Pentagon Crash Analysis - http://alberta.indymedia.org/news/2002/10/4578.php
11/5/02 -- This long - very long - analysis of the crash at the Pentagon on 9/11/01 is highly flawed and lacking in critical and important knowledge about melting points of metals, crash dynamics, etc. etc. The melting point of aluminum is around 1220 degrees F. The fire that was generated in the Pentagon fire was well above this and easily melted any aluminum parts of the plane that were inside the building. The explosion did not happen until the plane was mainly or wholly inside the building. The time for the explosion to occur and expand is longer than the time for the jet to penetrate the building. For example, observe the many videos of the airplanes crashing into the World Trade Center. They are completely inside the building before any explosion takes place. They have fully penetrated the external skin and explode inside the buildings.
Sorry, but those tapes are not faked and they are easily analyzed in slow motion. Also the Pentagon was not constructed of over 12' of steel reinforced concrete in one thickness. This is critical and key to the understanding of penetration of a "missile" in this case a plane. As an example take a pencil and jab it through one hundred sheets of paper spaced one inch apart. You will be able to do this. Now take those same 100 sheets of paper and try to jab the pencil through them. It is impossible!
Analyzing the photos from the security camera at the Pentagon indicates that the explosion did not occur outside the building, but rather, inside with resultant large amounts of debris (some very large) being thrown out with great force and for long distances. It is also evident that the plane was on the ground before striking the Pentagon albeit skimming the grass. I might also point out that distant photos will miss details on the ground that up-close observation would show.
Firefighters and rescue personnel at the scene are critical eyewitnesses about debris and ground markings. Discounting them is absurd and the sign of an amateur.
Saying that a person on the ground would have to hear a plane as large as a jetliner coming at them at well over 400 mph from a large distance is unfamiliar with reality. In fact a jet flying at this speed is relatively quiet to the person it is approaching until it is almost on you at which time it turns into a roar as it passes over you.
The way that you strain to twist and discount all the eyewitness accounts and the physical evidence is exhausting and idiotic.
I believe we need to carefully analyze the actions of the government, but in this instance evidence indicates that flight AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. You might as well disprove that the other three airliners crashed in their purported spots on 9/11. By the way, where is all of the pieces of the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania? There's very little left of it either and it didn't endure a long and extremely hot fire.
I could go on but don't have the time to refute this sizable monstrosity of amateur gibberish that lacks credibility because of a deficiency in knowledge of all of the dynamics involved. Give it up. It wasn't a missile. The explosion was obviously a low-energy explosion such as produced by jet fuel.
Kris
Note: The times and date on the pictures of the Pentagon security camera are reported to be when they were analyzed. Strange dating, but the displayed date is obviously incorrect and the time indicates it is after 5 pm. By the shadows it is obvious that the pictures were taken in the morning hours. Coverup or faked? No, just an oddity. Notice also that the style of lettering on the time and date is the same as the description of the picture -- in other words, it was most likely added at the same time by the same person.
Pentagon Crash Analysis -- http://alberta.indymedia.org/news/2002/10/4578.php
11/6/02 -- My source for the aluminum of the jet melting in the Pentagon fire is the experience and training of seven years as a paid firefighter. Not only have I seen the skin of trailer homes melt away in a short-duration fire, but I have also witnessed the aluminum siding of semi-trailers melt away under low fire load and short-duration fires. It doesn’t take long for a low-intensity fire to melt substantial amounts of aluminum. The fuel from an almost fully loaded 757 presents an enormous fire load in the structure in which it crashed that is not normal. The fire load in the Pentagon does not consist only of the jet fuel, but also a tremendous amount of other combustible products. These must also be considered when calculating the effective energy source available.
Titanium melts at about 3050 degrees Fahrenheit. Iron melts at about 2795 degrees Fahrenheit. Since there are a variety of steels, we can assume that the approximate melting point for the steel is 3000 degrees Fahrenheit. Titanium burns in the presence of air once it reaches a red heat (well before it melts) and turns into titanium oxides. It also combines with chlorine at 932 degrees Fahrenheit – well below a normal fire temperature inside a building. Interestingly, it also burns in the presence of nitrogen. Aluminum also oxidizes and burns to become aluminum oxide, a powder.
The intensity of the heat inside the Pentagon was extreme and prolonged. It is hard for a layman to understand the actual dynamics of what takes place in a fire, but firefighters have experience and training to understand that. It is also hard for a layman to understand the dynamics of the energy released in a plane crash – especially one flying at over 400 mph. People and planes are obliterated in a simple crash into the ground – not a skimming crash but a full force impact.
Regarding how the plane fit into the building, I would say that based upon eyewitness accounts the wings were breaking off of the plane as it skidded into the Pentagon. The fuselage penetrated it and the wings, but not in the normal configuration. An examination of the photos indicates a wide, low swath through the structure to the left of the large initial hole. The engines probably traveled further than the main body of the plane because they are denser. Additionally, there is evidence for this in the World Trade Center crashes. Pieces of the engines and other heavy objects like wheels traveled through the towers and emerged on the other side. Without an up-close analysis it is impossible to determine. It is highly likely (but speculative on my part) that the hole on the inside ring was made by the remains of an engine.
Regarding your claim that explosives were used to cause the explosions of the planes crashing into the World Trade Center towers – that is simply based upon ignorance. Our government has spent thousands and probably millions of dollars to make jet fuel non-explosive on impact – all to no avail. While it is true that jet fuel is slow to ignite, it burns readily when vaporized or else it wouldn’t burn in the engines. When the planes crashed into the towers there was plenty of ripping and shredding of the fuel tanks and vaporization of the jet fuel such that a massive explosion such as took place is not only readily observable but expected. When the government crashed an airliner with special inhibitives in the fuel to keep it from exploding, they were sorely disappointed because as the video of that planned crash vividly illustrated that jet fuel when vaporized (even with inhibitors) ignites readily and creates a massive and rapid explosion and fire. There was no need for an explosive to be on the planes – the jet fuel was enough.
I am glad that you later acceded to my illustration of the pencil and paper. I could just have easily used a bullet, but the pencil is easily replicated by everyone and easily understood that even a low velocity object can easily penetrate scattered thicknesses while even a high velocity object has difficulty penetrating a concentrated thickness.
Regarding the debris, number one there is a fair amount of airplane debris scattered around the area. However, one has to realize that most of that airplane ended up in the Pentagon and not outside it. You didn’t find much debris of the TWO airliners that plowed into the towers afterwards – why would you expect a lot at the Pentagon?
The only way to know what plane the debris came from would be to analyze it which I am assuming they did. Obviously, you have nothing to refute the type of plane that it is.
It is evident from the security camera pictures that the plane was on the ground before it crashed into the Pentagon because the plane is visible in one picture before the explosion and it is on the ground. In the first impact photo there is visible evidence of a “smoke” trail along the ground extending from the initial explosion that was there before impact. This indicates contact with the ground. I will also point out that skidding on the ground does not mean the wings are parallel to the ground and attached to the fuselage in their normal configuration. The photo is not clear enough to determine this. The original may be, but the internet copies have poor resolution. Just because the wings broke off before they impacted the building does not mean that they did not penetrate it. Meteorites will many times explode in air to form many smaller objects which all penetrate the ground upon impact.
Regarding hearing a rapidly approaching jet flying close to the ground – your comparison to living in the flight path of jets flying overhead at 1000 feet is totally different. Those planes are flying at a relatively slow speed if they are taking off or landing and they are at 1000 feet! I have personal experience of living not only in the flight path of jets taking off from runways, but also of being in the path of fighter jets flying overhead at low altitude at attack speeds (which is what the airliner was doing that hit the Pentagon). The sound of the approaching jet is minimal and not even noticeable especially when next to a busy interstate such at the Pentagon. Only when it is within a few seconds of you do you really hear it. You need to go to a Blue Angels air show and position yourself so they fly directly over you during their performance. Then you will understand what I am talking about.
Kris
11/8/02 – e-mail response to Tim's e-mail
Melting isn't vaporizing. -- The fire department is on record as pointing out an area of melted aluminum that would indicate a portion of the plane had melted at that point. I'm certain there were many other areas of melted aluminum. Additionally, I have attached a reply I made to other questions by the author of the original analysis on that website. It starts with my original reply to the article. (See above post)
The explosion occurred primarily inside the FIRST ring. -- This is "the building" that I am talking about -- not the second ring which is in reality another building in close proximity to the first ring.
The pencil theory doesn't wash. Once the explosion occurs all structural integrity and directed path of the object is lost. Your pencil doesn't contain jet fuel and doesn't explode after penetrating the first sheet. -- You miss the point. The author of the article states that a plane could not possibly penetrate the thickness of steel reinforced concrete because the bombs used by Great Britain in WWII could barely do that. The point is that spacing out the thickness allows for penetration whereas no spacing prohibits penetration. Regarding the explosion -- the plane has lost its structural integrity before the explosion -- the fuel tanks are ruptured which results in vaporization of the jet fuel and the resultant ignition and explosion. The explosion does not destroy the structural integrity (even though it may further damage the plane). You are wrong about the directed path of the object being lost after the explosion. The directed path continues unless the explosion overcomes that directed path on certain parts of the plane. However, most of the plane's parts will continue on their directed path with some deviating in the direction of the explosion.
If the plane was almost entirely in the building how do you account for the second wall still standing? The plane is 155 ft long and the first ring is 65 ft long? Where's the math here or did that explode too? -- The structural integrity of the plane begins to be compromised as soon as it comes in contact with the building (actually before because it was apparently skidding on the ground prior to contact). To expect it to be 155' long at the far wall of the first ring would be to ignore the reality of crash dynamics. The fuel tanks are essentially in the wings and therefore the front of the fuselage would be totally inside before the rupturing of the fuel tanks. As they ruptured and the fuel vaporized, the plane has continued to progress into the building even as it is being compressed and shredded by the interior building structures. Therefore, before the ignition of the fuel, the plane would be wholly or mainly inside the building (first ring).
I have seen no visual evidence of this or is conjecture enough for you? -- Conjecture is what the article that I responded to was full of. I make no conjecture about this. There are a number of eyewitnesses to the event; however, I take it that you discount eyewitness testimony. Therefore, I submit photographic evidence, which I would hope you would accept. If you don't, then I suppose you think that the plane struck the Pentagon without hitting the ground first, or you think the government is so devious that they flew a missile into the Pentagon, blew it up, and somehow disposed of a Boeing 757, its crew, and passengers. That, my friend, is the incredulous story.
I am e-mailing you an article that shows the Pentagon security camera in a sequential view. (Anyone wishing this article may request it via e-mail) After it has played through, manually move the frames of the pictures back and forth. You will notice the tail of the plane sticking up above the small structure in the upper right foreground of the picture. Behind the tail you will see billows of white "smoke". They disappear in the next frame as does the tail of the plane. Instead, you can see a faint trail of "smoke" where the billows were. Following the path into the Pentagon and in line with the initial explosion you will see the continuation of the faint trail of "smoke" on the ground. This is the path that the plane took as it skidded on the ground.
As you move the frames back and forth rapidly you will notice the massive chunks of debris (and smaller ones, too) being ejected from the explosion. Notice also along the leading edge of the building at the roof line what appears to be a large section of the roof peeled up and laid back away from the explosion. This sequence indicates that the plane exploded when it was mainly inside the first ring. Additional proof of this is the accounts of those inside the first ring when the plane crashed into it -- they were instantly engulfed in a raging fire inside their offices and the hallways.
Notice that other than the first initial blast of white hot gases, the explosion is composed of flaming red and orange fire with billowing black smoke around it. This is indicative of a jet fuel low-energy explosion and not a high-energy white burst from an explosive on a missile. A jet fuel explosion would cause the massive amounts of fire, but a missile payload would only create structural damage with only maybe a few spot fires. Before the firefighters arrived there is evidence of a large amount of fire on the ground just outside the Pentagon. It is burning with intense black smoke just as jet fuel would. When the firefighters arrived they laid down foam spray to coat that jet fuel and extinguish it. They would not have done that if it were normal combustibles that were burning.
The facts are clear -- an airplane (identified as AA77) crashed into the Pentagon. Anyone who disputes this is not observing the facts of the case. This is being pushed by people that are either disinformation agents or people who refuse to accept the facts. Why be adamant about denying that it happened? Why not be energetic as to finding out how much the government knew beforehand?
11/9/02 -- For additional information and great documentation on the Pentagon crash visit the following websites. They leave little to be questioned. I found these after the above commentaries were written.
http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/pole_reports.htm#walter
http://www2.hawaii.edu/%7Ejulianr/witness.html#5
Photos Of Flight 77 Wreckage Inside The Pentagon
Exclusive Photos & Story
From Sarah Roberts
spinner2882@yahoo.com
12-4-2 http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm
7/12/03 -- Stuart Kosh of San Francisco, CA, writes, “you say the plane in the photo left a pillar of white smoke behind it, they don't teach this in fire school but passenger planes don't leave smoke trails, those are jet engines, not turbine engines, and jet planes beign to break the speed of sound when in some attack manuevers, that is why you don't hear them until they are very close to you, watch waynne's world you'll know what I mean, or the movie sleepers, 9 foot turbine engines make a roaring sound. A dron plane dosen't”
Kris responds,
pillar of white smoke behind it
This is not from the engines of the plane, but rather from the plane scraping along the ground just before impact. My exact words that you refer to are “visible evidence of a ‘smoke’ trail along the ground… indicates contact with the ground.”
jet engines, not turbine engines
Could you please explain the difference? A jet engine is a turbine engine and Flight 77 was an airplane powered by jet engines.
jet planes beign to break the speed of sound when in some attack maneuvers
Sometimes, yes, they do, but not always and they are strictly forbidden from breaking the sound barrier while flying over populated areas in the United States.
that is why you don't hear them until they are very close to you
Actually this is not true. A plane flying faster than the speed of sound at low altitude will be perfectly quiet until it is past you at which time a massive blast will explode in your eardrums. A plane flying at attack speed but less than the speed of sound will approach very quietly but can be heard. As it passes by you the volume of the sound increases massively, but there is no resulting shock wave as there is with a plane flying over Mach 1. Even a passenger jet plane flying low and slow as it comes in for a landing is relatively quiet as it approaches compared to after it passes overhead.
watch waynne's world you'll know what I mean, or the movie sleepers
Huh?? What? Number 1 – don’t believe ANYTHING that you see in the movies! I’ve never seen either movie, but I can’t even fathom how either one could back up your argument!
9 foot turbine engines make a roaring sound.
And fighter jet engines don’t?! Have you ever been near a fighter jet? Obviously not!
A dron plane dosen't
A drone doesn’t make any noise??!! Perhaps in that case we should make our fighter jets drones so that they can fly over enemy territory completely unnoticed at night because they can’t be heard. FYI, drones make noise also. Apparently you’ve been watching too much of Wayne’s World.
7/14/03 -- Stuart Kosh replies (in italics)
hijackers on board each of these planes were flunking their flight classes
Do you have data to prove your allegation? There have been reports that some of them weren’t doing that well in their classes, but why would you care about doing well on a test or on landing the plane if your full intent was to crash it into a building? Whether they were receiving passing grades in their classes is totally irrelevant to their abilities to maneuver the plane while in flight.
Just like a kamakazee pilot none of these hijackers could land a plane
Kamikaze pilots could land their planes, they chose not to.
80 percent of crashes are during landing and takeoff
Your point?
Trying to land a plane at 400 mph is impossible
They weren’t trying to land their planes – they were crashing them into buildings at greater than 400 mph
A plane can't be going more than 140 Mph when it's landing otherwise the plane will Idle out
How does the shuttle land then?
Imagine trying to steer your car at a hundred and 50 miles an hour, every movement your steeringwheel makes a move the car jolts.
Amazing that race car drivers are able to steer with great control at speeds faster than 150 mph!
The angle the plane was comming in from was impossible to manuever. The plane was coming from Dulles Virginia, and would have had to make a 247 degree angle to hit the side of the pentagon that was damaged. Not even an experienced f-18 fighter pilot could do that in a 757
In that case we better have the terrorists train our F-18 pilots how to do such a maneuver since all the evidence (eye-witness and crash remnants) proves that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon on that side! Actually, 360 degrees in a circle minus your 247 degrees leaves an angle of 113 degrees that the plane would have to make a turn to hit the Pentagon based on your figures. However, a smaller, sharper turn is more difficult to make instead of a large turn; therefore, 113 degrees would be more difficult than a 247 degree turn. By the way, I have personally been in a commercial airliner in which the pilot came in under high wind conditions and made a short approach landing in which he easily made at least an 80 degree turn (more difficult than a 247 degree turn) against high crosswinds while making a perfect landing. We were making up time because of a delayed flight so he used this maneuver. It is not uncommon for Fed Ex planes to use many of these similar time-saving maneuvers.
How did the hijackers know how to get to the pentagon.
From maps that all airplanes have, plus once you are near D.C. the Pentagon is easily identified from the air.
If the plane did land at 400 mph, like estimated, a trail of clouds would have come from under the plane, the minute it had hit down.
Precisely my point! Thank you for confirming it! Remember, too, that the “trail of clouds” would be reduced because they were on a grassy area.
And last but not least, the metal on a plane is thinner than the metal on the roof of your car.
Perhaps, but not all of the metal on an airplane is that thin.
The metal surrounding a 757 is meant to flex, like a coke can, that is why a plane can fly at 30,000 feet and not blow up(one of the reasons any way).
The metal is not thin to make it flex. It is thin to make it lightweight. The reason it doesn’t “blow up” is because it is designed to handle the slight pressurization of the cabin areas while other areas are not pressurized at all. It has nothing to do with the thinness or flexibility of the metal. Thicker metal would actually be less likely to “blow up”. By the way, the skin of the airplane fuselage that I rode in on Thursday was much thicker than a coke can. Additionally, aircraft aluminum is much higher strength than the aluminum a coke can is made of.
…a bird can fly through the metal of an airplane…including one that went through the cockpit
Birds can crash through the “Plexiglass” polycarbonate windshield of a plane which is much stronger than any Coke can. Try throwing a bird against a plane’s windshield and the bird will suffer greatly, but the windshield will not. How did a lightweight piece of Styrofoam puncture the heat tiles and metal edge of the shuttle wing? It is documented through a scientific test that the lightweight Styrofoam can blow a massive hole in the wing edge. It’s called momentum. The speed of the object greatly increases its ability to penetrate. Throw a bullet at someone and it will bounce off with maybe only a slight bruise if it hits them just right. Fire it from a gun and with the massive increase in velocity (and force) it becomes a deadly missile capable of ripping through solid steel. So, too, does the bird.
how did the entire nose of a plane that is about as flimsy as a coke can, manage to make its way through Reinforced steel bars and a…load of concrete. Remember you said the Pentagon was built tougher than the world trade center, it is. Column after column of steel make up the walls and interior of the pentagon
First, the nose of the plane is stronger than a coke can. Its design is much like the end of an egg which is extremely durable compared to the relative strength of the eggshell. Secondly, remember the examples from the previous answers.
if a plane can go through all of that steel and concrete, then so can a bird, theoretically.
No, the total mass of the plane plus numerous other reasons that I will not take time to detail precludes an equivalent comparison; but think of it as a small .22 caliber bullet with no metal jacket trying to penetrate three feet of steel-reinforced concrete versus a bunkerbuster missile doing the same. The bullet will splatter on the outside, but the missile will penetrate.
A rocket, or jet engine is ten time different then a 9 foot turbine engine.
A rocket engine is NOT a jet engine. A 9 foot turbine engine IS a jet engine – it is a turbine jet engine.
Rockets use a lot more smaller turbines,
Rocket engines have no turbines, although they do have pumps.
and most of them cool the air from the outside before combusting in the chamber causing for an even bigger explosion.
Rocket engines do not burn outside air.
The cooling and heating of the air so quickly causes a white trail of smoke, just like the one in the picture.
White trails of “smoke” from engines (either rocket or jet) are caused by water vapor and/or other combustion byproducts, but not by “cooling and heating of the air”. The three main engines of the space shuttle, liquid-propellant rocket engines, produce virtually no trail while the solid rocket boosters leave a large trail.
I could tell you things about your "safe" country that would make you wonder how safe you really are.
I’ve never claimed to feel safe in this country from the ever encroaching federal government, but it does no good to throw out wild conspiracy theories that are bogus and have no backing in fact or reality. Instead, we should accept the facts that four airliners were hijacked and crashed where they were reported to have crashed. View the internal photos of the damaged Pentagon on my site or the sites that are linked from my site and the evidence is irrefutable – it was a 757 that crashed into and penetrated the Pentagon. Case closed. Was the government knowledgeable about this plot? Evidence indicates that they had some awareness, if not a large amount of awareness. You are free to debate how much government involvement and prior knowledge of this national tragedy there was. I and many others think that there has been a cover-up similar to Pearl Harbor. Research and give me info on that!
8/4/03 -- Stuart Kosh replies again
Kirt responds -- It has been my astute observation that when a person realizes that they are loosing a discussion, they start resorting to name calling, yelling, and even cursing. Seems to fit your email to me. May I point out that you will get much farther in a discussion without resorting to name calling, anger, etc. as you recently did. I will ignore your extraneous remarks and address your claims individually as I always do. It is a very effective way when posting so that each claim can be seen separately and discussed individually. Some claims have merit while others do not. Sorry if you don’t like my style.
Stuart -- I ama retired Navy M.D.
This qualifies you for knowledge about structural integrity of airplanes and buildings and the laws of physics associated with plane crashes?
worked as a navigator on board a Aircraft carrier
What plane did you fly in, or were you a non-flying navigator? Still, being a navigator does not qualify a person to know about laws of physics, etc.
A 757 is made up of metal, which at 400 mph, expands and felxes like a coke can, otherwise the plane would ***** blow up at 30,000 feet
Sorry, but you are totally wrong regarding the “blow up at 30,000 feet” part. Technically, a rifle barrel, tank barrel, and all metals flex. No one would consider though that the “flexing” of a rifle barrel or a tank barrel is the reason why it doesn’t “blow up” when a projectile is fired from it. It is instead the structural design that calculates the necessary strength to withstand the forces involved that keeps the object’s structural integrity. A sealed rifle barrel would not “blow up at 30,000 feet” and its “flex” at that altitude is much less than the airplane’s skin. Additionally, you seem to assume that non-pressurized areas of the plane would somehow “blow up” from some force present at 30,000 feet that is not present on the ground. The simple matter is that all the pressures on the non-pressurized areas are equal and cannot “blow up” merely because they are at an altitude of 30,000 feet. The only areas subject to “blowing up” at any altitude are the pressurized ones. However, flexibility is not what keeps them from “blowing up”, but rather, the structural strength. The only other pressures on the aircraft are from lift, drag, and g-forces caused by maneuvering. These, however, are equal whether at 100 feet or 30,000 feet.
A rocket engine uses something called microturbine technology!!!! It does suck in air from outside and cool it!!!
Obviously you are confused. Rocket engines do not “suck in air from outside”. There is no air in outer space where they are designed to operate, so there is no air to “suck in”. Granted, many military projectiles use solid and or liquid fuel rockets to propel them to their target, but they do not “suck in air from outside”. Perhaps you are referring to cruise missiles which use a rocket engine to blast off from a ship and then a jet turbine engine kicks in, but rockets do NOT use outside air! Regarding the microturbine technology – perhaps they have some in rockets to generate electricity for guidance systems or powering the pumps by using the exhaust of the rocket, but they are not used in propulsion.
The sudden cumbustion of cool air combined with gas creates a pretty powerful explosion
The only benefit of “cool” air over “hot” air is in its density which directly relates to the mass available for expulsion (“cool” air has more mass than “hot” air)(the mass of the burning gases is what propels the rocket) and the fact that “cool” air will have a slightly higher concentration of oxygen than “hot” air. This, of course, assumes that you are taking the air at the same atmospheric pressure since the “cool” air at 30,000 feet is much less dense and has much less oxygen than the “hot” air at sea level. Therefore, a jet engine actually will perform better in “hot” air at sea level than in “cool” air at 30,000 feet. That is also why there is a ceiling at which jets can operate; the coldest air at the highest altitudes doesn’t have enough oxygen to produce enough thrust to keep the jet flying and the engine operating.
And yes Kamakazee pilots didn't know how to land a plane!
Interesting that you would make this claim when the manual for Kamikaze pilots states the following –
“Aborting your mission and returning to base
In the event of poor weather conditions when you cannot locate the target, or under other adverse circumstances, you may decide to return to base. Don't be discouraged. Do not waste your life lightly. You should not be possessed by petty emotions. Think how you can best defend the motherland. Remember what the wing commander has told you. You should return to the base jovially and without remorse.
“When turning back and landing at the base
Discard the bomb at the area designated by the commanding officer. Fly in circles over the airfield. Observe conditions of the airstrip carefully. Next, ascertain the direction of the wind and wind speed. Do you see any holes in the runway? Take three deep breaths.”
A zero was the most manuverable aircraft during World War !!!!
For certain aspects, yes, it was, but it also had short-comings that the knowledgeable American pilots took advantage of. Nevertheless, I fail to see what this has to do with crashing a 757 into the Pentagon.
A space shuttle can land with the utmost controll because it's speed and flight is not relavant to four 9 foot turbine engines that keep high pressure under the wings and low pressure above the wings!!!
Sorry, but apparently you don’t understand aerodynamics. Without a low pressure area above the wings and a high pressure area under the wings every aircraft will fall out of the sky. That is what keeps them in the air! The way that the “9 foot turbine engines” do it is by providing thrust which moves the wing through the air and creates those high/low pressure areas. The shuttle is falling at a high rate of speed and uses the air movement of the fall to create those high/low pressure areas on the wings.
And if there was a trail of dirt comming from the ***** plane that means the ***** ***** landed the plane at 400 miles an hour (according to purdue A "college") to have the impact that it did on the pentagon.
Once again you seem to confirm exactly what I have stated all along.
A palne can not land a 400 miles an hour, it would idle out, crash and burn before it hit the pentagon.
Once again you have given no evidence for your statement. I might point out though that the 757 that crashed into the Pentagon was NOT landing. It was CRASHING into the Pentagon. It skidded on the grass adjacent to the Pentagon shortly before it impacted the Pentagon wall.
And at 400 miles an hour, a ***** bird can go fly through the metal of plane, like in the AA flight from Florida to California.
You seem to indicate that I disputed this, but if you will read my last response to you I clearly stated that at such speeds birds can actually go through the polycarbonate windshields of the planes which are much stronger than the thin skin of the plane. What I disputed was your claim that the bird could go through the Pentagon like the plane did.
You'r trying to emulate somone who knows what there talking about but you don't.
I don’t try to emulate anyone; I merely speak from experience, research, knowledge, and deductive reasoning. So far you have not been able to factually dispute one detail that I have stated, so I must know something of which I speak.
So you went on vacation and in your head these thoughts festered, and now your contradicting book writers,( "The Big LIe") Purdue College analysts of fllight and navigation, Pilots themselves, and an Ex CIA intyelligence opperatives, including myslef.
So, you are making the claim that “contradicting book writers” is proof that I don’t know what I’m talking about? I’m a “book writer” myself, so you are “contradicting book writers” yourself and can’t possibly know what you’re talking about. Actually, the above argument is worthless as hopefully you now can see. If “book writers”, “Purdue College analysts of fllight(sic) and navigation, Pilots themselves, and an Ex CIA intyelligence(sic) operatives(sic)” state that a 757 (aka Flight 77) did not crash into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, then, yes, I do contradict them because they are refusing to analyze the mountains of evidence and documentation – eyewitness, pictorial, observable, and every other form of evidence – because they have a preconceived agenda that they are pushing. My vacation had nothing to do with those “festered” thoughts. I had better things to think about than your email while I was gone.
I have prooved over and over agian your so called "Eye witness testimonies" wrong
Strange that I haven’t seen any of your “evidence”. I have summarily dismissed every one of your “proofs”.
you keep firing at me this superfulous desultory crap that only futher prooves your intelectual idleness.
It appears that you have been reading your emails and not mine!
Do not pretend you understand this email
I must concede that you are correct on this one! It doesn’t make logical or scientific sense.
and don't reply untl you've read what I've read
If it makes me think like you – I don’t want to.
since you don't have a P.H.D in medicine
I thought you said you were an M.D. Which is it? An M.D. is a Medical Doctor. A Ph.D. (philosophiae doctor) is a doctor of “philosophy”. It can indicate a very detailed field, but is a different degree than an M.D. Perhaps you have both. Irregardless, it is meaningless in the analysis of the Pentagon crash.
and, 8 years navy experience, and a minor in anthroplogy
I don’t know how you could possibly know that I don’t have this amount of experience, but you are amazingly correct. I am, however, a former science teacher (I know about physics, math, and all the necessary things to analyze crash situations), a firefighter for seven years (I know about plane crashes, train crashes, automobile crashes, structure fires, and a multitude of fire and crash dynamics that are necessary to properly perform the many and varied firefighting challenges), an Emergency Medical Technician (I know what happens in crash situations and the massive forces involved and how to treat the injured in emergency situations where you have to make life and death decisions in a split second without relying on a committee), a former Ambulance driver (ditto the above on knowledge and capabilities), a former owner of a construction business (I know about structural issues and a host of other related issues), a Certified Water Specialist (I am an expert in water related problems and how to solve them), author (I’m not sure that this really means anything, but some people seem to think that it does), and a columnist for several alternative media (ditto the author qualities).
I'm assuming it might take you fore ***** score to catch up
I think it is you who needs to “catch up”.
Reading your emails is about as educationally equivalent to the time I actually read an article in one of my "cosmo" magazines
Why would you subscribe to “‘cosmo’ magazines”? No wonder your thinking is skewed.
Read the book The BIg Lie that's a start, many "eye witnesses" say that this book single handedly disprooves any theory that plane went into the pentagon.
Because I prefer to read truth and not fiction (unless I am reading a novel) I will not waste my time. I’ve read about this book and what it says. He is flat out wrong about Flight 77 not crashing into the Pentagon.
And if three planes can fly around America without the Navy's radar picking them up for three ***** hours why doesn't ALqueada buy 10 passanger planes and fly them over here into buildings!!!
Because it was easier and cheaper to hijack them!
Think outside the norm, if the government of the untide states can come to me and ask me to poison someone ( I declined) then there really shouldn't be any questioning about the Governments capability to fly a plane into the side of the pentagon that was under construction.
Apparently, you are confusing me with someone else. I have never said that the government is not capable of flying a 757 into the side of the Pentagon. I have always argued that American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the side of the Pentagon. It is people such as yourself who argue against all the facts that a 757 actually crashed into the Pentagon. I contend that it appears that it was done by the men that our government has mentioned. I have never said that our government was innocent in the crash, nor have I said that I don’t believe the government would do such a thing. FDR orchestrated the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to get us into World War II. I know that our government is capable – I just haven’t seen the documents proving it, though they may yet be discovered. To get an insight into what I think our government is capable of you should read my book, The Prophecy – 2024, and the last half of the story, my new book, Tragedy and Hope -- 2024.
Ex CIA intyelligence opperatives, including myslef.
This would fit my pronouncement that those that disavow that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon are disinformation agents. There is a truism that “once a CIA operative, always a CIA operative”. All of your statements should be considered in the light of this statement, and it should be highly considered that you are a CIA disinformation agent hoping to make those of us who question the innocence of our government’s dealings in the 9/11 tragedy look ridiculous by your foolish and ludicrous scenarios as to why AA77 didn’t crash into the Pentagon when irrefutable evidence exists that it did.
11/5/03 -- Skip Baker of Williamsburg, Virginia, writes and Kirt responds
“IT'S NOT just the fact that there IS NO Jet Plane at the sight or in the building…”
If you look at the pictures inside and outside the Pentagon, it is obvious that there are massive amounts of the remnants of a jet airliner. Open your eyes.
“…it's the LIES our government told that went with the propaganda.”
Which lies? If you refer to the report of Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon, then you’re totally off-base. However, there may be some legitimate claims regarding other aspects.
“First, no "student pilot" or Raghead on earth could have made that 270 degree turn and went down by 7000 feet that fast. Even a seasoned pilot for AA could not have made that turn and then at ground level plow into the building”
So it had to be a military pilot? Like a lot of “seasoned pilots for AA” are? Sorry, but your statement is not valid. Did the 7000 foot altitude drop come from radar? Then it’s documented. If it came from estimates by eyewitnesses, then perhaps their estimate was off. By the way, a 7000 foot descent along with a 270 degree turn is neither unrealistic nor difficult.
“…leaving a hole only 12 FEET WIDE!”
The damage was greater than a “12 feet wide” hole…but I doubt you want to hear that.
“If a plane had hit the building, there would have been a hole 127 feet WIDE!”
There was substantial damage across the façade of the Pentagon over a distance close to your 127 feet.
“And, stuff all over the grass. Only one item was "placed" on the grass to look like the plane.”
You need to quit reading articles written by the guys that haven’t looked at all of the pictures of the massive amounts of debris all over the grass in front of the Pentagon.
“But the Big Government Lie that they identified all the people, at least 98.4% of them, by using DNA from the bodies! However, DNA can't survive a fire that hot! If they say the metal in the plane "burned up" then how did they identify "People" by using fingerprints and DNA like they clam?”
Amazing that a body can survive a fire that hot, isn’t it? Have you ever cooked meat over an open fire? Have you ever seen the results of people who were burned in a structure fire or a car fire? I have. It is very hard to destroy a body in a fire. Criminals don’t understand this and will occasionally try to cover up their crime by burning a house down. It doesn’t work. DNA and the body remain. Aluminum will melt rapidly in a fire that will leave a human body basically intact. It is doubtful that the bodies of the crash victims were largely intact after the crash, but large enough parts would have survived even the intense fire of the Pentagon to allow identification through DNA.
“ It's like saying Saddam had "Weapons of Mass Destruction" when we all knew it was a BIG LIE all along, even back then!”
Funny, everyone assumed that Saddam had WMDs “back then”. Nobody believed Saddam when he claimed that he didn’t in 2002 and 2003. The reason everyone assumed that he had them was that our government gave them to him when he was our “friend”.
It now looks like they actually did dispose of them sometime in the 1990’s; however, if you “knew it was a BIG LIE all along”, then perhaps you should give your intelligence info to the CIA and the Pentagon. I’m sure they would like to have intelligence that is that accurate.
“There are so many lies in 911 from Dubya, that it's amazing to see how "dumbed down" the American People have become. When they are intimadated by a CIA operative like this, they clam up and don't say anything else. But it's their job to carry out the lies and make them stick.”
Which CIA operative? If you are referring to the one on the website, then you should understand that he was taking the same stand as you. Who is “dumbed down”? Don’t be taken in by those who would distract you from the important issues. Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. You should spend your time researching what the Bush administration knew and when. Forget the “Flight 77 didn’t crash into the Pentagon” bogus stories. They are fostered by disinformation agents who want to make those of us questioning legitimate parts of the story look like stupid, conspiracy fanatics; or by people who don’t really know what they are talking about.
5/13/04
Laura Curtis of Metairie, LA writes:
Someone recently sent me a new twist on the Flight 77 controversy. He filed a FOI and got the autopsy list - he says no Arabs are on it, and posted the scanned files. http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm Any opinions? I am really perplexed by this...
Laura,
“Truth can be stranger than fiction.” I have read in the past about the lack of Arab names (specifically, those accused of being the hijackers) on any official list of passengers or identified remains.
Is this troubling? Of course. The articles that your link goes to are a rational and reasonable analysis of the situation. There are no “wild theories” proposed that do not fit into the observed occurrence.
Many “wildcard theories” have claimed that Flight 77 was flown by remote control and didn’t crash into the Pentagon. I have debunked every one of those by using analysis of the crash scene along with eyewitnesses to prove that Flight 77 did indeed crash into the Pentagon.
I have always called for further investigation of discrepancies in the government’s story. These articles do that. Could Flight 77 have been controlled by remote control? Absolutely. Was it? There is currently not enough evidence to prove or disprove it.
Barbara Olsen made several calls from Flight 77 and described the hijackers as “Arabs” armed with knives. Some claim she couldn’t have or didn’t make any phone calls. That should be able to be documented and verified by phone records.
Did Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon? Yes.
Was our government complicit in some way? Perhaps.
Was Flight 77 controlled remotely? Perhaps, though it seems unlikely.
Did our government have foreknowledge that terrorists would hijack airliners and crash them into the Pentagon, WTC, or other buildings? Yes, without doubt.
Could our government have prevented 9/11 with the information they had? The jury is still out.
Did our government do enough to protect its citizens from 9/11? No, in the highest levels of government there appears to be direct and purposeful obstruction and concealment.
Can we trust our government to tell us the truth about 9/11? The government lied to us about the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, Waco, the OKC Murrah building bombing, WMDs in Iraq, etc. – conclusion – the government lies to its citizens when it suits their purposes.
Remember – the CIA motto is – “Admit Nothing, Deny Everything, Make Counteraccusations.”
There are a lot of disinformation agents out there trying to make legitimate investigation and discourse of 9/11 and other incidents look to be the work of lunatics. They are the ones floating the “wild” theories which are picked up by gullible individuals. We must focus on the truth – which is more profound and disturbing than those who make claims about “something”, other than Flight 77, crashing into the Pentagon. Some websites even make claims that no airliners really crashed into the WTC towers. The evidence and eyewitness accounts prove that two airliners did indeed crash into the towers (which did NOT collapse because of explosives).
Keep up the inquiring mind.
Kirt
Add your commentary (no profanity allowed; we reserve the right to edit all comments while keeping the original meaning; links to other sites are allowed except to pornography, gambling, etc.)
"We will stand, fight, and die to defend our country; but we will not blindly trust it. Even our Founding Fathers distrusted a large, centralized, all-powerful federal government -- so should we. Always be on guard to discern the truth and defend it at all costs."