Twiglet Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 Strange, though because on the skyscrspers you can clearly see the shape of where the aircraft went in, but at the Pentagon you cant. You could, for about 20 minutes before the facade collapsed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artisan Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 You could, for about 20 minutes before the facade collapsed. I've not seen the early pictures, so that clears that up . The programme last night was very good I thought (the BBC are the best at that type of thing), and answered a few questions. People tend not to realise that the entire frame does not have to hot, just a relatively small section, enough to allow bending to take place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fnkysknky Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 The buildings also had tons of glass concrete and steel along with the air ! Do you really believe that a tank of kerosine could destroy a boeing and all its passengers explode in a massive black cloud that could be seen for miles ? Melt 47 steel columns the like of which the demolition experts had never seen before, several commented that their size and thickness was "unbelievable " . Cleverly melting the floors at the same time so the buildings could fall staight down and not topple ! Why would they topple? The towers each weighed 500,000t, were 95% air and there was no lateral load - why the hell would they fall anywhere but straight down? If you don't understand a concept then don't come butting in with a half arsed theory. The steel never melted - it heated enough to fail. When the steel gets to approx. half of the melting temp. it loses 50% of it's strentgth which along with the tonking great hole in the 244 support pillars was enough to bring the building down. It's not rocket science and makes perfect sense if you understand the principles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm Oh my! That's going to provide a whole weekends worth of amusement! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenH Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 Oh my! That's going to provide a whole weekends worth of amusement! If you think that is funny then you should read some of the stuff by Icke. I found one speech he had given which I can't now find but it goes something like this:- George Orwell wrote about what was really happening in his novel 1984. He was told about all the terrible things going on and so was warning us. Hie real name was Eric Blair, can it be a coincidence that our PM's name is Tony Blair, I think not. I suppose that this is rather tame compared to his knowledge that all our leaders are reptiles. The 911 conspiracy nutters actually quote this headcase! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 Oh, I did David Ickle about 8 years ago, he's great entertainment. There a nice snippet on another loony website that claims to ID the man who shot down Flight 93. "Air National Guard flies 90% of all air defense missions in USA, and flew 40,000 real-world intercept missions of civilian aircraft since 9/11/2001. " It's this kind of nonsense that gets repeated over and over in a never ending game of Chinese whispers until people think it must be the truth, when a little mental arithmetic tells you that this equals a minimum of 22 scrambles a day to intercepts over the USA. Cold War Russian Bear pilots had it much easier than todays civilian airliner crews. We should be introducing sanity checks for anyone that buys a computer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenH Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 Oh, I did David Ickle about 8 years ago, he's great entertainment. There a nice snippet on another loony website that claims to ID the man who shot down Flight 93. It's this kind of nonsense that gets repeated over and over in a never ending game of Chinese whispers until people think it must be the truth, when a little mental arithmetic tells you that this equals a minimum of 22 scrambles a day to intercepts over the USA. Cold War Russian Bear pilots had it much easier than todays civilian airliner crews. We should be introducing sanity checks for anyone that buys a computer. The trouble with the internet is that some people believe everything on it to be the truth. In the past I would have to write a book, get it published and put it into a library (or the library would have to select it) before anyone could read it and might be duped. These days I can knock out a few pages of utter rubbish on a web site and it can be believed by thousands (mostly in California!). On the subject of flight interceptions, these are unusual but happen on a regular basis even in the Europe. If someone isn't identified and strays into some restricted zone then a fighter can be sent up to escort them out or to see what the problem is. The most likely place that this would happen in recent years would be near to a French nulcear power plant. If you fly your aircraft over the top then the french will send up a fighter which will use the internationally agreed signals to tell you to follow it out of the area. You will probably then be allowed to land normally and will be met by the police and a hefty fine. These missions aren't about shooting down airliners and they never really have any intention of shooting at anyone, they really just go for a look and to see if there is a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venger Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 The trouble with the internet is that some people believe everything on it to be the truth. Surely that is a problem with some people then, not the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaytsev Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 Surely that is a problem with some people then, not the internet. Incredible I know, but I agree with you on that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angle20 Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 ... but it wouldn't deal with the 200 independent eye witnesses, the flattened lamp posts, the damaged generator and all those bits of an airliner that were found at the scene. Oh and the missing airliner and souls aboard it (And just to get you up to speed the phenomenon of an aircraft fully or partially disintegrating when hitting a building is well known and understood, so no surprises there either.) wouldn't deal with the 200 independent eye witnesses This figure may have been bandied about by the corporate media but the number reduces sharply when uncategoric accounts are excluded. One witness in a 14th floor apartment in Penatgon City said: "it seemed to be able to hold eight to twelve persons [ie not a 757] and "made a shrill noise like a fighter plane". Lon Rains editor of Space News said: "I was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast and sounded nothing like an airplane". Another witness in a car said it "was like a cruise missile with wings". A Boeing 757 flying as low as Flight 77 purportedly was would have looked enormous though few mention this. It is possible that relentless reporting of the official version by the corporate media may have led some people to doubt their own perception. the flattened lamp posts Hensall & Morgan: "..it is hard to see how a plane the size of a Boeing could have clipped the light poles, dipped down still farther and tilted over, without leaving the left wing somewhere on the lawn". And the lawn is a big problem for you official guys because you have to accomplish all this mayhem without making a mark on the lawn! the damaged generator and all those bits of an airliner that were found at the scene This is not a strong part of the official theory: very little wreckage was publicly visible and there's actually a photo of two guys appearing to place debris on the grass. Oh and the missing airliner and souls aboard it Switched (under an 'Operation Northwoods' type scenario) or shot down elsewhere: no more bizarre than anything else that happened that day. (And just to get you up to speed the phenomenon of an aircraft fully or partially disintegrating when hitting a building is well known and understood, so no surprises there either) It's news to me that there's lots of empirical evidence for what happens when large aircraft crash into buildings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.