Let's kill the Pentagon Missile attack once and for all., page 10

Originally posted by earthtone
These planes have these things called computers. It enables them to be flown without a pilot.

Seeing as how I build embedded devices for a living I kind of knew of the presence of embedded devices on airliners…..thanks for the insight though.

Originally posted by earthtone
"The Boeing 757 and 767 are equipped with fully …..

And you are quite right, I should have been more specific…..an actual link to a reputable source, not some letter posted by a raving lunatic……
Just as an aside the NSA doesn’t train electronic warfare specialists, and never has, the military does….MOS stands for Military…..the NSA uses the GS rating. www.nsa.gov..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.nsa.gov... do you see electronic warfare specialist anywhere on the page…I’ll give you a hint it’s not ….and as far as his description of an electronic warfare specialist it is so far off it’s not funny ….Oh and how is it so obvious that those planes were above 1.5g….go watch some planes leaving airports, that will really start you thinking……my god you’re onto it, all air travel is a hoax perpetrated by the government to make us think we are alive….

The first one more clearly shows the debris coming out the far side of the building. Interesting part to me was as it came through the building it appeared to be a smallish round hole…..hmmm….and even more astonishing was the lack of a tail section and wings, left behind…..hmm….I think something might be afoot here. Also I think someone called it a missile. And should we really trust those eyewitness accounts I think it was far more likely that it was a global hawk. I mean really, how many of those witnesses could really tell if it was an airliner or not. We should all band together and insist that the government show us the missing footage.
eagle.westnet.gr...
www.cnn.com...
www.cnn.com...

However, I’m sure you’ll like this proof that the aliens did it, more.
www.realufos.com...



[edit on 6-9-2004 by keholmes]

Originally posted by infernal
The plane that punched through the Pentagon punched through 3 rings, each ring containing 2 walls, that is, the plane punched through 6 walls of steel reinforced concrete.

Sorry, but that is completely wrong. As I understand it the outer wall was reinforced, but the inner walls were simple masonry construction. This is clearly visible in the photo



As you can see there was a layer of outer, face brick over a interior wythe of common brick. The structural support is from the columns not the walls. Note that the steel bars you see are the black iron lath supports for the plaster walls and ceiling.

How many times have you seen a picture of a car accident where a car runs into and through a brick wall?

Neither of the planes that hit the WTC exited the other side of the WTC, therefore 1 wall of the WTC must have greater stopping power than 6 walls of the Pentagon.

You are comparing apples to oranges here. The exterior walls of the WTC were closely spaced steel support columns. The planes used up a tremendous amount of energy punching though them on the initial impact. Furthermore, the floor slabs absorbed energy as they were torn though.

Anyway, you are wrong about the planes not coming out the other side, several pieces of airplane debris did exit the other side of the WTC in both impacts.

Originally posted by project_pisces
I see we are finally making some ground towards the silly 757 hit the pentagon theory. If you could only go a little further into the picture regarding the WTCs and the silly pancaking trussel theory( WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7) and realize that islamic terrorists have yet to benefit from this Reichsteig Fire we call 911. I know alot of defense contractors that have benefitted though, I know alot of very wealthy people in the 30+ billion net assets class that have benefitted.

but by all means,,,laugh a little more, snicker a little more about conspiracy theories, black helicopters,lizard men, NWO and chemtrails etc. I want to make sure it is thoroughly out of your systems before the briefing to its reality comes around.

[edit on 6-9-2004 by project_pisces]

Are you blind or just choose to ignore reality? The terrorist attacks didn't benefit the terrorists?? The attacks of 9/11 have cost the USA and other western allied countries over $500 billion in lost GDP. The USA went from a positive growth economy to a recession due to it. The world-wide consumer spending levels on tourism still haven't returned back to 50% of what they were preceeding 9/11. Short route flights are still down 40% from pre 9-11 levels. The spin off effect from 9-11 has cost Canada billions of dollars, and almost every other developed, and undeveloped, nation has lost revenues due to a weak US economy.

Not even a year later, 9/11 had cost NY city alone over $95 billion. Over 72,000 jobs had been lost, New York's jobless rate climbed to 7.7% (almost 2% higher than the national averge). The New York stock exchange closed for 6 days, many top tier exchange firms were closedf ro weeks during their relocation to other offices. It goes on and on how much this benefited the terrorists. That was their whole plan - to upset economic stability in the west. source , effect of 9/11 on NYC, later source, by March 2003, over 2.5 million jobs had been lost directly due to 9/11, the damage to the economy will resonate for many years to come.

Even your pal Osama Bin Laden has stated on more than one occasion that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon exceeded their wildest dreams. READ THIS

At least get SOMETHING true in your posts. . . this spouting off made up crap to support your stories really gets old quickly. The credibility factor on many of these threads is often so low that it's not worth the mental pain to wade through them. If it's conspiracy that you need to get you through your day, maybe start chasing after something based a little closer in reality, there is a decenct thread on these forums about the Mossad being behind (or somewhat behind) the attacks of 9-11, you can read the thread here, and there are quite a few websites supporting this avenue of thought.



[edit on 7-9-2004 by CatHerder]

Originally posted by infernal
The plane that punched through the Pentagon punched through 3 rings, each ring containing 2 walls, that is, the plane punched through 6 walls of steel reinforced concrete. Neither of the planes that hit the WTC exited the other side of the WTC, therefore 1 wall of the WTC must have greater stopping power than 6 walls of the Pentagon.

You are just wrong - either deluded or lying. Why post stuff that you have ZERO evidence to back up? Why do so many of you people on this forum make stuff up to support your fantasies??

My lawyers' office is across the street from the WTC site. The FDNY and other services recovered engine parts, body parts, luggage, and even a child's doll from the plane that hit WTC1 - most of these items were recovered on the ground over six blocks away from the tower or in other buildings across the street and up the block from the buildings.

The tiny explosion on WTC2 - this is the OPPOSITE SIDE from where the plane hit:

Second Plane hits WTC video Can you SEE the explosion come out the other side?? Do you SEE the chunks of building, office equipment, office workers, and probably passengers fly out the other side??? Everyone else on the planet sure as hell can. Now, PLEASE tell me how this too is not a plane... Another source

Much Higher Resolution video (7.7MB) Do you not see the HUGE chunks of debris (including chunks of the plane) flying out the other side of the building?? Here is another video taken by a private citizen from the side opposite of where the 2nd plane hit he building: home video

There is no way in the world you can view this and still back what you posted. No reasonable way whatsoever.

LOOK AT THE PHOTOS POSTED BY 'conspiracy supporters" from the Pentagon.

Here is CLEAR evidence of 757 bulkhead debris.


And a chunk of the body on the lawn - yet nobody from the "the men in black blew up the pentagon with a magic missile and are now spying on my mother" group can ever respond to these clear photos of pieces of the commercial air liner. It's like discussing something with a child who has clamped their hands over their ears and are singing "la la la I can't hear you."

Okay, so here's what I've got.

Now, what i've done here is some research into the subject of damage assessment. And here's what I've got.



These are the specs of the Airbus A-300, a craft comparable in size to the 757, and in fact, it's even larger. The most intriguing part however, is something that you need to see to understand.

The recent Airbus crash that I mentioned earlier got me to thinking about what sort of damage was done to each crash site. I'm going to show you the picture of the airbus crash now.


As you can see here, the damage is quite widespread, covering, on the front street, the area encompassed by three house fronts, and the entirety of the road. Then there is the huge area that is the smoking crater, and you see in the foreground there one house on fire, and one completely annihilated. Now, observe along that back street, and the VERY widespread damage that is evident there. Amazing, wot? What you see here is damage spread across about, I'd estimate at least 5 acres, not counting what is obscured by the enormous plume of smoke.

Now, for the damage assessment of the '757' crash.

First, the specs on the 757.


And now, a picture of the point of impact on the pentagon.




It seems to me that the initial puncture of the outer wall is somewhat smaller than what you'd expect from a craft the size of the 757, especially since the fuselage is larger than the hole it supposedly created. Now, granted, the entirety of the hole is obscured by the plume of smoke, but you can see here that the inital damage, not residual at this point, is SIGNIFICANTLY smaller than what one would expect from such a disastrous...well...disaster. As you can see here, on the first floor, most of the chain link is still intact, which says to me that the massive 124 foot wing span of the 757 never actually struck the fence. I'm left to believe that there WAS no 757 that struck the pentagon. I can only assume that it was either a much smaller craft, or even a missile, which would account for the massive, yet very centralised damage to the structure.

As for how the pentagon was 'supposed' to stand up to such an attack, take a look at this:



From the diagram we see that the object would have had to puncture through 24" of construction material at each outer wall...that means if you multiply that 24" by six, you end up with a grand total of 24 FEET of SOLID ROCK, as well as any number of interior walls that the object would have to plough through. I just cannot believe that a 757, made of (As Skadi pointed out) lightweight aluminium that would not hold up to that pressure, could have such destructive capability. Also, that to me leaves out a smaller aircraft. Personally, it's back to my theory of Tomahawk Cruise missile. I simply cannot see any other explination.

My final assessment of the damage?

This type of damage, in my untrained opinion, could not have been caused by a 757. My research has shown that the damage was much more likely to be more widespread, and such precision damage carried out could only be the result of a missile attack. Thanks for reading.

Peace.

[edit on 9-7-2004 by Loki]

The thing you are overlooking, like most people do when comparing one crash to another, is the dynamics involved.

The crash you are showing is of a plane that went down due to mechanical failure - and had a flight crew doing everything in their power to keep from crashing. It was not going full throttle - aimed directly at it's target (the 575 was). Even still, the plane that crashed in your photos landed on structures made of wood, made for habitation of individuals (light consumer-grade building materials) and the devestation is quite large (as is to be expected.

I think we can all agree that the damage in your photos appears to be a 1 city block, by 1.5 city block area correct? (this isn't accounting for the engine and tail section whcih landed in other locations from the primary crash site).

Image is also a link to larger image(source)

Lets check this out on any map server - for my example lets just use something simple like MSN's MapPoint You can see that the area we're talking about is approximately 80m x 80m (it's less, but I'll use the larger area just for comparison's sake. While I couldn't get an exact pointer on the intersection at 131st and Newport Ave., you will be able to easily click on it and zoom in fully to check distances.

Now, lets put the Flight 587 crash area over the Pentagon.


You've already stated, and I agree, that the Airbus is a much larger plane than the 757, the damage area is smaller for the Flight 587 crash but the impact area of damage on the pentagon is relatively similar - the larger damaged area was from the fire inside the multiple connected building (I'm sure you'll agree that it would have been a very difficult fire to battle in comparison to a normal building fire).


(click for a much larger 300dpi image)

I can appreciate your argument, but it's really not a good scientific method to compare one plane crash to another. There are completely different crash dynamics involved. Esepcially when you consider that the 757 that hit the pentagon was going full throttle and it intended to hit the building and not avoid a crash like the Airbus in Flight 587 would have been doing. That being said - I really don't see how Flight 587 offers any "proof" that an airplane did not hit the Pentagon, on the contrary I think it actually lends more credibility to the fact that a 757 did indeed ram the building. Just like the dozens upon dozens of witnesses have stated and have gone on record as stating - on the other hand I've yet to see ONE single credible source from a witness of the suicide crash to say it was anything other than a large commercial airliner - please feel free to prove me wrong on that. (although I have seen people state it as fact without a single shred of evidence to back them up)

I've also read other statements that were bandied about as "proof" of a conspiracy such as "Why would they put sand on the lawn so soon after the crash other than to hide any damage to the lawn from the airplane/missile/etc, or to hide the fact that there was none?" This is just stupid, really poor thinking. Answer: Access to the site. You can't drive over the lawn with heavy fire vehicles and construction/demolition equipment, you'll get stuck eventually - so, just like any other construction project on the planet you build a nice stable gravel road to the site... (this one always irritated me so I thought I'd mention it here).

Alaska: Samantha Koenig Kidnapped last week.
  Posted 2 days ago with 111 member flags

Blue Spheres Fall from the Sky in the UK
  Posted 15 days ago with 81 member flags

The Chinese have seen the dragon in the sky !!
  Posted 2 days ago with 68 member flags

Strange Sounds in Sky Explained by Scientists
  Posted 11 days ago with 59 member flags

She Dialed 911. The Cop Who Came to Help Raped Her.
  Posted 4 days ago with 49 member flags

Anonymous: Revealing The Arcane Legal Trick Behind ACTA
  Posted 11 days ago with 42 member flags

NDAA Nullification: Tennessee Bills Propose Kidnapping Charges for Federal Agents
  Posted 2 days ago with 38 member flags

Anonymous reveals Haditha massacre emails | RT
  Posted 7 days ago with 33 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: