Way OT, but VERY Interesting!

Check this out!

formatting link
Patrick '93 Cobra '83 LTD

Reply to
Patrick
Loading thread data ...

I need to see the tapes. Fascinating stuff.

dwight

Reply to
dwight

Kinda makes ya say Hmm???????? Intriguing stuff

Dave

Reply to
Deputy Dog

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (Patrick) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com:

Wow! Does Michael Moore know about this? ;)

Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC

Reply to
Joe

Looks like another Michael Moore POS theory to me. How much airplane wreckage do you think they found of the ones that hit the Twin Towers? Maybe an engine or two. Plus the section of the building the plane hit was recently "hardened" which would further destroy the plane. Add to that the intense fire and I would wager the entire plane (aluminum remember) melted to nothing.

The Pentagon was on fire for almost 2 days before it was extinguished. This was a result of the jet fuel burning off. I doubt a missile or a smaller plane would burn nearly that long. As for the nice round hole they showed that could easily be the result of an engine remaining intact and traveling at close to 500 mph. I remember the film of an engine from one of the Twin Tower planes remaining intact and flying through the building and landing blocks away on the ground.

I've seen the film they showed of the plane hitt> Check this out!

Reply to
Michael Johnson, PE

I love conspiracy theories !!

Andrew

Reply to
me

Wow. That was as misinformative.

BTW, an engine nacelle frm a 737 can penetrate many meters into the *earth* as a result of a steep angle of attack dive. The fuselage, wings, and tail disintegrate in such an event leaving almost no discernable wreckage other than some of the nacelles. Fascinating that every picture they provided was of a low angle of attack "skid"

Reply to
Dan

I live near Washington, DC and have heard nothing that would suggest this was something other than what we have been told. If it wasn't that particular flight then where did it crash? After all, the people who were on that flight are not to be found.

The Pentagon crash had a personal effect on me. A good friend of mine, who is an airline employee, was supposed to be on that plane. At the last minute she decided to take a flight the night before to Dallas to do some business there. Her assistant took the morning flight so they could meet in San Fransisco the morning of September 11. Before she could fly out of Dallas the Towers were struck and all flights were halted. She then found out that the flight her assistant was on wasn't responding. A few minutes later it hit the Pentagon. It took months for her to feel normal. She went from feelings of guilt for not being on the plane with her assistant, to ordering her assistant to go to San Fransisco, to questioning why fate had spared her.

We know her assistant died at the Pentagon even though a body was never recovered. The POS's that perpetuate this type of garbage, like Moore's film, are human garbage. They do nothing more than pick the scabs off of healing wounds for the victims of the event and the families/friends that lost loved ones. Especially when they do it for their own personal gain and offer no relevant proof supporting their claims. I just hope that for the people perpetuating this type of BS "What goes around, comes around".

Reply to
Michael Johnson, PE

As I was explaining to my brother the other day, the WTC towers and the pentagon are two different types of construction. The pentagon is more like a tank or bunker, the WTC towers more like pop cans. The WTC towers were a tube structure that was lightweight for the loads carried. Which is why the entire plane went into the building. At the pentagon, the wings should have been sheared off and left on the lawn. And if not the wings, the tail secion. Something of the massive plane should have been left on the lawn. Look at FAA crash test footage. or any other films of jetliners crashing. This is an inconsistancy that should be addressed.

Initally when I saw this stuff the photos were rather fuzzy and I couldn't make things out and I gave the benefit of the doubt to the government story. This flash presentation has clearer photos and my ideas of how it could still be a jetliner are blown away. I cannot, with my knowledge of such things, conclude it to have been a 757 crash. The pentagon simply isn't of light weight construction. It's a heavy, reinforced building. Objects tend to bounce off such structures, not penetrate them. The ass end of the plane would have been moving much slower when it reached the wall as well. I have a hard time believing the entire aircraft penetrated the building.

Scale this down to the size of a wood framed house and a small aircraft. We've seen pictures of these collisions.... tail sticking out of the roof of the house etc... much less energy, much less structure as well. Or the concorde that crashed.... Something needs explaining here.

I've seen pieces of crashed aircraft. The Al does not melt to nothing. Even the parts that become completely fluid and reharden will have bits of carbon fiber and other aircraft materials imbeded in them. And as I stated previously, a hardened structure would cause things to bounce off, not penetrate not destroyed into dust and vapor, but bounce off.

I saw the briefing on performance of those materials, and they did their job quite well. So some of the plane should not have been inside the outer ring of the building.

Or the massive building.

My conclusion is that we aren't being told something which leads to people thinking down these lines. There are clearly inconsistancies in the evidence that should be addressed.

The gaping hole in the theory of the flash presentation is, what happened to the flight, what happened to the people on it if it didn't crash there?

Reply to
Brent P

The Pentagon isn't hardened in the since that it has an impenetrable shell. It basically has blast proof windows, heavier steel frame and fire resistant materials. The major safety feature is that the floors won't collapse onto each other nearly as easily, especially when extreme heat is present. I saw the damage to the building with my own eyes. It was massive. It was an area that was the size of most office buildings. The shear size of the Pentagon makes the damage look smaller that it actually was. When some as fragile as an airplane hits something as hard as a building at speeds approaching 500+ mph there won't be much left. The was hardly anything left of the plane that crashed into the field in Pennsylvania. It looked like garbage bags had been dumped on the ground.

To know what happens when a plane hits a building all you need to do is look at the two that hit the towers. Those buildings had their support structure as the skin of the buildings. They were much harder on the outside than the Pentagon. The planes went into those buildings like a hot knife goes through butter. There was nothing identifiable left of them with the exception of the engines as they flew completely through the building and landed blocks away on the street below.

There's a huge difference between something hitting at slower speeds and a large heavy object traveling at 500+ mph. When a plane breaks up in the air the pieces have a chance to slow their velocity BEFORE they hit the ground and therefore suffer less damage. This happens many times when planes literally disintegrate in the air. I can't emphasize enough the amount of kinetic energy a heavy object has when traveling 500+ mph. It's energy increases with the SQUARE of its velocity. It is like putting the colliding material into a giant food processor and hitting the "liquefy" button.

I would sooner believe that Elvis is still alive than to buy into the garbage from that web site.

Reply to
Michael Johnson, PE

Didn't say it was.

I've seen plane crash sites up close as well. Had one crash a block or so from where I was living once.

I already covered that.

No. compartively thin walled ductile material, steel.

No kidding.

The mass of the towers falling did that.

KE = 1/2 * M * V^2. Yes I know. Proportionally it's not all that much different. There are significant parts of an aircraft that aren't going to turn to dust and vapor.

Apples != Oranges. I didn't compare a plane breaking up in mid air so I don't understand why you are bringing this in from left field since it has no bearing on anything.

Please save the condesending physics lecture.

Ah follow it up with ridicule. Ok we're done here. No sense in continuing as this will not be a rational discussion.

Reply to
Brent P

"Brent P" wrote

No, I've seen the footage where the engine of one of the motors keeps going right on through the building and descends in a shallow arc, ending up almost half a mile away.

Reply to
66 6F HCS

I was responding to the "nothing identifiable" part.

Reply to
Brent P

Then why wouldn't the plane that hit the Pentagon do the same thing?

Just like the one that hit the Pentagon.

Maybe the intense heat from the two day Pentagon fire melted the bulk of that plane. We will probably never know. There definitely isn't enough conflicting information to start another conspiracy theory.

OK, here's some links showing an F-4 Phantom hitting a concrete wall at

480 mph. The test was done to see the effect of a crash into a nuclear containment structure. The results would be the same with a bigger plane and larger wall.

formatting link
You can find a link to the video of the test here:
formatting link
As you can see the plane is completely destroyed. In the case of the Pentagon whatever parts of the plane that didn't make it into the structure were pulverized into confetti. IMO, it's obvious that physics does not support this conspiracy theory.

There's other evidence that totally discredits this new conspiracy theory. This picture shows where light poles were clipped off:

formatting link
The width is consistent with a 757 jetliner and not a missile (unless it was confused or lost for awhile).

Also, go to CNN's web site (or any news organization's site) and you'll find many eyewitness accounts of that morning. No one mentioned a missile or any plane other than a large commercial airliner.

I wasn't ridiculing you, just the guy that made the video. If I were Lighten up a little. ;)

Reply to
Michael Johnson, PE

I think I remember a picture showing the tail section at the pentagon. I could be wrong, though. What else could have hit the pentagon and why on earth would it be covered up? Where did the plane and passengers go if it didn't hit the pentagon? There was also eyewitness accounts of seeing an airliner fly over the freeway. I think the film was made as a hoax to stir the shit, just like after 9-11. The photos could have easily been doctored to hide apparent evidence it was hit by a 757.

Reply to
Mark

Submitted without comment:

formatting link

Reply to
Max C. Webster III

Reply to
David Eaton

"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:

Michael, my brother works for a major insurance company who's still settling claims from 9/11. He's one of the primaries involved with the litigation. Without divulging what I'm not supposed to, he's told me that there is a mountain of evidence (not all public) supporting the fact that it was a commercial airliner that went down.

Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC

Reply to
Joe

The number of people involved to make this a conspiracy would be mind boggling. It would be impossible to pull it off. I put this one up there with the Capricorn One theory about us not actually landing on the moon.

I'm sure the Pentagon has numerous camera shots of the crash as well as videos from many security cameras from the surrounding buildings. There are also numerous eye witnesses. Not to mention the missing people from the plane. Where did they go? Into the witness protection program?

Reply to
Michael Johnson, PE

"Brent P" wrote

Oh. :)

Reply to
66 6F HCS

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.