone, check your 'recent posts' and find this link, sorry I don't know how to pull in the link to my post...

I essence, and look for it, about 25 top military officials are trying to come out and expose 9/11....look for it.

added....'twenty-five US military...'....that is the begining of the thread title...

[edit on 3-3-2008 by weedwhacker]