What hit the pentagon on 9/11/01?

reply to post by Lillydale


Nope. Duplication of previous effort. I have neither the time nor the patience to redo something I have done before, just to, once again, have it not understood.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Lillydale

 

Quit confusing the victims with the terrorists would be my first suggestion. Why is it, so many people see a list of the names of the VICTIMS that were on the jet and proclaim "hey the bad guys arent listed, so they must not have existed"?

BECAUSE THE OFFICIAL STORY SAYS THAT THE AUTOPSY IDENTIFIED EVERYONE THAT WAS ON THE PLANE. If you do not like the 'facts' being put forth, you might want to look into that story you believe so strongly.

What does it even matter???? Are you trying to claim that they recovered the remains of every missing person from that day but just could not get the hijacker DNA so they decided to add Pentagon employees to make up the difference in the passenger list? What is it you are trying to claim here? Just tell us what the autopsy results were. You brought it up.

[edit on 9-10-2009 by Lillydale]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by scott3x

 

Well, I guess we could post the laundry list of local, state, and federal agencies that were onsite helping find remains and removing debris. There were quite a few agencies involved....or are you going to claim they were all "in on it" also?

I guess you cannot post anything. Why even "dare" to offer up so much info if you are going to just brush off a simple request for one little thing? Do you think it would be easier to provide all of the above instead of just the results of the autopsies?

I guess if you really did not want to bother with it, you should not have threatened to. Sorry that I called your bluff but thank you for making it clear that you cannot actually back up your claim.

p.s. To your point about no one at the Pentagon being able to imagine a hijacked plane crashing into the Pentagon on purpose -

Oct. 24-26, 2000 - Pentagon officials carry out a "detailed" emergency drill based upon the crashing of a hijacked airliner into the Pentagon. [Source: The Mirror, May 24, 2002]

Maybe you will be right about something one of these times and earn those stars your friends give you.

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by Joey Canoli

 

So then why is the building ringed with cameras if they are not all that worried about seeing anything with them?

1- define ringed. How far apart are they? what is their field of view?

2- now prove it

3- who said anything about them not seeing anything with them? strawman much?

4- do you NOW agree that a squad of armed Marines will be a in better alignment to the Pentagon's security needs?

reply to post by Lillydale


News report about the October 2000 drill...

web.archive.org...://www.dcmilitary.com/army/pentagram/5_44/local_news/2852-1.html

Noticably absent from the report..the word "hijacked". But that hasnt stopped people from adding the word "hijacked" into their stories. Fact remains that the Oct 2000 drill was about an airliner either leaving/arriving at Reagan National and crashing on the Pentagon grounds.

BECAUSE THE OFFICIAL STORY SAYS THAT THE AUTOPSY IDENTIFIED EVERYONE THAT WAS ON THE PLANE. If you do not like the 'facts' being put forth, you might want to look into that story you believe so strongly

Not sure what report you are reading...

Nuclear DNA testing (along with dental records and fingerprints) of the remains from the victims aboard American Airline (AA) Flight 77 and within the Pentagon was useful for identifying 178 of the 183 victims. Five missing individuals (four within the Pentagon and one aboard the airplane) could not be identified due to lack of biological material from the crash. Five remaining nuclear STR profiles were obtained from the crash site that did not match any references for the victims. These profiles were thought to represent the terrorists aboard the flight.

www.cstl.nist.gov...

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


For one thing, that is not the autopsy report now is it?

For another thing, how about you tell me which passengers on the passenger list those 5 unknown specimens must have come from.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by Joey Canoli

 

So then why is the building ringed with cameras if they are not all that worried about seeing anything with them?

1- define ringed. How far apart are they? what is their field of view?

2- now prove it

3- who said anything about them not seeing anything with them? strawman much?

Maybe you should pay attention to the argument you are jumping in on. The claim was made that the security cameras did not need to see much and that is why the gatehouse video is of such a low frame rate. Reading comprehension problems much?

4- do you NOW agree that a squad of armed Marines will be a in better alignment to the Pentagon's security needs?

For security? Sure. Security was never actually the issue. Cameras were. It is a common OS pusher trick to shift the argument and create a strawman. Look into that.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Is that link supposed to go somewhere?

second line

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by scott3x

 

Well, I guess we could post the laundry list of local, state, and federal agencies that were onsite helping find remains and removing debris. There were quite a few agencies involved....or are you going to claim they were all "in on it" also?

The only people who had to be in on it where those who either placed the DNA where it was found or claimed to have found the DNA somewhere in the pentagon, when in fact they'd obtained it from somewhere else entirely. I believe someone here (SPreston perhaps?) claimed that the DNA was claimed to have been found in 2 separate locations, which further highlights the importance of finding out who, -exactly- alllegedly found the DNA samples. I believe one report is that the "FBI" found them in an area that only they had access to, I believe near the exit hole. But then there's that report that they were found at the entrance hole as well. If my internet connection wasn't seriously messed up right now, I'd go look to for the claim, which may well have had link back ups.

[edit on 9-10-2009 by scott3x]

I haven't had the time to read EVERY thread on this subject, so I apologize if this is redundant. Here are two videos I find interesting:






The first video seems to make a convincing argument for a 757 hitting the Pentagon. The animation seems well thought out.

The second video shows what can happen when an aluminum airplane hits a concrete structure at 800 kph/430 kts. While the Pentagon wasn't concrete, it was steel reinforced masonry 24" thick. Could this explain the lack of wing impact holes?

Does anyone know if the 757 engines were FADEC equipped? If so, would it prevent an overspeed of the engines? Also, how much greater thrust do turbofans have at sea level vs. high altitude? Based on my knowledge of stoich air fuel ratios in combustion engines, I would think they would be significantly more powerful at sea-level.

The comments on things being blown over by the engines as the (possible) plane passed doesn't make sense to me. The plane is moving, so the speed of the air leaving the engines would be much less than the speed of the plane. The footage of the 747 blowing over trucks on the runway isn't applicable because the plane was stationary.

Additionally, ground effect is quite strong, especially if the plane was clean (wheels up). Could this explain why the engines didn't scrape on the grass leading up to the impact site?

reply to post by Joey Canoli


Joey, the US military had already experienced a truck bomb at this point in Beirut, and the Oklahoma City bombing had also occurred. Given the amount of commuters buzzing in and out of the parking lot with slug lanes there were plenty of good reason to use the cameras in the way described. I would love to help you out in this, but quite simply, the security cameras perched on top of buildings are not to catch criminals stealing data tapes or manila folders on their way out of the Pentagon. They are there to see the approach of an erratically driving vehicle and eliminate it before damage is done.

Originally posted by A Fortiori
They are there to see the approach of an erratically driving vehicle and eliminate it before damage is done.

Yep, that's exactly the point I was gonna make with Lillydale.

Cameras are there just to see activity so that it can be acted upon by Marines with guns.

She seems to miss that point.

Which of course answers her question of WHY they had such crappy video.

What it doesn't answer is whether or not the recording rate means a thing in respect to the gate cam, or any other cams. If they're watched real time, then a low record rate is fine.

Record rate does not equal camera quality, NOR does it mean that the transmission rate is slow and jerky. The recorders could just be taking snapshots once every second or so..

reply to post by Joey Canoli


It could, but having worked at a Naval lab prior to September 11th and seeing our cameras, I find it doubtful that the security cameras at the Pentagon were worse than the ones we had. They could be pieces of crap, oh sure, but it is doubtful they were because the Federal Government uses contract vehicles and that generally means that they use the same suppliers, ergo their video surveillance was either the same as where I worked or similar.

Why is this so important to you to prove they had bad cameras? I think I missed something.

Originally posted by A Fortiori

Why is this so important to you to prove they had bad cameras? I think I missed something.

I'm not saying that at all.

I'm explaining to Lilly that record rate does not mean that they had crappy cams. We don't know WHAT quality the cams were. They might have been first rate, and if they were watched, then it would have shown the detail needed to prevent car bombings, etc. The record rate was ~1/sec. So what we see is what we see. Nothing more can be read into that.

Also, I'm trying to explain to her just why a crappy record rate doesn't matter, when the goal of ext security at the Pentagon would be to get some armed Marines out on the grounds if they saw someone trying to run down the fence with their truck to get closer to the building, etc.

reply to post by jawsismyfish

Does anyone know if the 757 engines were FADEC equipped?

Yes, of course. On the B757/767 it is called "EEC".

If so, would it prevent an overspeed of the engines?

Yes. I assume you're asking to refute anyone's claims of the engines exploding or overspeeding prior to impact? The EEC takes all inputs, and calculates the maximum N1, N2 and N3 and EGT, as appropriate for altitude and temperature. Shoving the thrust levers to the firewall results in the EECs kicking in and over-riding the Fuel Control Units. Furthermore, ther is also the Thrust Computer, and which mode it happens to be set in, at any moment. SINCE the airplanes were taken over during cruise, then the T/C likely remained in the CRZ mode until impact, which further limits engine settings.

Also, how much greater thrust do turbofans have at sea level vs. high altitude?

That's a good question. Obviously, more. Altitude and temperature are certainly concerns as to engine thrust ratings and available power during takeoff calculations.

The footage of the 747 blowing over trucks on the runway isn't applicable because the plane was stationary.

Correct again. Static 'jet-blast' effects are different than the exhaust gas speeds of an airplane in flight. Conservation of energy, in Newtonian physics if you must have a reason.

Also, on those training videos (If I recall, a United Airlines indoctrination video for new hire ground service personnel) the hapless vehicle, the pick-up truck, had its engine removed to add to the drama of the demonstration.

Additionally, ground effect is quite strong, especially if the plane was clean (wheels up). Could this explain why the engines didn't scrape on the grass leading up to the impact site?

I don't think the ground effect was as much at play here. Simply, the airplane never got as low as some suggest, at least as some have illustrated, so contact with the ground many yards from impact didn't happen.

reply to post by Lillydale


No, but it sure shoots holes in your rant about the autopsy report identified everyone now doesn't it? Personally, I wish you would take one position and stick with it. You keep shifting.

reply to post by Lillydale


You will find that link here

www.911myths.com...

For some reason ATS wont post the full hyperlink.



[edit on 9-10-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

[edit on 9-10-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

reply to post by A Fortiori


The point is, many people think that the Pentagon was a heavily secured, well armed fortress, guarded with lots of high tech security systems...and it wasnt.

And if you've spent enough time in and around the military, you would know that no matter what system DOES get installed, there are always things that just werent thought about that weaken that system.

Joey, the US military had already experienced a truck bomb at this point in Beirut, and the Oklahoma City bombing had also occurred. Given the amount of commuters buzzing in and out of the parking lot with slug lanes there were plenty of good reason to use the cameras in the way described. I would love to help you out in this, but quite simply, the security cameras perched on top of buildings are not to catch criminals stealing data tapes or manila folders on their way out of the Pentagon. They are there to see the approach of an erratically driving vehicle and eliminate it before damage is done.

Cameras wont do squat to stop a carbomb. Especially at the Pentagon, prior to 9/11. The physical security of the grounds just was not a priority after they closed the bus stop that was under the building that was used by Obama's buddies from the 70s when they bombed the Pentagon. Sure they had the systems and guards at the doors to check the people coming in but, that wouldnt do much against a car bomb.

[edit on 9-10-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

reply to post by scott3x

The only people who had to be in on it where those who either placed the DNA where it was found or claimed to have found the DNA somewhere in the pentagon, when in fact they'd obtained it from somewhere else entirely. I believe someone here (SPreston perhaps?) claimed that the DNA was claimed to have been found in 2 separate locations, which further highlights the importance of finding out who, -exactly- alllegedly found the DNA samples. I believe one report is that the "FBI" found them in an area that only they had access to, I believe near the exit hole. But then there's that report that they were found at the entrance hole as well. If my internet connection wasn't seriously messed up right now, I'd go look to for the claim, which may well have had link back ups

Body parts from the passengers and crew of Flight 77 were found from the entrance hole...to the exit hole, from the mess of the first floor to the mess of the upper floors..

In other words, they were not just found in two places. They were found all over the place, and it wasn't just the "FBI" that found them. It was the military workers, the civilian rescue workers, the federal agents, the construction crews. No one or two or even three people were ever by themselves to "plant" body parts.