Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board » Off-Topic Post, Non Stock Talk » concreteplane1.wmv

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: concreteplane1.wmv
bdgee
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for bdgee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
All of you that so easily jump to any conspiracy theory that's available, particularly those that bought into that nonsense that the Government faked the jet crashing into the Pentagon, go to the page,

http://files.filefront.com/concreteplane1wmv/;5352661;/fileinfo.html

and right click on the big orange "Downlaod Now" button, then click on open.

I got that file in an email with the following text:

Unbelievable footage of what happens to a jet airplane when it hits a wall. You'll want to share it.



When you view this clip you'll get a good feel for what happens to an airplane when it hits a concrete wall. Many of you have seen the Michael Moore-esque website that asks the question; "If it's true that a Boeing airliner hit the Pentagon, what happened to all the parts of it? Why did we not find more pieces of it? Where did all that mass GO? Well, for those who question what happened to "all the mass of that airplane”, watch. It's an Air Force engineering test of a concrete barrier that was to surround a nuclear reactor dome, to see if it would indeed survive an aerial attack. With the high speed cameras rolling, they attached an F-4 Phantom to the sled and then pumped up the speed to 500 MPH. and.” What happens when an 'Unstoppable Force' meets an 'Immovable Object'? Watch in slow motion as the F-4 turns to vapor. You'll play it more than once just to believe it. Where did all the "flying parts" go?

Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
a surfer
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for a surfer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nice post bdgee.

When I was in 5th. grade my teacher asked the class one hypothetical question that I have always remembered.

What happens when an unstoppable ball traveling through the air hits an immovable post in the ground.

Everyone gave their theorys but no one was correct.

Posts: 6409 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
interesting...

now how about showing us the debris field after impact, and not just the impact?

also? how about showing us the tracks they laid so the plane would hit the pentagon in a way so perfect that no parts would be "ejected" from the impact?
considering that if a jumbo jet had hit the pentagon? one would expect the tail, or at least the top of it, to have flown off and landed over the roof of the pentagon...

then there's the issue of the windows in the pentagon wall.. do you have any idea how much windows weaken a wall? it's alot... plenty of pieces should have been found because they went thru the windows and separated from the primary "incident"

sorry, but that little clip doesn't answer any of the rational questions....

i'm surprised that a scientist would even present it as such...

granted, there's plenty of dumb questions being asked, but there are still a few good ones left..

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bdgee
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for bdgee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't have that, glass...

why would one suspect the tail to have survived? Just like the rest of the plane, it was traveling at several hundred mph and the enormous momentum would hardly have allowed it to have varied its trajectory much, certainly not enough to have hurdled up and over multiple stories of the Pentagon. Remember, momentum is vectored and it takes a huge energy input from outside a moving body to alter its trajectory.

"then there's the issue of the windows in the pentagon wall.. do you have any idea how much windows weaken a wall? it's alot... plenty of pieces should have been found because they went thru the windows and separated from the primary "incident"

Yes, as a matter of fact I do have some idea how much windows "weaken" a wall. In some case they do and in some cases they strengthen it well beyond that same wall without windows. In the case of high speed collisions, the difference in the compressive strength of a thin layer of glass and a block of concrete is negligible. Even if they had weakend that particular wall, this argument is the same as declaring that, since liquid water is not a solid and has no structural strength, it provides no resistance to objects entering it, including a human body at 100+ mph. That argument is clearly specious. It appeals to an intuitive desire to duplicate collision results at low speeds. However, it ignores the facts of Newton's laws, as we know from simple observation that that such a human body human body is resisted by the water to the point of causing sever if not fatal damage.

I did not suggest that that clip answered any specific rational question. However, the notion that the momentum of the parts of an aircraft traveling at a large velocity (remember, velocity is vectored and any change of trajectory is a variation of momentum, which must be conserved)is so low as to allow those parts to be sent careening off to the side without some sizable outside momentum altering force is not in any way reasonable. The mechanical and chemical structure of the parts will succumb first, i.e., an argument that assumes that the momentum at that speed is small enough not to destroy the parts of the plane (as well as some parts of the wall) defies conservation of momentum.

Since that same jet plane would slowly sink if placed on the surface of the water at no speed, causing virtually no structural alteration of any of its parts, do you claim that it should sustain no damage if I dive in into the ocean at 500 mph?

Again, I did not present the clip as an argument for or against any specified argument, but be reasonable, ignoring Newton's laws is not productive until one reaches speeds approximating the speed of light (way way way over the speed of that plane, by the way), and hoping to find undamaged or even recognizable parts of that plane cast aside and off the vector of the planes motion simply ignores the laws of nature.

Essentially, ALL of the conspiracy theories about that incident are ignoring Newton's laws and, in that sense, are dumb questions. I must insist that there are no dumb questions about anything. Some are unreasonable, provided you understand the circumstances of the moment, but not for the person absent specific knowledge or experience. However, though there are no dumb questions, there are dumb answers. Those are like the supposed "definitions" of insanity that declare it to be trying to obtain a different result after performing exactly the same actions under the exact same conditions as a previous failure and looking for a different result. Einstein's laws tell us specifically when and where and how much we may ignore or vary from Newton's laws and it isn't anywhere to close to the realm of speeds of a jet planes in Earth's athmosphere.

Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
why would one suspect the tail to have survived?

same reason the wing tips survived according to your video...

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In some case they do and in some cases they strengthen it well beyond that same wall without windows. In the case of high speed collisions, the difference in the compressive strength of a thin layer of glass and a block of concrete is negligible.

you seem to be implying the outer wall of the pentagon was built to the same specs as that solid 10 foot or more thick piece of concrete block in the video...
sorry, i'm not buying it...

as a student of ballistics? i have quite a good understanding of what true high speed impacts are like..

a nine millimeter bullet fired from a 5.5 inch semi-auto barrel has a muzzle velocity of about 720 miles per hour.... i find my lead all the time..

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bdgee
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for bdgee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The wingtips survived?

My goodness you have excellent eyes. I must admit that I can't see the wing tips at all after the debris cloud engulfed them.

Or were you extrapolating to what you imagine happens later, seeing that the wingtips stick out beyond the chunk of concrete into which the plane was crashed and predicting they would not be damaged? If that is the case, please note that the plane that struch the pentagon, relative to the size of the Pentagon was entirely within the horizontal and vertical expanse of the Pentagon.

Tail height of Boing 747 = 63'8'' (19.4 m)

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/technical.html

Height of Pentagon: 77 ft 3.5 in (24 m)

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

Note from the "after" photographs of the crash, the bottom of the impact was not 13 feet above the ground, i.e., there was no portion of the tail above the level of the top of the Pentagon: it hit whatever was left of the plane and building from the collision of the foreparts of the plane, it was destroyed.

Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Relentless.
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Relentless.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That video is not even close to explaining what happened at the pentagon.
By all "official" accounts the "plane" that hit the pentagon approached and then impacted at an angle.
Quite dissimilar to the straight on approach and impact of the F-4.
Glass is also very correct about the wing tips.
They can be seen about half way through the video when the camera angle is perpendicular to the F-4.
Bdgee, I'm a bit surprised you posted this?
Are you feeling alright?

Posts: 2963 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Relentless.
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Relentless.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by bdgee:
The wingtips survived?

My goodness you have excellent eyes. I must admit that I can't see the wing tips at all after the debris cloud engulfed them.

Or were you extrapolating to what you imagine happens later, seeing that the wingtips stick out beyond the chunk of concrete into which the plane was crashed and predicting they would not be damaged? If that is the case, please note that the plane that struch the pentagon, relative to the size of the Pentagon was entirely within the horizontal and vertical expanse of the Pentagon.

Tail height of Boing 747 = 63'8'' (19.4 m)

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/technical.html

Height of Pentagon: 77 ft 3.5 in (24 m)

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

Note from the "after" photographs of the crash, the bottom of the impact was not 13 feet above the ground, i.e., there was no portion of the tail above the level of the top of the Pentagon: it hit whatever was left of the plane and building from the collision of the foreparts of the plane, it was destroyed.

There was no marks from the impact of the tail or the wings... Or the engines either.
At the very least there should have been scarring from the tail and the wings.
There should have been at the very very very least indentions from the engines, if not gaping holes.
The same engines that went clear through the WTC should have at least left a mark on the pentagon.
The government's story is fake.
So much so that the only conclusion to be drawn after careful contemplation is that they planned and executed 9/11 about as well as they do anything... Piss poor with plenty of loose ends.

Posts: 2963 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
your "precision" argument is the one that makes me the most concerned about the pentagon "hit"...

i suggest you re-evaluate the probable flight path and reconsider the proficiency of flying required to accomplish the "perfect hit"....

then consider the JDAM....

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
when i first looked at the damage? i thought i saw all the proper damage too...

but after i looked at the measurements of the plane overlaid on the damage? i realised something was wrong....

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Relentless.
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Relentless.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I doubt any of us were objective at that early stage.
Posts: 2963 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Relentless.
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Relentless.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How did 19 islamic fundamentalists hijack four planes with nothing more than small razor knives, Devise a cloak for those four planes by co-ordinating a massive millitary training opp involving the EXACT conditions of their hijackings, then fly three of those jets unaided by preplotted flight plan or any sort of autopilot, into three targets?
Mind you... none of these guys were on the passenger lists.
Two of those flights weren't even supposed to fly that day.
Flight 93 you say?
Found a aerial photo of the crash site taken a year or two before 9/11...
The minor crater was already there.

Posts: 2963 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
find me ONE other jumbo jet crash where nothings left?


you can't.. it's neverhappened before, but it happened twice on 9-11...

even the F4 in that video left debris; listen to the audio too...

if you beleive Bush? and you are religious? you should really be afraid of God, cuz what happened that day was about 100 1000-to-one shots all happening in a row...

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bdgee
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for bdgee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Find me one other jumbo jet that crashed over half full of fuel into a containing structure. You can't, because it ain't ever happened before and hasn't since.

Believe Bush?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
thought that might cheer you up budgee...

seriously? you can't answer my questions either..

you fly? they dropped that jet right to 6 feet altitude at the exact spot they had to...


any sooner and it woulda bounced... any later and there woulda been parts left...


and they had never flown a real jet before? only a simulator?

funny how they managed to find a passport from a hijacker in NYC tho huh?

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NR
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for NR     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by bdgee:
The wingtips survived?

My goodness you have excellent eyes. I must admit that I can't see the wing tips at all after the debris cloud engulfed them.

Or were you extrapolating to what you imagine happens later, seeing that the wingtips stick out beyond the chunk of concrete into which the plane was crashed and predicting they would not be damaged? If that is the case, please note that the plane that struck the pentagon, relative to the size of the Pentagon was entirely within the horizontal and vertical expanse of the Pentagon.

Tail height of Boeing 747 = 63'8'' (19.4 m)

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/technical.html

Height of Pentagon: 77 ft 3.5 in (24 m)

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

Note from the "after" photographs of the crash, the bottom of the impact was not 13 feet above the ground, i.e., there was no portion of the tail above the level of the top of the Pentagon: it hit whatever was left of the plane and building from the collision of the foreparts of the plane, it was destroyed.

Flight 77 was a Boeing 757, not 747

The correct tail height is 44ft 6in, not 63ft 8in...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/technical.html

Also, one should note that a 757 only has two engines mounted near the fuselage, while the 747 has 4 engines, two near the fuselage, and two near the wingtips...

--------------------
One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.

Posts: 2402 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lockman
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Lockman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If 911 was a conspiracy and Jet liners were not the cause of the explosions, where are the people from those planes? Where are the planes?

Highjacking Jet liners with large payloads of fuel and using them as missles! I'm surprised it took so lomg for it to happen. That video of the F4 aleast shows there's a chance a nuke facility might do ok in such an attack.

--------------------
Let's Go METS!!!

Posts: 3316 | From: CT | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bdgee
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for bdgee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"you fly?"

Yes, I fly.

"they dropped that jet right to 6 feet altitude at the exact spot they had to..."


Not a problen at all in a multi-ton behemouth like that....would be in a J3 Cub or a sailplane, but not a thing that literally muscles through ground effect as it chooses.

"any sooner and it woulda bounced..."

No, not any appreciable amount anyway, if at all. At that speed, the momentum of even a small part that came loose is too great in the direction of flight. It would have careened on into the mess where the rest of the monster hit. (And I know I saw on tv parts of the plane that hit the Pentagon being pulled out of the mess while there were still flames....then I saw them picking up a sizable hunk of what appeared to be skin panel of fusalage that they picked up out toward the street and said it must have come off from collision with a pole. Not all of it went gone to the crash and fire.)

"and they had never flown a real jet before? only a simulator?"

Nope, not a fact. Several of them, had actual flying experience. Of course, I cannot know which of them was at the controls, but it seems reasonable to me that, with all the careful planning that they went through to organize the attack, they would have made sure that the eventual "pilot" was a real pilot and capable of the job.

Even so, (I do not have any time myself in one for that model, but, relying on the honesty and experience of a couple of guys that fly them regularly and are required to periodically test in simulators) the simulators for that variety of plane is so close to actually flying it is surreal.


NR, thanks, my blunder....

Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bdgee
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for bdgee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lockman,

"If 911 was a conspiracy and Jet liners were not the cause of the explosions, where are the people from those planes? Where are the planes?"

That's a very good observation and question, but might I suggest that any one or any group capable of pulling off such conspiracy is also capable of killing the lot and eliminating the planes and is certainly of suck lowness to do so.

"Highjacking Jet liners with large payloads of fuel and using them as missles! I'm surprised it took so lomg for it to happen."

Whether or not it is his original idea, Tom Clancy put such an attack in one of his novels years before and the concept had been well puzzled through on the net years before. The only people that seemed to think it was a new idea were in the Administration.

Somewhere, perhaps in another thread, I saw the implication that dubya might be at the head of such a conspiracy. So, to whomever (I just don't recall who) made such a suggestion. it isn't that I believe dubya to honorable to have participated in so evil a deed, because I don't.

He is clearly and habitually that mean and base....we have seen it in action repeatedly, but to grant that mental dufus the intellectual where-with-all to do so is a stretch way too far. I'd rather be accused of contributing eggs to the Easter Bunny or chasing real rainbows believing I could catch a leprechaun in order to gain ownership of his pot of gold.

Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
the bounce reference was to point out there were no skid marks from the engines which as you pointed out? hang BELOW the wings... one or the other should have touched the ground...
you say it's no problem to fly a jumbo jet to particalar spot in space time and i say that the precision of that spot in space time is not simply on the middle of an expansive desert..



like i said? this was a perfect hit in all respects... and i am skeptical that it was "no problem at all" for NON_professional pilots.. show me some documentation about how much flight time any of these guys had?


as for missing people and jet liners? people that don't mind killing a couple thousand onthe ground aren't going to worry about the loss of a couple hundred more..

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hanjour the pilot of flight 77, according tot he 911 commision:

Hazmi and Hanjour left San Diego almost immediately and drove to Arizona. Settling in Mesa, Hanjour began refresher training at his old school, Arizona Aviation. He wanted to train on multi-engine planes, but had difficulties because his English was not good enough. The instructor advised him to discontinue but Hanjour said he could not go home without completing the training. In early 2001, he started training on a Boeing 737 simulator at Pan Am International Flight Academy in Mesa. An instructor there found his work well below standard and discouraged him from continuing. Again, Hanjour persevered; he completed the initial training by the end of March 2001. At that point, Hanjour and Hazmi vacated their apartment and started driving east, anticipating the arrival of the "muscle hijackers"-the operatives who would storm the cockpits and control the passengers. By as early as April 4, Hanjour and Hazmi had arrived in Falls Church, Virginia.64

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch7.htm

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
another issue? the 911 commission indicates most of this plot was assembled in less than two years not ten... it may have been in somebodies mind for years, but they were trying to get pilots trained (and not doing very well at it) in 2000

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BooDog
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for BooDog     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm

--------------------
All post are my opinion. Do your own DD. Who's clicking your buy/sell button!?

Posts: 7754 | From: Virginia | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
now you are getting at the issue boo..

one of the things that has "nagged" at me from the beginning was the G8 summit in Italy in July 2001...

they set up anti-aircraft guns to protect themselves from "remotely controlled" aircraft threats that were KNOWN..... the intel came from Mubarak of Egypt..

so i've been slowly reading up on different G8 summits...

the level of protesting at the summits PEAKED in '01... interesting coincidence? sure it is...

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
bdgee, i found some math for you to look at please:

http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/math_geometry.html

skip down to:Date: 3/15/02 9:44:49 AM Pacific Standard Time

So, 450 feet traveled in 1/30th of a second = 13500 feet/sec. = 2.55 miles/sec. = 153.4 miles/min. = 9204.54 mph = 7997 kts. = Mach 12.11

Even if you alter the path of the jet to a direct (90 degree) impact trajectory, (which introduces other unexplainable issues such as intact light-posts and trees, clearing the embankment, not to mention those anomalous hydro spools) you still end up with a final velocity exceeding Mach 6!


it appears maybe something was wrong with the cameras at the pentagon.. big surprise since we didn't have security at all before 911, right? [Big Grin]

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cottonjim
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for cottonjim     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The real question?

http://www.debunking911.com/questions.htm

--------------------
If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?

Posts: 2647 | From: MN | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Relentless.
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Relentless.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Also rules out JDAM.
Gotta figure some sort of missle.
Not a tomahawk either.
I've always doubted that the fuselage peirced the outer shell.. let alone how many rings and the engines didn't make a scratch.
Between the two, the engines win the density challenge hands down.

Posts: 2963 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bdgee
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for bdgee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Glass,

I don't question your question of the reliability of the cameras at the Pentagon.....seems like a reasonable assumption to me, but if that question is a result of that attempted analysis at that link you gave.....

That pile of assumptions is too massive to hope to get to a credible conclusion. I wouldn't rely on it much.

Given a true belief of a thing, with enough assumptions it is possible to skew the application of good solid arithmetic to make it seem that it forces you to reach the conclusion you really believe.

Anyway, video cameras are not like film cameras. they capture an image in a whisker of time compared to a film camera and all that stuff about interleave and time between frames is what it then reports to the interpreter that sends the image to the screen in a form you TV can let you see it (the restrictions of timing, etc., are not limits on the photography, but on the transmission signal).....it has zilch to do with the image captured by the camera.

One of the reasons that video cameras are used for surveillance cameras is that they capture an image so fast that they need almost no light and are reliable at night without artificial light as well as in the day.

Maybe that guy that likes to make so many assumptions would like to apply those notions to the ultra fast film shots of bullets leaving the muzzle of a high powered rifle and see if he reaches similar conclusions. I suspect with the same reasoning, he can conclude something is faulty there too. (Video images are captured even faster than those cameras that stop moving bullets.)

Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NR
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for NR     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
 -

--------------------
One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.

Posts: 2402 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NR
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for NR     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Image of American Airlines 757-233 Similar to AA Flight 77:
http://www.al-airliners.be/a/american/aa757.jpg

Boeing 757 Diffuser Case:
http://tomflocco.com/fsimage/karlschwarz/DiffuserCasePhoto757.jpg

Close Up of Diffuser Case debris at the Pentagon:
http://media.portland.indymedia.org/images/2005/02/309898.jpg

Boeing 757 Engine Diagram:
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/rb211a.jpg

Close up of Engine Rotor Debris found at the Pentagon:
http://www.911-strike.com/engine_rotor.jpg

--------------------
One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.

Posts: 2402 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NR
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for NR     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Relentless.:
.....
Flight 93 you say?
Found a aerial photo of the crash site taken a year or two before 9/11...
The minor crater was already there.

It was probably from the government planting evidence that would be found later on... for example, engine rotors or fuselage panels.

http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/size600/P200060-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/size600/P200061-1.jpg

--------------------
One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.

Posts: 2402 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Allstocks.com Message Board Home

© 1997 - 2013 Allstocks.com. All rights reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2

Share