In Depth Look At The Pentagon Witnessess On 9/11

reply to post by freedom12


"smelled like" cordite.

Cordite.

Here: CORDITE

Cordite is a family of smokeless propellants developed and produced in the United Kingdom from 1889 to replace gunpowder as a military propellant. Like gunpowder, cordite is classified as a low explosive because of its slow burning rates and consequently low brisance. These produce a subsonic deflagration wave rather than the supersonic detonation wave produced by brisants, or high explosives.

So, what was the point, again?

reply to post by ProudBird

(Cheesy music, but it is what it is):

And no taste in good music either?

Ride of the Valkyries is only one of Wagner's best and most recognized works.

This is probably more your style-

reply to post by freedom12


I know "Ride of the Valkyries", of course. I just meant it was a bit trite to accompany that video.....a video that needs NO music soundtrack at all.

What it really needs is first: A higher quality resolution and second: A narrator.

Someone to describe (nice to have a way to point as discussing, too) what is happening. Someone who knows the Boeing 757, and can explain it to the layperson.


(PS....I'm too old for Rick Astley. But, I am also old enough to remember seeing the very first airing of MTV...I bet his music videos date back that far??)

PPS....yes, that song is from 1987....MTV premiered in 1982 (?) or 1983, IIRC.

Oh, and that particular song and video?? You DO know that "Rickrolling" is especially frowned upon here at ATS??

But, this is not an instance of that, of course....no "bait and switch"......just sayin'.....

reply to post by ProudBird

And, a camera that was mounted ON the Pentagon building itself??? Does anyone really think that the footage, showing the amount of coverage, and angle of the camera, would be made public?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bc83caaf30cc.jpg[/atsimg]

Cameras sir. Plural. And these are just a few!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0f0a88b2576d.jpg[/atsimg]

Why not? In case someone got an idea to fly a plane into the Pentagon?

Do you seriously think they don't have EVERY inch covered?

Sure the Doubletree footage and Citgo footage have been released, probably because they don't show anything.

We are supposed to take the government's word that the other 70+ cameras didn't record anything? Especially when folks knew the plane was inbound?

reply to post by freedom12


I know, I have seen those cameras, mounted on those "goose-neck" type mounts.

Have you ever personally been to the Pentagon? You see them easily, form the parking lot and the Bus terminal, and public entry to the Metro.


But again.....the details of what range anything within those domes on the goose-neck mounts can "see", and in what spectrum, and how it is recorded, and if a visual spectrum camera, at what frame-rate, etc...all of that will is unlikely to be ever made public. If the frame rate is less than "normal" 30 fps rate for typical video motion pictures, then even IF it was a camera that was looking outward, or even downward were the airplane may have entered its field of view.....then at a one or two frames per second rate, the airplane would either not appear, or be a big blur.....especially as close as it was.

BTW.....the primary level of security that I see around the Pentagon is the men and women, with their eyes and ears, as they patrol:

The The Pentagon Force Protection Agency (PFPA) --

.... a civilian Defense Agency within the Department of Defense charged with protecting and safeguarding the occupants, visitors, and infrastructure of the Pentagon, Navy Annex and other assigned Pentagon facilities.

Yes, twice. First time was summer 1988(pre 9/11).

2nd time was post 9/11 in September of 2006.

2nd trip, I actually had an encounter with the Pentagon police as we were taking pictures.

In 1988, I didn't look for/notice the cameras. In 2006, I definitely noticed the cameras!!

reply to post by ProudBird


I thought your post directed towards me was a little condescending, but whatever. At least you are willing to concede what is very obvious to everyone with eyes, that there are in fact cameras at the Pentagon in locations that could have very well recorded what did happen. What is peculiar to me is that you would assume that the security at the Pentagon is standard run-of-the-mill type stuff. I totally agree that they wouldn't make lots of details public because from a security standpoint, that isn't exactly the best option. However, If I were putting cameras on top of the building and had literally limitless funds and access to technology...I might possibly buy cameras with very good frame rates and resolution. Hell, I might even shoot for the moon and get cameras that could be articulated or rotated in order to, I don't know, see more than one perspective. I really don't understand why anyone would consider this a stretch of imagination by any degree. Ultimately, the biggest problem is this...we don't know what it saw because we aren't allowed to see. It, along with many other cameras, saw something...but we aren't allowed to see their recordings.
I'm not sure what you were referencing in your post, but although it has been discussed many times on ATS I have never seen any proof whatsoever that all of the footage is back in the public forum, as you say. In fact, I see a lot of evidence that that very idea is not a reflection of reality, and if you look at your own post carefully you will see that you offer observations and an explanation as to why this IS NOT the case. I used the term "confiscate" because it is the most accurate description by definition of what actually happened and any measure of "common sense" would easily lead any rational person to the same conclusions I have arrived at.

reply to post by budaruskie


Well.....I just don't see any need for that time of security, for the Pentagon.....in terms of cameras.

As I noted, they have their own dedicated on-site Police patrol force. There isn't really anything in there that is critical, it's an office building primarily, to run the bureaucracy of the DoD.

Sure, every so often a VIP will be in the "house"....they are usually helicoptered in, and surely high-level sensitive meetings take place inside (probably has levels underground wouldn't you think?).

But it hasn't any value....no gold a' la Ft. Knox. So the perimeter security would be geared to prevent the malicious intruder....anyone not authorized entry, or intent on planting an IED or something.

As it was, as terrible a loss of life that occurred from American 77 being flown into it, the only thing that did was kill people....innocent people.....which is one definition of what "terrorism" is, and what their goals are.

It had no practical effect on the country's security otherwise. (Except of course, for the ill-fated reactions of the idiot in chief at the time, and his box of warmongering cronies).

reply to post by freedom12


You are aware that Hani Hanjour, presumed pilot of AA77, had extensive simulator experience at Jet Tech
International in Mesa Az

He took lessons on a 737 simulator (which Proud Brird can confirm is very similar to the Boeing 757)

He was checked out for "Sharp Turns" by the the instructors

He did not take any training for takeoffs/landings

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by budaruskie

 

Well.....I just don't see any need for that time of security, for the Pentagon.....in terms of cameras.

As I noted, they have their own dedicated on-site Police patrol force. There isn't really anything in there that is critical, it's an office building primarily, to run the bureaucracy of the DoD.

Sure, every so often a VIP will be in the "house"....they are usually helicoptered in, and surely high-level sensitive meetings take place inside (probably has levels underground wouldn't you think?).

But it hasn't any value....no gold a' la Ft. Knox. So the perimeter security would be geared to prevent the malicious intruder....anyone not authorized entry, or intent on planting an IED or something.

As it was, as terrible a loss of life that occurred from American 77 being flown into it, the only thing that did was kill people....innocent people.....which is one definition of what "terrorism" is, and what their goals are.

It had no practical effect on the country's security otherwise. (Except of course, for the ill-fated reactions of the idiot in chief at the time, and his box of warmongering cronies).

Okay, let me ask you this. Do you believe the White House might have articulating cameras with high resolution and/or high frame rates? There isn't really anything all that valuable there either, except of course for the personnel and the intel within those walls. Isn't it reasonable to assume that the thousands of military personnel (some high-ranking) and the intel that no doubt is contained within the Pentagon would be worthy of cameras that my neighbors can afford to put on their houses? Honestly, I think it is a real stretch of the imagination to believe that someone who had virtually limitless resources and were tasked with securing a national landmark, which coincedentally contains the heart or brain (depending on your personal perspective) of the most powerful military in the history of mankind...would just decide out of the freakin' blue that spending a couple thousand extra dollars for cameras that might actually be of value would be too much to ask for. Keep in mind, that this same person or persons are the same people who throw BILLIONS of dollars at projects that are never completed or are not viable in the first place. I'm sorry, but that is an extremely weak argument and an enormous leap in logic...which is almost certainly a logical fallacy.

Wait a minute, I'll give you an example to illustrate my point. The accounting records contained within the Pentagon at the very least would be considered "top-secret" for lack of a better term. Spies, journalists, anarchists, and enemies of all sorts would all consider this building to be a target for that alone. What about schematics and intel reports of classified buildings or projects? Come on man, this is child's play.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by freedom12

 

You are aware that Hani Hanjour, presumed pilot of AA77, had extensive simulator experience at Jet Tech
International in Mesa Az

He took lessons on a 737 simulator (which Proud Brird can confirm is very similar to the Boeing 757)

He was checked out for "Sharp Turns" by the the instructors

He did not take any training for takeoffs/landings

So...you are a conspiracy theorist who believes that the big bad gum't actually trained these terrorists to attack us on our own dime! Paalease, you've been spending way too much time on those damned fool conspiracy sites and drinking the drivel flavored kool-aid.

Here is a picture of a boeing that colided with a single bird




But yet on that day a boeing punched through the heavily reinforced walls of the pentagon AND managed to punch a hole out the back of it.

sure.

reply to post by Rafe_


You are not understanding the physics of a bird strike, versus the entire airplane impacting a stationary building.

The bird is the equivalent of a projectile....it is smaller than the jet, and has its mass concentrated.

In fact.......you can switch it around, and your example demonstrates how the jet can cause so much damage to the buildings!!!

In the case of the jet hitting the building, it (the jet) now becomes the projectile, and the building now becomes the substitute for the airplane that gets the damage.

You've just proven the physics, without even realizing it!!

reply to post by budaruskie


I figured you'd bring up this red herring eventually:

Do you believe the White House might have articulating cameras with high resolution and/or high frame rates? There isn't really anything all that valuable there either....

Of course the sort of security @ the WH is pretty well known. IT is far more a "target" to the every day terrorist and NUT case than the Pentagon will ever be!!!

Oh, and you think there "isn't really anything all that valuable there..."???

Ever been on on the WH Tour? Tons of valuable, irreplaceable artwork. A lot more sensitive material that isn't stored deep, deep inside a fortress of an office building, like the Pentagon.

And of course, a big red bulls-eye in the form of the person himself (or herself in future).....I mean, to steal from the kids...."Duh!"

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Rafe_

 

You are not understanding the physics of a bird strike, versus the entire airplane impacting a stationary building.

The bird is the equivalent of a projectile....it is smaller than the jet, and has its mass concentrated.

In fact.......you can switch it around, and your example demonstrates how the jet can cause so much damage to the buildings!!!

In the case of the jet hitting the building, it (the jet) now becomes the projectile, and the building now becomes the substitute for the airplane that gets the damage.

You've just proven the physics, without even realizing it!!

Following that logic the bird could of done more damage to the towers than the plane.

reply to post by Insolubrious


I'm trying to help, here....Maybe if you thought about it a bit more.

Here's another aspect: The building is larger, and has more mass, than the airplane. The building is not moving, the airplane is. The airplane therefore has a tremendous amount of kinetic energy, with all the momentum that that entails.


From a purely simplistic physics force/vector equation computation standpoint, the "bird strike" on the airplane can be worked out two ways: The airplane can be stationary, and the bird accelerated to the speed of impact......or, the bird can be stationary, and the airplane the one in motion. As long as the velocity at impact is the same in both cases, the force of impact will be the same. The damage patterns may vary, due to that aspect of inertia and momentum and kinetic energy.

It is counter-intuitive.


Of course, in reality, trying to get the bird up to that velocity is purely theoretical, and mental agility exercise. But, the equation F = MA can have units plugged into it either way. The difference is the other many complexities of motion and energy that are involved.

In any case...a Boeing 757 that (at the time) had a total mass (weight) of around 180,000 pounds, and was moving at around 800 feet per second, has a formidable amount of force and energy in it.......it will do tremendous damage to anything in its path, as it expends that energy.

reply to post by TupacShakur
I'm not sure what your motivation is for this, but you've lost all credibility with me. I know you could'nt care less, but just thought you should know. We all know a plane didn't hit the pentagon, because if it did there would be film of it. You've turned out to be a very big disappointment.

reply to post by Insolubrious


You do realize that science classes have been shoving paper straws through raw potatos for decades?

reply to post by budaruskie


Even if they had articulated cameras, which way do you think they would be pointed?
Maybe at the doors where bad guys would try to enter??

To my knowelge none of the windows were of the opening variety so it's pointless to have cameras pointed at them.

If someone had suggested that maybe we should point a few at the sky what do you think the response from the boss would be?

reply to post by ProudBird


Using the figures in your post of 180,000 lbs for the Boeing 757 and speed of 800 feet per second I thought I would quickly calculate the kinetic energy of its impact with the Pentagon.

I make the kinetic energy 2432365096 joules. That is approximately equivalent to the energy released by 1157 sticks of dynamite . As one stick of dynamite will demolish the average house I think that gives some idea of the power of the impact.