redelk
Moderator
Please... speak to the hand.
Posts: 3212
|
posted November 02, 2004 04:49 PM
 Edited By: redelk on 11 Nov 2004 20:44
OT - Just the scientific facts - no politics allowed
Reading Otis' post and with all of the remembrance of 9/11, a nagging question keeps popping in my head. It is concerning American Airlines Flight 77 and it's impact into the Pentagon. I am not one to easily embrace "conspiracy theories" and to be perfectly honest, at this time, I do not wish to entertain any.
As stated in the title of this thread, I do not wish to hear ANY political thoughts or theories. PLEASE read the entire opening post before posting your opinions or comments. Failure to do so will result in your post being deleted. Only serious, non-political, scientific comments will be accepted. It's something that has really been nagging at me and I don't have the patience to entertain buck wily stupid comments
I am looking SOLELY for scientific/forensic opinions on the following:
1. Did a Boeing 757 (AA 77) hit the Pentagon?
2. If it was, where is the debris?
3. Explain how the impact area is the way it is (depth, size, etc.).
4. How was it able to hit the first floor, yet leave no traces of impact with the ground or surrounding objects?
5. If it wasn't a 757, what was it?
6. If it wasn't, what was the possible fate of AA Flight 77?
7. Why are the hijackers absent from any and all passenger manifests?
Below are some links that caused me to question what hit the Pentagon.
http://www.nexusitalia.com.nyud.net:8090/pentagon121.swf
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flight77.htm
http://www.911timeline.net/#846
Though they could be easily viewed a "partisan" or having some sort of "political agenda" behind it, in a "Art Bell" kind of way, they still present several facts that are completely and unquestionably accurate. In other words, pictures (even ones suspected of being "doctored") pretty well tell the tale here. Doing a search on "Flight 77" will produce several more.
The video in the first link is the one that first made me question what occurred that fateful day. I spoke at length with a couple of friends in the aviation industry. One is a chief line mechanic for a major airline. He works in that airline's international hub and has serviced countless Boeing 757s as well as various other makes and models. My other friend works for a "federal government investigative agency" that deals specifically with accidents involving "vehicles of mass transit". Both have concluded, quite some time ago, that it was not a 757 that impacted the Pentagon. I won't even get into their opinions on Flight 800. Neither should you. Let's remain focused on the topic at hand.
All the same, I will also be the first to acknowledge that the WTC was struck by two commercial aircraft (AA 11 / UA 175) and that they were piloted by terrorists who had hijacked both flights. I will also acknowledge that the aircraft that crashed in Pennsylvania (UA 93) was also hijacked by terrorists and headed towards an unknown target. I DO NOT want to get into a tangent discussion on Flight 93 and if it actually crashed due to the passengers' actions or if there was some other outside influence. Again, you wanna go there, start your own thread.
REMEMBER - park your political opinions at the door on this thread. Any posts claiming any political party, government official or agency did "this or that" will be unceremoniously deleted. Don't even bother to try to sneak one in. All it will prove is you have nothing scientific or forensically to add to this topic. So don't display your ignorance. I'm not interested in seeing it. Don't like it? Tough shit. Start your own thread.
If it get to the point where the comments continue in a direction that is totally irrelevant, I will either lock or simply delete the entire thread. If these "rules" are just completely unacceptable to the general membership or the administrators of this forum, the thread will be removed. If you feel that this is the case, notify me via e-mail. Do not PM me (pop ups are blocked on my work computer) or post on the thread. It's not that hard. Just e-mail me.
____________
There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
-Ernest Hemingway
   
|
deathpulse
Pro
Posts: 1688
|
posted November 02, 2004 06:16 PM
Edited By: redelk on 2 Nov 2004 20:50
Hey Redelk - sorry if I pissed ya off in the Kerry thread - I'm done  . On your topic - here is an interesting "debunk" read for you. I believe based on what I have read, that an airliner DID hit the Pentagon. Here is the read:
http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
|
MadMike
Moderator
FEAR THE BLACK FLAG!!!!!!!!
Posts: 6579
|
posted November 02, 2004 08:37 PM
you know that is very strange, I have never seen those photo's before?
____________
200-MPH CLUB MEMBER!
|
deathpulse
Pro
Posts: 1688
|
posted November 02, 2004 08:49 PM
What did ya think of my link red?
|
redelk
Moderator
Please... speak to the hand.
Posts: 3212
|
posted November 02, 2004 08:49 PM
Edited By: redelk on 2 Nov 2004 21:51
dp - you didn't piss me off. Actually, I wouldn't know what you could have said in that thread that would have even raised my ire. I feel that thread is a great thread because it allows healthy debate and the sharing of political opinion. No matter how one stands in that thread, all of it is good.
BTW - I edited your post to make the snopes link active
Ra12r - please reread the opening post's statement. It will explain why your post was removed. All I'm asking for here is a NON-POLITICAL view of the evidence. Your post did not contain anything scientific or forensic. Nothing personal. It's just that I want to stick SOLELY to that view of this topic. Please feel free to start another thread to share your political views on this or any other such topic.
____________
There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
-Ernest Hemingway
|
redelk
Moderator
Please... speak to the hand.
Posts: 3212
|
posted November 02, 2004 09:46 PM
Edited By: redelk on 2 Nov 2004 21:52
dp - I'm a real big believer in Snopes. I use it relegiously in debunking many internet claims. I checked the link out and was surprisingly dissapointed. Not that I did not believe what it was saying, but it's reasoning was surprisingly weak.
2) Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?
As eyewitnesses described and photographs demonstrate, the hijacked airliner dived so low as it approached the Pentagon that it actually hit the ground first, thereby dissipating much of the energy that might otherwise have caused more extensive damage to the building; nonetheless, as described by The New York Times, the plane still hit not "just the ground floor" but between the first and second floors.
Hmmmmm. There's that "hit the ground first" comment again. Where did it hit the ground?
Another account of the crash described:
The plane banked sharply and came in so low that it clipped light poles. It slammed into the side of the Pentagon at an estimated 350 miles per hour after first hitting the helipad. The plane penetrated the outer three rings of the building. The jet fuel exploded, which sent a fireball outward from the impact point.
Okay, so with such a massive fireball, why were the spools not even moved? Shouldn't they have been just as vaporized as the plane, being so close to the impact zone? One of the above mentioned friends also doubted that the 757 was carrying 5,300 gallons of fuel at the time of impact. He said it might be possible due to the amount of time the plane was in flight, but he felt it would have had more since the flight was bound for LAX. Basically a trans-continental flight.
When examining the only released video of the Pentagon crash and comparing it to that of the WTC, the fireball seems to be surprisingly small at the Pentagon. There are countless reasons that can easily explain that. Camera angles, distance, etc. All the same, the Pentagon's fireball seems to only be around 10, maybe 15 stories in size when the WTC explosions appear to be almost twice that size.
It's also kinda hard to swallow the "fact" that not just the cabin, but both wings were "sucked" into a impact hole that is possibly smaller in diameter than the cabin itself. Not to mention there appears to be little to no sign of either of the 50'+ long wings (each with a 10'+ diameter engine hanging off of it) making any sort of impact on the building. Nothing on the 30'+ tall tail either. Wouldn't that be a little taller than a couple stories at the Petagon?
As for the light poles that were knocked down, they too don't really fit in the puzzle. I haven't found the link with the good picture of those poles, but here is another link that describes them:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman1.htm
I'm not throwing all this crap up here because I believe it, because I don't. Not all of it at least. The problem is that I do not believe the explainations given to match up with the images either. When I see the images of the impact area on the Pentagon, the interior open service area, the pristine (and I guess heat/impact resistant) lawn, the angle and damage to the light poles, the supposed debris from the airplane... it just doesn't fit.
Am I saying that it is impossible for a 757 to do that kind of damage and "vaporize" in such a fashion? No. Nothing is "impossible". But going solely on the available images and video, ignoring all the commentary, opinions and explainations... again, it just doesn't add up.
____________
There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
-Ernest Hemingway
|
deathpulse
Pro
Posts: 1688
|
posted November 02, 2004 10:22 PM
Well, did you check out the trade centers after they were hit? it was hard to see the planes in them as well - I think that at those speeds, with all that fuel, they really blow up WELL. great debate tho!!
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted November 03, 2004 04:43 AM
Redelk: i beleive the first part of the explanation on snopes covers the lack of damage. The recent physical renovations to the building would have prevented the wings from providing a large impact crater in the side of the building.
wings are pretty much just aluminum skinned and framed. the heaviest part of the wing is fuel....which would provide the splash damage (black soot marks)
the soot from the heat would also (especially in those low of a resolution pictures) obscure small (relative,that is a huge building) surface imperfections that the wings would have caused.
the "sucked in" part is believable if you consider the incredible momentum that existed. again, the wings are small on structure, large on mass due to their fuel loads. their attachment points aren't going to support that inertia-force in a 250mph to 0 mph in 2 seconds acceleration ..the initial impact moves them forward, and then as the fusleage enters the hole on building, it shears wings off. they still have tons of forward momentum, which allows the remains to take the easies route forward, which is into the big hole in building.
due to how stout the walls are, there is little chance that the hole in building is as big as the fuselage diameter. lots of compression would have occured on all parts. the heat of the fire is definately hot enough to melt aluminum (depending on the alloy anywhere from round 1200 to 1500 degrees) hence the lack of large physical debris chunks visible in the post-fire pictures.
the tail section is much easier to believe, as it will get pushed downward as it hits the firm parts of the wall, and again, its momentum will carry it in to the hole as well.
now this part is unscientific, but most military buildings i have been in are 12ft ceilings. so figure 14-15 ft per floor (drop ceilings included in this) 30ft would be 2 stories in that kind of building.
as for the videos, well, i could put together a video and add enough innuendo that would suggest the moon landings are all fake too ;P and it would be believable!
  
|
deathpulse
Pro
Posts: 1688
|
posted November 03, 2004 04:47 AM
Hey - thats a good point slug -how high were the ceilings at the pentagon? I seem to remember them being very high for some reason?
|
Spyral
Pro
Unpredictable individual.
Posts: 1071
|
posted November 03, 2004 05:52 AM
Edited By: Spyral on 3 Nov 2004 05:55
Reading all the info posted and linked, I do not think a plane could have hit it. I have a theory but it would be considered "conspirist" in nature so I shall refrain.
____________
Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.
|
redelk
Moderator
Please... speak to the hand.
Posts: 3212
|
posted November 03, 2004 06:00 AM
All very valid points and thank you Spyral.
____________
There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
-Ernest Hemingway
|
DaveInDaytona
Pro
Posts: 1696
|
posted November 03, 2004 06:50 AM
I worked in the DC area with two people that said they witnessed the crash. Since they were in different departments I talked to them at different times and I'm not sure they even know each other saw it. Both were outside on that day going to a nearby office, one had the "plane" go over her head before it hit. Both gave what I considered to be the same story about how it happened and what they saw.
It's interesting the security camera in one of your clips has the time stamp as Sept 12 @ 17:39, and in the same style of text it's labeled "impact". Someone needs to set the clock.
____________
DaytonaSportbikes Forum
|
canadamaxxer
Pro
Posts: 1090
|
posted November 03, 2004 08:30 AM
I have seen these videos and websites, and would not be the least surprised to find out that the Pentagon was hit by something other than the 757, but where did the plane actually end up? I read on one of the sights that the plane actually landed at a local airport.....wouldn't anyone clue into a plane that disappeared from radar and then supposedly crashed into the Pentagon, reappears and is now taxiing into the terminal? What then, a massive coverup by the government? What about the passengers? Making a plane disappear is one thing, but making all of those passengers go away....that sounds really horrible. Is this a situation of " the simplest solution is usually the correct one" or something more insideous? One other thing: what is the point of the government covering up the real tool used to impact the Pentagon? Embarassment about the intelligence and tactical failures? They already failed....and this whole thing is an embarassment.
I am hoping this post fits the spirit of what Redelk posted at the beginning. I have read my post over a couple of times and hope that this is not political in nature. I don't have anything to add...just honest questions.
|
redelk
Moderator
Please... speak to the hand.
Posts: 3212
|
posted November 03, 2004 09:46 AM
CM - close but not really even near the "edge"... politically. Several have come up with some really wild "explainations" on what happened to AA 77.
Dave - some have even claimed the shadows in the video are neither proportional or going in the proper direction for that time of day. I'd take your eyewitness explainations over all the websites. Still, the pictures still leave me wondering.
____________
There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
-Ernest Hemingway
|
Ninjaman12R
Needs a job
as a Deal's Gap tour guide.
Posts: 4767
|
posted November 03, 2004 12:58 PM
sonofabitch....................
I guess I'll add this. Did a little research and come up with this. Hopefully it's all bullshit and is a result peoples imaginations running rampant, but I'd be a lying MF if I didn't say it left me a bit "confused".
http://www.utopiax.org/9_11.html
____________
What we're dealin' with here is a complete lack of respect for the law.
Sheriff Buford T. Justice of TEXAS
|
harryzx-12
Needs a job
Posts: 3643
|
posted November 03, 2004 03:18 PM
I have worked on a lot of B-757's and have personally been to acft crash sights. There is always wreckage.
____________
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways- Body thoroughly used up, totally worn out...Screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride !!!"
|
redelk
Moderator
Please... speak to the hand.
Posts: 3212
|
posted November 03, 2004 05:56 PM
Harry, that the general opinion of my two friends. Not only is there some wreckage, but in similar type impacts, there seems to be quite a bit more. At least more that would be visible in the pics provided by the government and media. I'm hard pressed, even with all the Pentagon's available resources, that they were able to collect nearly every large piece of plane debris prior to the media's arrival.
____________
There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
-Ernest Hemingway
|
pdb1964
Zone Head
Posts: 536
|
posted November 03, 2004 06:00 PM
I can see the wings possibly folding in on themselves but what about the two engines? I can't see these engines changing direction much (due to the concentration of weight) and following the path of the wings into the fuselage hole. And if the aircraft hit the ground first, they (the engines) are more likely to detach themselves from the wings (they would be the first to hit the ground if the landing gear was up) and continue in a straight line, impacting the building somewhere outside the fuselage hole. Just a thought.
|
redelk
Moderator
Please... speak to the hand.
Posts: 3212
|
posted November 03, 2004 06:10 PM
Edited By: redelk on 11 Nov 2004 21:00
Here's an interesting pic "illustrating" the plane's impact
Impressive flying if you ask me. Too bad the plane burst into flames prior to the wings (where the a good portion of fuel is stored) making impact. From what I understand, the "root" or the point where the wings are attached to the body of the plane, is one of the strongest point on the whole aircraft. One would be lead to believe that as the cabin penetrated the first wall, there would be some kind of damage to the building indicating where the wings were shorn off (prior to the fuel inside them igniting). Even more amazing is the "fact" that the tail vaporized prior to it's impact with the building. Not even breaking a window above the area where the cabin supposedly made it's impact with the building.
Just another thought.
____________
There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
-Ernest Hemingway
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted November 03, 2004 06:23 PM
the other thought is what could cause the "perfectly round" holes inside the building, and the engines themselves would fit that bill.
a VERY good reason many pictures were NOT released is because of the security nature OF the pentagon. why advertise in detail the physical defenses built in to the walls and the building itself?
especially harmful would be closeups of the actual damage sites, since they show the structure.
in the "Evidence" above the images and films are so grainy as to be next to useless to determine anything from.
i agree, it is harder to imagine the engine changing direction that quickly, but those things ARE fastened on pretty well..their mountings have to apply full acceleration and deceleration thrust to the plane. yes, an impact force would be much more than design loading, BUT the nature of a largely air-filled structure hitting a solid object, and the compression of t hat structure, as well as the breaking of the walls and such, will absorb a lot of energy (and did so based on the images that we DO have)
i have no qualms with the idea of the engines staying attached, or even becoming detached but still following about the same path as the wings and fuselage.
especially as the wings would likely form a sort of "ramp" that may help redirect the energy towards center of plane, given the force of the impact and the angle they sit on the plane (swept back)
the visible debris is small in the photos.
and with the precedent of the WTC crashes, and the small area that was subjected to the fires after the imemdiate crash, and the low meltingpoints of aluminum, it is VERY believable that much of the fuselage and frame were destroyed
that plane was pretty much put inside a brick enclosure and burned....with a very high-heat fire......
On the other side you are left with the same glaring questions, of what happened to the flight if it did NOT impact pentagon. there is a plane somewhere unaccounted for.
the problem with the video is that i can't tell if there is any way to corroborate their details with real ATC personnel.
Like in that moon landinghoax, you reach a point where the coverup has to be too big to support the reality. and that level of coverup would have to involve a VERY cynical and hateful view of people in general. and would imply that everyone that was there, that witnessed it, that saw anything, would willingly lie for the government....
*something* would have leaked out.
Dave: i would be curious to hear what exactly your friends said of the plane flying past them.
but i understand if they details are not something they want shared. would have sucked truly to have been anywhere near that.
|
pdb1964
Zone Head
Posts: 536
|
posted November 03, 2004 07:21 PM
I guess it would be very difficult to determine what happens to all the components of an aircraft during a crash. Only high speed cameras would be able to give anyone a clue of what happened.
|
worm~hole
Needs a life
Miles to go before I sleep....
Posts: 10623
|
posted November 04, 2004 09:44 AM
Edited By: worm~hole on 4 Nov 2004 09:58
...so I'm studying the first photo where the 'tiny black triangle shape' hints of the possibility of the verticle tail of an aircraft or 'winged flying object' (what is to prevent some kook from maybe painting a missle of some sort in AA colors????)...then I think I see what may be a ghostly image of the aircraft's or flying object's straight fuselage with its silver/red/blue AA motif to the left of the yellow box on that raised median w/orange cones...look at that image between the grass and the building behind the fuselage-like image...hmmmmm....does make me wonder....
...did any of these eye-witnesses see the aircraft's engines?...or did they just see a large high-speed flying object in AA colors?...did the speed at which it happened and the shear shock of it all cause some kind of quick and permanent snap-shot in their mind's eyes?...could've happened...could it?
____________
“We sleep safe in our beds because rough men
stand ready in the night to visit violence on those
who would do us harm.”
-George Orwell
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted November 04, 2004 12:23 PM
But then we are back to: where DID that airliner and all those people go to....
350 MPH, and i'd say it owuld be pretty difficult to see for sure ANY details.
especially if you aren't looking specifically for any particular thing at the time.
"wow what was that WTF!!!!"
not a lot of time to concentrate "man is that an engine?"
and then there is the other question: what gain would there be TO MAKE UP the story of an airliner crashing? 2 at WTC are more than sufficient to raise public interest....
what possible benefit would there be that would make it worth it to take the risk of just such a conspiracy leaking out...
the burden of proof i am afraid lies with the ones screaming foul...
|
Ra12r
Zone Head
Posts: 919
|
posted November 11, 2004 10:56 AM
Since the question was asked, I have watched several documentaries on the subject. First observation which no has mentioned. The walls of the Pentagon did NOT IMMEDIATELY collapse. ABC news has major footage of the building before the collapse with the fire fighters having already sprayed the white foam on the builidng. It is obvious that from the foam that many windows are still intact along with the roof still being in place. There is a single hole in the side that is measure as 14' by 16'. Nothing else as far as wreckage or building damage is present at that point in time.
|
Otis
Needs a job
Captain Kickstand
Posts: 3028
|
posted November 11, 2004 12:20 PM
Edited By: Otis on 11 Nov 2004 12:22
Well, damn Red, now you got me really questioning this shit. I looked at this very closely and it seems to me that it is a drone plane or something of the sort. In the first frame on the right side low to the ground you can make out a small white cylinder.
http://www.apfn.org/images/pentagon21.gif
|
|
|
HOME
NEW TOPIC