9/11 Video

I saw a television show the other day about building and remanufacturing of aircraft landing gear. They showed the process of machining a very large, very heavy, steel casting that is the central core of landing gear.

At 500 mph it could clearly have had the ballistic characteristics necessary to penetrate many interior walls of the Pentagon. The conspiracy or missle theories are, IMO, a bunch of crap.
 
This is amazing, every conspiracy claim has been address with logical responses, yet some are still engaging in the most strained contortions to continue the myth.

Give it up. A crew of Islamic terrorists hijacked a jet and crashed it into the Pentagon. We live in a open society, we remain vulnerable. Making up conspiracy theories doesn't make you any safer and it shouldn't make you feel that way.
 
FreeFaller said:
Oh and before you question me I should tell you this. I have over 11 years experience in the USAF. I have 10 years experience in aircraft maintenance, 6 years experience in Global Air Mobility Operations to include Mobile Command and Control, and 8 years experience in Force Protection. Now, I ask you Sir...from where do you gather your vast experience?

Well after listing your experience I guess you can say the things you say from what you have done, seen and learned how to do (and I’m not trying to be a smart ass here either) which makes you any even better person to answer the next questions/statements i have. (Again not trying to bash anything or anyone just have ??????) Oh and by the way i have worked with numerous types of metals so I know how the compound of metal can change by adding and taking away chemicals.(worked in metal fabrication molding cogs, sprockets and along with aluminum for 6 years)


FreeFaller said:
USAF aircraft and civialian turbine aircraft use the same fuel...JP-8 (a mixture of diesel fuel and kerosene). It burns the same cause it is the same. Now, the primary metal in an F-16, F-15, C-130, KC-135, C-5, C-141 etc is aluminum. The primary metal in 757's as well as all other types of commercial passenger aircraft is...ready for it...ALUMINUM.

There is no arguing about the fact that there is aluminum in both thus the word you used primary. If you go down the list of how they are exactly made you will see one is a different compound than the other which is why a F16 can handle doing MOCK speed where as a comm. plane would break apart. Once it mixed with the other things it becomes a different metal compound and just aluminum. Now as for the JP-8 i am going by what I have seen on the history and discovery ch. where it was said that the mix is the same but since the fighter jets (ex F16) burn hotter they add an additional chemical to it which again would change the compound thus changing from being the same. Now if this is false then some one better tell these shows and make then wiser. But to tell you the truth I never saw a comm. plane light up in the turbines like the F16' s do..




FreeFaller said:
If you're referring to the Marc Ecko incident. Well, I have personally provided security at three Air Force Bases. I have stood watch over many aircraft to include the VC-25 Known as Air Force One and the C-32A Known as Air Force Two both of which had personnel on board at ALL times. It is a priority one asset in Security Forces (MP) lingo. Therefore there is a two man team walking around the airplane at all times. Not to mention camera's, mobile patrols, Military Working Dog units, Secret Service agents, etc. So feel free to come on down to your local Air Force Base or civilian airport when AF1 is in town. Walk your butt on the flight line and smash your face into the asphalt about twenty times...save us the work before we lock you in a room without a view.?

HAHAHA getting my ass kicked is not what i call fun but read on :D

Not quite all about Ecko but all the others. Don't know if you know or not but I was right in front of the WTC when the planes hit. The first one I did not see but…. I sure as hell seen the second one go in thus leaving imprints of the wings on the building. Which is how this whole thread started. Some one said since the building made mostly of glass that is why we see the imprints like some sort of cartoon. Well…… when the empire state building got hit way back when we seen the same effect and THAT was all brick and steel.

To end my little ranting I’ll say this: everyone has something say about what happened and how it happened. So let’s just make sure it doesn’t happen again by standing together and shoving our foot up anyone’s ass that tries to do it to us again. The good cop bad cop bull crap IS SOOOO NOT GOOD FOR US
 
Ok why would landing gear (and ONLY ONE) penetrate 5 rings and NOT 2 TWO MUCH HEAVIER engines not pincture any further then the outer ring? Why just ONE landing gear. NOTHING adds up at all. PERIOD!

This picture is TOO funny!

e7f4f6d0.gif


Again if that was the case then why are those 12 foot spools UNTOUCHED!!!!!?????????????????????????

If that thing (Jet) came in THAT LEVEL it wuld have surely jumbled ANYTHING in front of it.

Plus I have 2 pilots in my family, one military who flies C130's and one commercial.

In fact the one in the Military has told me even before this event that they do "goof off" with the big planes over the proper airspace and what not and he said FLAT OUT there isn't a soul on Earth that could do what these alledged "Amatures" did with a plane that size.

He said it's now a point of physics because something THAT BIG could NEVER EVER under ANY circumstances make those manuvers it would have had to prior to impact.

Plus EVERYONE who was in ANY contact with these hijackers ALL said they couldn't even properly fly a Cessna just weeks prior and all the sudden they can perform manuvers that highly trained Military and Civillian pilots can't do, C'mon man.

And again I will bring up the damage, if something flying at that speed and size & weight hit that wall (spcifically the Wings, stabalizer/elevators and fin) would have left even the SMALLEST of marks on the outside, SOMETHING at the very least?
 
JoeyGood said:
No sir they are not made the same, the material is different and lean more towards armor plating.

There is no airplane made that has a frame with anything even near the strength of armour plating. It would fall out of the sky.

The fuel is similar but not the same because thrusters of an F-16 burn different than a turbine.

Um, it's exactly the same fuel.

At the range that the highway cam, gas station cam, and the hotel cam are much further away from the Pentagon then the video of the one released so I doubt you can even see anyone’s face from there

Do you actually believe that either of these establishments actually had cameras that point at the Pentagon? Have you ever been to a gas station or hotel that had a camera just pointing out looking a mile away with no focus on the people on the ground?

It’s amazing how people change their stories once big brother gets involved. I’m sure once the video hit the net or other places he and the others were paid a visit from the government and given an ultimatum just like how so many others changed their story about other facts regarding 9/11

That was filmed in San Bernadino. Employees of San Bernadino confirmed the hangar as being in SB, and employees at Andrews can't identify anything in that video at all. The 747 in the video is painted differently from AF1, it is missing all of the added antennae, and it has different engines than the AF1.

SORRY TO SAY BUT THINGS JUST DON"T ADD UP! And everyone has something to say to contradict each other. One more note if the government can relocate witnesses and give them different identities then what makes everyone think they can't make up people's names and such to make it look like there were people on the planes if they weren't.

My uncle works in DC and saw the whole thing happen. He and a friend of mine called me as soon as it happened because they witnessed it. You know what they saw? Plane smashing into the Pentagon, like 600 other people that day.

so when I or other people start to point things out they call us conspiracy theorists when we just simply have question that would need further answers than just a general answer to quiet down the press . I love this country and would do anything to protect it but don’t take us for idiots or simple minded.

You are both because you ask questions out of ignorance, because you believe anything that makes the government look bad, without question (mark Ecko), but fail to grasp anything that shows the government isn't lying.
 
ONEBADMK8 said:
Ok why would landing gear (and ONLY ONE) penetrate 5 rings and NOT 2 TWO MUCH HEAVIER engines not pincture any further then the outer ring?

A plane crash is not an organized event. I've seen crash sites where human remains literally became buried into 20 feet of solid soil by the force of impact, yet the engines never penetrated at all.

Why just ONE landing gear. NOTHING adds up at all. PERIOD!

See above.

This picture is TOO funny!

e7f4f6d0.gif


Again if that was the case then why are those 12 foot spools UNTOUCHED!!!!!?????????????????????????

Untouched? Those spools were knocked over 100 feet and every single one of them was warped. You didn't actually think they just kept spools that close to the wall, did you?

If that thing (Jet) came in THAT LEVEL it wuld have surely jumbled ANYTHING in front of it.

See above.

Plus I have 2 pilots in my family, one military who flies C130's and one commercial.

In fact the one in the Military has told me even before this event that they do "goof off" with the big planes over the proper airspace and what not and he said FLAT OUT there isn't a soul on Earth that could do what these alledged "Amatures" did with a plane that size.

He said it's now a point of physics because something THAT BIG could NEVER EVER under ANY circumstances make those manuvers it would have had to prior to impact.

There's not a soul on Earth that could land a plane? Perhaps the one in the military didn't get enough practice. My father as well as many other pilots flew B52s and did things with that plane that Boeing didn't know was possible.

Of course, this is beyond question, because the plane crash was witnessed by 600 people, 3 of whom I know personally.

Plus EVERYONE who was in ANY contact with these hijackers ALL said they couldn't even properly fly a Cessna just weeks prior and all the sudden they can perform manuvers that highly trained Military and Civillian pilots can't do, C'mon man.

That was just one of the instructors. The other one said that they were more than capable of performing these tasks.

And again I will bring up the damage, if something flying at that speed and size & weight hit that wall (spcifically the Wings, stabalizer/elevators and fin) would have left even the SMALLEST of marks on the outside, SOMETHING at the very least?

Look at the picture again. The damage is all there.
 
Dominus said:
There's not a soul on Earth that could land a plane?
You misunderstand...there is not a soul on earth that can take a Boeing 757 at a constant air speed of 500+ mph and bank it through a 330 degree turn while descending over 7,000 feet in less than 3 minutes (9:38-9:40)...that is a maneuver that would incur G forces that even military pilots would black out from, not to mention being far beyond the flight characteristics of the 757.

Further at 500+ mph the upward push of air, known as the ground effect, when the plane approaches the ground at a low angle of attack (as it did that day) would keep a commercial jetliner aloft at a height of over 100 ft. An inexperienced pilot would not be able to overcome this force and put the plane in to the ground on target because non-stunt pilots are never trained to counteract this force, only to use it to their advantage during landing. The sudden unexpected upward motion in the flight path would have forced an inexperienced pilot to fly well past their intended target, and by the time control inputs to counteract ground effect were translated in to actual motion, the plane would have crashed in the Potomac.
 
Wait just wait I just had either a brain storm or a brain fart but either way listen to this and see if it makes any sense:

Now given the fact that it was going 500+ MPH (and I think we all agree it was going fast what ever the speed was)

This guy had time to lower the landing gear before he hit????
And if so wouldn’t the force of the hit keep it from going forward and send it backwards thus breaking it off instead of sending through 5 layers of building? And where is the rest of the landing gear if it was down?

If the landing gear was not down and let’s say the blast from the fuel blew it past the layers that would mean that this was one hell of a pilot flying the 757 only a few feet from the ground :confused: :confused: :confused:

Dominus said:
You are both because you ask questions out of ignorance, because you believe anything that makes the government look bad, without question (mark Ecko), but fail to grasp anything that shows the government isn't lying.

Show me the proof that both sides don't have things that contradict each other. When it comes to WTC I know what I saw and yes some of the things said about the WTC could happen if you look at both explanations on both sides as well as the plane that went down in PA. The only thing that I am not really convinced about is the Pentagon and what hit it.

Dominus said:
Do you actually believe that either of these establishments actually had cameras that point at the Pentagon? Have you ever been to a gas station or hotel that had a camera just pointing out looking a mile away with no focus on the people on the ground?

No not actually had cameras that point at the Pentagon but I know for a fact that cameras in these establishments point in different directions and we might be able to see something in the background and that is the same reason that they were taken away from these establishments. But what about the HWY cam that does point towards the Pentagon?

Dominus said:
My uncle works in DC and saw the whole thing happen. He and a friend of mine called me as soon as it happened because they witnessed it. You know what they saw? Plane smashing into the Pentagon, like 600 other people that day.

WOW they actually got through? 2 calls for that matter or were they together? or was it 3 way calling? I couldn't make any calls at all until at least 3 hours ( along with everyone else in the area) after the WTC got hit to let my family know I was OK and not to worry. Did they call from a cell phone or a regular phone? I only ask because I know a lot of people (11) that worked in the area where the pentagon is that tried to use their cell phones and couldn’t. and that minutes after it happened.
 
raVeneyes said:
You misunderstand...there is not a soul on earth that can take a Boeing 757 at a constant air speed of 500+ mph and bank it through a 330 degree turn while descending over 7,000 feet in less than 3 minutes (9:38-9:40)...that is a maneuver that would incur G forces that even military pilots would black out from, not to mention being far beyond the flight characteristics of the 757.

Lies. The 757 wasn't even exceeding 500 mph when it hit the Pentagon, let alone when it was making those maneuvers. Don't make up facts to support an invalid point.

Further at 500+ mph the upward push of air, known as the ground effect, when the plane approaches the ground at a low angle of attack (as it did that day) would keep a commercial jetliner aloft at a height of over 100 ft. An inexperienced pilot would not be able to overcome this force and put the plane in to the ground on target because non-stunt pilots are never trained to counteract this force, only to use it to their advantage during landing. The sudden unexpected upward motion in the flight path would have forced an inexperienced pilot to fly well past their intended target, and by the time control inputs to counteract ground effect were translated in to actual motion, the plane would have crashed in the Potomac.

More made-up facts. You can nose-dive a plane at any altitude, at any speed. It is VERY easy as a matter of fact. Ground effect only affects the wings, yet if the wings achieve an angle of attack too far downward, the plane will nose down. The tail has more than sufficient influence to do this.

Even an Ekronoplan will nose down if you push the stick forward. Ground effect only works to lift the plane with a proper angle of attack. It is not infinite.

You're also forgetting that he was already at a very low altitude. Whatever adjustment needed to be made, he had more than ample time to do.
 
JoeyGood said:
Wait just wait I just had either a brain storm or a brain fart but either way listen to this and see if it makes any sense:

Now given the fact that it was going 500+ MPH (and I think we all agree it was going fast what ever the speed was)

No, it was not moving that fast. It was moving at just above 350 mph.

This guy had time to lower the landing gear before he hit????

WHo said anything about lowering the landing gear? The plane was torn to pieces and exploded.

And if so wouldn’t the force of the hit keep it from going forward and send it backwards thus breaking it off instead of sending through 5 layers of building?

In the military, a hunk of steel moving at 350-400 mph is called a "shell" and it doesn't just bounce off of things. :rolleyes:

And where is the rest of the landing gear if it was down?

Fire anything at 350-400 mph at reinforced concrete and see if you can identify it afterwards. Actually, the military already did such a test, and the F4 that they flew into reinforced concrete was completely vaporized. Nothing left bigger than a quarter. I can post the vid if you like.


If the landing gear was not down and let’s say the blast from the fuel blew it past the layers that would mean that this was one hell of a pilot flying the 757 only a few feet from the ground :confused: :confused: :confused:

Yes, pilots can land planes! Shocking revelation!

Show me the proof that both sides don't have things that contradict each other. When it comes to WTC I know what I saw and yes some of the things said about the WTC could happen if you look at both explanations on both sides as well as the plane that went down in PA. The only thing that I am not really convinced about is the Pentagon and what hit it.

What exactly are you asking for?

Literally everything supports the 757 hitting the Pentagon, including 600 local eyewitnesses, some of them who had light poles knocked onto their cars as the 757 flew by knocking them down.

No not actually had cameras that point at the Pentagon but I know for a fact that cameras in these establishments point in different directions and we might be able to see something in the background and that is the same reason that they were taken away from these establishments.

You really believe that some camera at a hotel almost a mile away will have a better camera shot than what we have seen so far? Are you under the impression that they use movie cameras for taped security? Sorry, but all you'll get from there at best is another low resolution frame by frame crapshoot.

But what about the HWY cam that does point towards the Pentagon?

Just a hunch, but it probably points toward the highway. ;)



WOW they actually got through? 2 calls for that matter or were they together? or was it 3 way calling? I couldn't make any calls at all until at least 3 hours ( along with everyone else in the area) after the WTC got hit to let my family know I was OK and not to worry. Did they call from a cell phone or a regular phone? I only ask because I know a lot of people (11) that worked in the area where the pentagon is that tried to use their cell phones and couldn’t. and that minutes after it happened.

Minutes after it happened, there were already other people on the line (like the people who saw it happen :rolleyes: ) calling about it.

It was not 2 calls. They were together.
 
Dominus said:
Lies. The 757 wasn't even exceeding 500 mph when it hit the Pentagon, let alone when it was making those maneuvers. Don't make up facts to support an invalid point.

This is not a lie, this is the documented speed of the plane before it dropped from radar. It is also the estimated speed by the damage report. The 330 degree turn comes from what was witnessed by radar operators, as well as the altitude drop and the time.

Dominus said:
More made-up facts. You can nose-dive a plane at any altitude, at any speed. It is VERY easy as a matter of fact. Ground effect only affects the wings, yet if the wings achieve an angle of attack too far downward, the plane will nose down. The tail has more than sufficient influence to do this.

The damage reports support a very shallow angle of attack, not a nose dive. An angle of more than 60 degrees down angle is required to overcome ground effect and force a plane flying at sufficient speed to generate lift to the ground. In other words: The standard highway light poles that the plane clipped are 25 feet high. Working with that and the fact that the light poles hit were 500 yards away from the building we find an angle of attack of only 3 degrees from the ground.... not high enough an angle to overcome ground effects.

Extrapolating further the angle shows that the corrective inputs would have had to have been made mere seconds before the crash, and would therefore have had to be anticipated...not something an inexperienced pilot would have done.

Dominus said:
Even an Ekronoplan will nose down if you push the stick forward. Ground effect only works to lift the plane with a proper angle of attack. It is not infinite.

Correct, but to overcome ground effect push requires quite an effort at high speed low angle approaches...which this was.

Dominus said:
You're also forgetting that he was already at a very low altitude. Whatever adjustment needed to be made, he had more than ample time to do.

At 3 degrees angle of attack, and an assumed 100 ft height to begin ground effect lift, the plane would have been pushed up at about 2000 feet away from the building (1908.11 feet to be exact). This is a sudden effect, not having a gradual increase, so suddenly at 2000 feet from the building the nose of the plane is pushed up severely.

At 500 mph (733.5 Feet per Second) that would be 2.73 seconds from impact.

So this inexperienced pilot with no acrobatic flight training managed to make a planned descent in to a 100 foot tall building, putting the plane at 500+ mph in to either the correct angle to anticipate the sudden upsurge at less than three seconds from impact; or he managed to make a split second course correction all while praying to Allah and fanatically flying this huge jetliner in to the ground.
 
raVeneyes said:
This is not a lie, this is the documented speed of the plane before it dropped from radar. It is also the estimated speed by the damage report. The 330 degree turn comes from what was witnessed by radar operators, as well as the altitude drop and the time.



The damage reports support a very shallow angle of attack, not a nose dive. An angle of more than 60 degrees down angle is required to overcome ground effect and force a plane flying at sufficient speed to generate lift to the ground. In other words: The standard highway light poles that the plane clipped are 25 feet high. Working with that and the fact that the light poles hit were 500 yards away from the building we find an angle of attack of only 3 degrees from the ground.... not high enough an angle to overcome ground effects.

Extrapolating further the angle shows that the corrective inputs would have had to have been made mere seconds before the crash, and would therefore have had to be anticipated...not something an inexperienced pilot would have done.



Correct, but to overcome ground effect push requires quite an effort at high speed low angle approaches...which this was.



At 3 degrees angle of attack, and an assumed 100 ft height to begin ground effect lift, the plane would have been pushed up at about 2000 feet away from the building (1908.11 feet to be exact). This is a sudden effect, not having a gradual increase, so suddenly at 2000 feet from the building the nose of the plane is pushed up severely.

At 500 mph (733.5 Feet per Second) that would be 2.73 seconds from impact.

So this inexperienced pilot with no acrobatic flight training managed to make a planned descent in to a 100 foot tall building, putting the plane at 500+ mph in to either the correct angle to anticipate the sudden upsurge at less than three seconds from impact; or he managed to make a split second course correction all while praying to Allah and fanatically flying this huge jetliner in to the ground.

James, just give up dude, your pissing in the wind.
We know what happened, we talked to Military officials (Don as well as MANY others including my immediate Family) about this in gtreat details and what not and we know what they said.

Oh BTW ALL the security Cameras tapes at ANY and ALL locations in that vicinity were confiscated just minutes after the attack and yes the Sheraton's parking garage cameras had the Pentagon in it's background as well as the Military used fuel station!! This I know for a fact because a friend of mine worked at the Sheraton at the time.

It's also funny that the Government on one of the MOST secure facilities in the world would have ONLY a crappyass 5 frame grainy video when Wal-Mart has better and cleaner more clear video of the inside of their stores and parking lots? C'MON.

Also why wouldn't the Government just show ONE second worth of ANY of those tapes JUST TO SHOW AN AIRLINER and settle this once and for all and SHUT everyone up.

All I know is if it semells like a HUGE pile of $hit it usually is, especially coming from this War monger Gonverment thats all about loot and NOTHING more.

Why did five different people, 2 who were interviewed at the site on TV said to have smelled Cordite? That's a VERY distinct smell.

Why would a 29 year veteran Pilot tell me to my face in private that there was NO way this was done like we are led to believe?

And AA planes are CHROME, that video they released shows a BLACK "object"

With this corrupt piece of $hit Government we currently have I wouldn't believe ANYTHING that was released anyway.
 
ONEBADMK8 said:
James, just give up dude, your pissing in the wind.
I don't do all the calculations and speculation for him, I do it for myself. I wasn't there, and hence I don't personally know what really happened or what kind of plane/missile/explosive device made the pentagon explode on September 11th. If he brings up an argument the least I can do is acknowledge it by thinking about it and voicing the reasons I either agree or disagree with it.
 
raVeneyes said:
I don't do all the calculations and speculation for him, I do it for myself. I wasn't there, and hence I don't personally know what really happened or what kind of plane/missile/explosive device made the pentagon explode on September 11th. If he brings up an argument the least I can do is acknowledge it by thinking about it and voicing the reasons I either agree or disagree with it.

Ok Then, ROCK ON!
 
raVeneyes said:
This is not a lie, this is the documented speed of the plane before it dropped from radar. It is also the estimated speed by the damage report. The 330 degree turn comes from what was witnessed by radar operators, as well as the altitude drop and the time.

The documented speed before they lost its transponder was just over 460 mph. The plane was then lost for almost 40 minutes.

The damage reports support a very shallow angle of attack, not a nose dive. An angle of more than 60 degrees down angle is required to overcome ground effect and force a plane flying at sufficient speed to generate lift to the ground. In other words: The standard highway light poles that the plane clipped are 25 feet high. Working with that and the fact that the light poles hit were 500 yards away from the building we find an angle of attack of only 3 degrees from the ground.... not high enough an angle to overcome ground effects.

Ground effect doesn't even exist at high speeds. What the hell are you talking about?

Extrapolating further the angle shows that the corrective inputs would have had to have been made mere seconds before the crash, and would therefore have had to be anticipated...not something an inexperienced pilot would have done.



Correct, but to overcome ground effect push requires quite an effort at high speed low angle approaches...which this was.



At 3 degrees angle of attack, and an assumed 100 ft height to begin ground effect lift, the plane would have been pushed up at about 2000 feet away from the building (1908.11 feet to be exact). This is a sudden effect, not having a gradual increase, so suddenly at 2000 feet from the building the nose of the plane is pushed up severely.

At 500 mph (733.5 Feet per Second) that would be 2.73 seconds from impact.

So this inexperienced pilot with no acrobatic flight training managed to make a planned descent in to a 100 foot tall building, putting the plane at 500+ mph in to either the correct angle to anticipate the sudden upsurge at less than three seconds from impact; or he managed to make a split second course correction all while praying to Allah and fanatically flying this huge jetliner in to the ground.

Ground effect does not exist at high speeds.
 
ONEBADMK8 said:
James, just give up dude, your pissing in the wind.
We know what happened, we talked to Military officials (Don as well as MANY others including my immediate Family) about this in gtreat details and what not and we know what they said.

Why haven't they set the records straight with all of those "retards" at the FAA? LOL

Oh BTW ALL the security Cameras tapes at ANY and ALL locations in that vicinity were confiscated just minutes after the attack and yes the Sheraton's parking garage cameras had the Pentagon in it's background as well as the Military used fuel station!! This I know for a fact because a friend of mine worked at the Sheraton at the time.

This camera with the Pentagon in the background is supposed to have a better shot that the camera on the Pentagon lawn? LOL

It's also funny that the Government on one of the MOST secure facilities in the world would have ONLY a crappyass 5 frame grainy video when Wal-Mart has better and cleaner more clear video of the inside of their stores and parking lots? C'MON.

Secure facilities don't have a lot of RECORDED video. Ask me how I know.

The cameras are very high quality, but they record in low-res frames so that more recordings can be stored. There are guards there watching those cameras in excellent resolution 24 hoursa a day. They don't care about the recording quality that much for that reason.

Also why wouldn't the Government just show ONE second worth of ANY of those tapes JUST TO SHOW AN AIRLINER and settle this once and for all and SHUT everyone up.

Because people who think that Tupac and Elvis are alive will never be convinced, and there may not be any better video. How is a camera a mile away going to get a better shot than one a few hundred feet away?

All I know is if it semells like a HUGE pile of $hit it usually is, especially coming from this War monger Gonverment thats all about loot and NOTHING more.

So say you.

Why did five different people, 2 who were interviewed at the site on TV said to have smelled Cordite? That's a VERY distinct smell.

What the hell does cordite have to do with anything? Cordite is a propelleant for bullets, not a demolition compound.

Why would a 29 year veteran Pilot tell me to my face in private that there was NO way this was done like we are led to believe?

What does he claim happened, and why has he not come forward? Speaking of smelling BS, why hasn't he exposed everyone as liars?

And AA planes are CHROME, that video they released shows a BLACK "object"

Where is this? I don't see a black object in any of the vids.

With this corrupt piece of $hit Government we currently have I wouldn't believe ANYTHING that was released anyway.

BINGO! Eyes wide shut.
 
Dominus said:
No, it was not moving that fast. It was moving at just above 350 mph..

I don't know what you call fast but i think that is fast, be it 350 MPH or 500 MPH anything over 300 MPH is fast if you read my statement it said what ever the speed was it was fast.

Dominus said:
WHo said anything about lowering the landing gear? The plane was torn to pieces and exploded..

Then how would you explain that there was only the front landing gear found at the site and not the rest if it was not lowered. :rolleyes: OHH that's right it was burned up with the rest of the plane :rolleyes:


Dominus said:
In the military, a hunk of steel moving at 350-400 mph is called a "shell" and it doesn't just bounce off of things. :rolleyes:.

No it doesn’t just bounce off but it would break off and at that height were it tore down the light poles of HWY and it was still descending where your so call 600 people were the dividers on the HWY would have gave some kind of damage since the plane was that low thus no damage to the dividers so the landing gear was not down so why didn't the landing gear that was found burn up with the rest of it


Dominus said:
Fire anything at 350-400 mph at reinforced concrete and see if you can identify it afterwards. Actually, the military already did such a test, and the F4 that they flew into reinforced concrete was completely vaporized. Nothing left bigger than a quarter. I can post the vid if you like..

I agree but not as many layers as the Pentagon has.


Dominus said:
Yes, pilots can land planes! Shocking revelation!.

Yes they can but at that speed and on what.... 15 to 20 feet off the ground and since the Pentagon is on sort of a hill and an incline the ground should have added some kind of resistance which would mean NO SPOOLS where they were. and if you give me the crap about it not being so low then I say the light poles would not have been knocked down the way they were

Dominus said:
What exactly are you asking for?

What I’m asking is plain and simple do you believe everything the government says?

Dominus said:
You really believe that some camera at a hotel almost a mile away will have a better camera shot than what we have seen so far? Are you under the impression that they use movie cameras for taped security? Sorry, but all you'll get from there at best is another low resolution frame by frame crapshoot.

Yes they have better shots/cams then some of the banks and federal buildings I have been in

Dominus said:
Just a hunch, but it probably points toward the highway. ;).

Yes the HWY with an excellent view of the side the pentagon got hit on, it nice and high and if you don't believe me take a look at any of the news archives to see it for yourself.

Dominus said:
Minutes after it happened, there were already other people on the line (like the people who saw it happen :rolleyes: ) calling about it.

It was not 2 calls. They were together.

:confused: If there were other people on the line how did you get the call sorry I might be a little slow on that one :confused:
 
Dominus said:
My FAA flight manual disagrees with you.
Odd....the fact that a high speed ground effect vehicle (which by the way you were the first to make note of in this thread) exists disagrees with the idea that at higher air speed there is no ground effect. I'd love for you to quote the passage of the FAA flight manual that covers high speed approach to the ground though...I think that has a comedic value all it's own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekranoplan

"The KM, as one model was known in the top secret Soviet military development program, was over 100 m long, weighed 540 tonnes fully loaded, and could travel over 400 km/h, mere meters above the surface of the water."

400 KPH == 248.56 MPH - gee...that's pretty fast there Dominus
 
Some interesting things after all this reading:

"Aircraft obtain increased lift and therefore better efficiency by flying very close to the ground; on a fixed-wing monoplane, about half the distance from a wingtip to the fuselage"

According to the attached drawing the full wingspan is 55.5 ft, so a flare height of 27.75 feet would be the point at which ground effect comes in to play.

At the previously determined angle of attack of 3 degrees that's 529 feet from the building, just before the highway, or possibly over it...now depending on the speed of the plane that's either 1.03 seconds (at Dominus' 350 MPH) or 0.72 (72 hundredths of a second) at the reported 500+ MPH speed...either way not nearly enough time to force the nose back down towards the ground, so the plane would have hit at about 30 feet up the building without proper planning and aiming for a spot about 300 feet in front of the building to begin with.

757.gif
 
I love how when *I* hand one of the conservative board members their a55 on a platter there's no congratulatory back patting and rabble rousing from my fellow liberal board members, but when a conservative hack makes a good point, not only will I stipulate to it, but then the razzing begins from the poster's conservative cronies...
 
raVeneyes said:
I love how when *I* hand one of the conservative board members their a55 on a platter there's no congratulatory back patting and rabble rousing from my fellow liberal board members, but when a conservative hack makes a good point, not only will I stipulate to it, but then the razzing begins from the poster's conservative cronies...

I'll give you an A for effort,
but your point has not been made. It can't be made.

I know you are familiar with Occam's Razor.

Which is more likely, Muslim guys hijacked planes, crashed them into a building. OR- the government engaged in some insane conspiracy to kill thousands of citizens? Because if the attack on the Pentagon is a conspiracy, then the WTC attack and Flight 93 were also part of it.

More unbelievably that the government could plan it, but that it could actually pull it off AND KEEP IT A SECRET!! That kind of effeciency in government is more unimaginable than anything else you could possibly imagine.

Because a photographer, or a mechanic, or a tradesmen, or a musician, or any other assortment of regular lay people can't fully understand the physics, chemistry, and flight dynamics associated with it, that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Ground effects are a dynamic force in flight, and it's one of the first things they teach you in ground school. However, they are most important at low speed. They are most often used to keep a plane aloft when moving slowly, or when trying to take off. A jumbo jet moving over 300mph will not suddenly be pulled up just because it's low to the ground.

Have you ever seen video of a plane crash? Did the nose pull up before it hit the ground?
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top