Sept. 11 redux: Video shows jet vaporizing

reply to post by jpm1602


jpm, just because I live here, doesn't mean I have intentions to hijack a thread...

Think about it...it's way too obvious, right? I mean, if I was disinfo, I'd try to pose as somewhere else. Use your head!

I am actually using a friend's computer, sao anyone who decides to find the IP...please don't blame him!!

I'll go buy a new laptop, but then I guess it's the same IP...since I'll just use his wireless, and I'm stuck in the same rut....

LOL, agreed.
But c'mon lets ascern the facts. No 757 is going to leave a 20x40 hole in even a triple reinforced construction. It's impossible. I have no insight to what hit the pentagon, where those people went, or what really happened to that plane.
But you must admit, their are many questions.

Maybe 'vaporised' isn't the best observation but the F4 video gives us a pretty good idea of what happens to an object designed to fly, and not act as a battering ram, strikes a large essentially immovable object at high speed - it will be broken up, pulverised and distorted beyond recognition and the aluminium/magnesium alloys can even catch fire from the combined heat of sudden compression with added fuel fire. Early pics of the pentagon crash scene show a helluva lot of small debris scattered outside the building (emphasis on small pieces).

For WeedWhacker and other pilots here:
If your goal was to 'nail' an object on the ground, let's make it something safe like making a perfect 3 point landing on an unknown runway, using visual navigation & manual control (seat of the pants stuff) - calibrating the altimeter would be an essential thing to do wouldn't it?

This just doesn't seem to be the smoking gun that it's claimed to be from my point of view.

reply to post by jpm1602


Yes, jpm, there are many questions.

One I have is, when photos are posted, let's have some links.

Were the pics from the EXTERIOR, or the INTERIOR?

The Pentagon, as you know, as I've seen in various History Channel Shows, was built during WWII. I think, from documentaries, it has five floors (I could be wrong). I heard about the designations of the 'rings', I just don't remember whether 'A' was outer or inner...guess it makes sense, that 'A' is outer, being that it is a military establishment.

So the fifth, or 'E' ring, is the innermost, and therefore considered the most secure...not surprising, that is the mindset of the Military....

Unfortunately the powers to be were so hurried to claim the vid from surrounding gas stations. Which does not do a 757 crash claim honors. With all due respect I witnessed a day old shot of pentagon with minimal damage and no rug burn. Of course anyone could say photoshop at anytime, but it was before that was mainstream. For God's sake, we are talking the friggin Pentagon! They should have enough dig vid to fill volumes. But none has been forthcoming. Just doesn't make sense.
The new investigation by the generals will be most interesting.

[edit on 3-3-2008 by jpm1602]

[edit on 3-3-2008 by jpm1602]

[edit on 3-3-2008 by jpm1602]

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Maybe 'vaporised' isn't the best observation but the F4 video gives us a pretty good idea of what happens to an object designed to fly, and not act as a battering ram, strikes a large essentially immovable object at high speed - it will be broken up, pulverised and distorted beyond recognition and the aluminium/magnesium alloys can even catch fire from the combined heat of sudden compression with added fuel fire. Early pics of the pentagon crash scene show a helluva lot of small debris scattered outside the building (emphasis on small pieces).

For WeedWhacker and other pilots here:
If your goal was to 'nail' an object on the ground, let's make it something safe like making a perfect 3 point landing on an unknown runway, using visual navigation & manual control (seat of the pants stuff) - calibrating the altimeter would be an essential thing to do wouldn't it?

This just doesn't seem to be the smoking gun that it's claimed to be from my point of view.

Pilgrum, I apologize for pulling the full quote, and to Staff, again, I just had to....

Pilgrum, you deserve an award for finding, and posting that video!

When you talked about a 3-point landing, I think you went off, a bit, since even non-pilots have heard that term, even if they don't really know what it actually means.

I know what you meant, and I know why you wrote it. IT is all about putting the airplane where you want to put it, and that requires professionalism...

Perhaps some here, on ATS, use some sort or 'flight simulator'...I don't , but doesn't matter. If the 'simulator' you use on your PC is really good, then it accurately represents the runways you are landing at...here's the question...Do You Understand the Runway Markings????

Putting it another way...IF you are a pilot, you will be able to explain the various markings, on a runway...not only what is painted, byt how they appear at night, to a pilot. And don't go of to Google, just tell us NOW!

Judge Judy says is clear, if it doesn't make sense it isn't true.
Period.
I actually love the thought of perps wetting their collective panties. I am very eager to see how this goes down.

[edit on 3-3-2008 by jpm1602]

reply to post by Pilgrum


Pilgrum, it was CAVU, that day...only reason to re-set the altimeter is if you want to communicate with ATC, or fly an IFR approach

Otherwise, there is no reason the hi-jackers would even think of re-setting the altimeter....BTW, there are THREE to reset....the Captain, the First Officer, and the StandBy Altimeter....that's what we do, each time we transition from altitude to FL, and vice versa. Climbing, at 18000, we set 29.92. Descending, thru 18,000 we set the field altimeter setting, so the altimeters will read the correct altitude, and also transmit thru the transponder, the correct altitude to ATC. BUT, if the transponder is set to STBY, nothing is transmitted....

Fun fact...in England, or also known as, the UK...we transition to FL between 4000 and 5000 feet, depending on the prevailing atmospheric pressure....

This, compared to the US standard of 18,000 feet, as I mentioned before. It is a variable, bsed on the Country, as to when altimeters are set to 'STANDARD') 29.92InHg, or 1013 Mb.....


[edit on 3-3-2008 by weedwhacker]

Ya, Floridian cessna shivs are going to control a 757 in ways not known to man. Last comment, hve to back off, NOW.

[edit on 3-3-2008 by jpm1602]

reply to post by weedwhacker

Maybe my 'pedestrian' knowledge of flying is starting to show here
I wasn't the original poster of the F4 video but it's an excellent example of likely outcomes in a collision at 500mph.

All I know about runway markings is they give the pilot an alignment and identification plus an optimum point to aim for in terms of touching down to give the maximum distance to safely come to a standstill. We pedestrians don't often see them from the air and I always took the '3 point' expression to be related to getting the 3 undercarriage assemblies in contact with the ground and nothing else to be the optimum objective in landing an aircraft - could be wrong as always.

What? That video doesnt prove anything. 3.7 metres of concrete is NOT comparable to the Pentagon which consisted of hollow rooms.

Really, this video is laughable as an argument to 'prove' a plane hit the Pentagon. But it is typical of the type of arguments you guys make to try and prove your claims.

How bout we stick to FACTS and take other plane crash sites as an example when making a judgement about what hit the Pentagon. And while were at it, how about we also look at other examples of steel framed buildings NOT collapsing from fire when making a judgement about the collapse of the WTC's? Or have you got one made of magnesium as an example?

reply to post by weedwhacker


The Pentagon has 5 concentric "rings" labelled from outside in E to A

The conspiracy types have insisted that the hole blown in the outer wall
of the C (3rd) ring was too small to be made by the aircraft. What they
failed to understand that the 2 ground floors of the Pentagon from E to C
are not separate buildings with exterior walls, but actually a continous
office expanse. If you look at the diagrams and photographs shows
this in detail. Thus the sircraft debris would not have to punch through
multiple walls in its path - only the outer wall on the E ring then the C
ring wall to the courtyard to the next ring.

reply to post by dscomp
No-one is suggesting that it proves anything in relation to the Pentagon apart from being a well documented example of what would really happen to the plane itself under those conditions of highspeed impact - lots of small mangled pieces and even atomised metal.

reply to post by jackinthebox


Remember one thing about the Pentagon fires - they were actively fought
and extinguished! The fires at WTC were too high for the FDNY to reach
before the building collapsed. At the Pentagon had multiple FD with an
adequate water supply (reason WTC 7 was abandoned - broken water
mains , broken standpipes in building = no water). FF were able to
suppress the fires to prevent total structural collapse.

Hi! There is a basic point of physics that the 757 adherents are perhaps unaware of. All the evidence of broken lampposts, undamaged lawn indicate that whatever object hit the pentagon, it was on a fairly level flight path, that is, not a dive.

That said, it was not a 757. A 757 cannot, I repeat, cannot fly only 30 feet off the ground at 500 mph. Plainly put, it's pushing too much air ahead of that wingspan. If this were not the case, planes wouldn't fly! Those who know the area know that many approaches to National Airport go over the Pentagon. Commuters see these jets all the time.

I suspect that someone cloaked the approach with a real plane ala Clancy's "Debt of Honor" where the B1s hide behind the F-16s. Those guys eat this Clancy # up anyway, they probably just lifted his idea. "Just keep your eyes on the big plane floating in! Ignore that 500 mph blur you didn't see." The big plane clears the Pentagon flying through the debris cloud.

The engines of a 767 are 9' in diameter that is over 28' feet around and made of titanium and steel. They are indestructible. There are TWO engines but only one hole at the pentagon.
INSIDE JOB!

reply to post by weedwhacker



Wait! The F4 phantom does not use "Fan Jets". It does have a two stage compressor as you say but not a big fan stage like commercial jets. (The two engines are VERY different) Just an Ni and N2 compressor with variable stators. It is a J 79 BTW. Notice how loud an F4 is. They also use mega quantities of fuel. I worked on F4's for many years.

reply to post by Larry B.


Larry, please read my post again. My point was that the F-4 does not have fan jets...and the basic core of a modern fan engine is about the same size as the old turbo-jets.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Sorry..I re-read the post. Please except my apology. I hate it when that happens.

reply to post by thedman


I am going to skip talking about WTC on this point, but stay focused on the Pentagon for the moment. I do agree, without comparison, that the Pentagon fire was actively fought. However, the fire damage is not relative to the amount of jet fuel AND flammable materials within the Pentagon. I will concede however, that the "missing fuel" scenario at the Pentagon crash-site remains debateable to some degree.