[Moderated]Pentagon Struck By Tomahawk Missile 'AND' A PLANE

[Darth Rotor]

Why would a Tomohawk missile have a bow shockwave?

You have ignored my earlier posts why is that?

Tomahawks are subsonic cruise missiles, and you would not expect a shock wave to be associated with one, before it detonated its payload, unless, of course, you were an idiot CT'er who had no idea about fluid flow, nor about aerodynamics.

We seem to be dealing with one such specimen.

terral when were A3 Skyhawk retired by the Navy?

Funk, A-4 Skyhawk, A-3 Skywarrior, one a single seat attack, then a trainer, the other multi seat attack, then EW platform and tanker. It is not nice to let troofers think we don't care about details. A-4 Skyhawk was retired as the TA-4, FYI, in the late 1990's. (T-2 Buckeye is just now retiring.) A-3 some years earlier. Terral's recycling of Loose Change idiocy, to include the engine problem, is so pathetic I wonder why anyone responded.

At least the Tomahawk was a new twist.

For the utter fool, Terral, who began this thread:

Hey, You, the one who left his brain in the microwave!

Tell me everything you know about how to program a Tomahawk missile for a strike. Then tell me how this was done for your fantasy scenario.

*sits back*

If you can't answer that, please go home to your mother, and beg her forgiveness for squandering on porn the money she gave you for school books.

DR

 

[Shalamar]

What is the diameter of the impact hole at the pentagon?

What is the Diameter of the fuselage of a 757?

 

[Darth Rotor]

It occurs to me that with most warheads delivered by the Tomahawk missle there would be alot less Pentagon left after it hit.

Nope.

DR

 

[leftysergeant]

You are looking a the missile right here in the Security Camera frames flying exactly 5 feet off the ground with over twice the ‘clearance’ underneath.

What freaking missile? I don't see a missile. I see smoke or vapor being rolled along the ground under a big wing. Is there a miussle body of missile exhaust here anywhere? I don't see it, and I think I have seen a lot more missiles in use than have you.

How many of these people look ready to run and save anybody from a burning crashed Jetliner?

All of them, but you need to bear in mind that these are men trained to obey the orders of those in charge, which is, in this case, the Fire Chief. Based upon my experience as a 57150 in the Air Force and a 51M30 in the Army, I would say that they are doing just what I would expect under the circumstances. They are waitingfor the fire fighters to yell, "We need four strong men here," or "we need two men and a body bag here."

 

[Terral]

Please Support Your Statements With Evidence. TY

Hi rcronk:

Rcronk >> Terral - Could you please explain how some of the evidence doesn't match your theory? It has been asked above by others but you avoided it. I'll re-post it here for your convenience: 1. How did the Tomahawk missile knock and buckle the lamp posts? Please provide valid scientific calculations proving this.

Please forgive, but this has been addressed numerous times already. I am looking for rcronk’s explanation for what knocked down 5 light poles and nothing like that appears in your post.

Rcronk >> 2. Account for the [108] witnesses' testimony that saw a [757] jet liner strike the pentagon.

Heh . . . And you do not even want to name one? That is funny. How about if Rcronk shows us one picture of a crashed 100-Ton Jetlinler? After all, if your 108 witnesses are telling the truth, then you should have at least one picture. Who would miss that kind of opportunity? :0)

Rcronk >> 3. Account for the 757 aircraft debris seen on the crash site. (http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html)

The first thing I noticed about your pictures is that none showed a crashed 100-Ton Jetliner. You have little pieces of something that anyone could pick up in their hand. Those engine parts are from a Pratt and Whitney JT8D engine ( http://www.rense.com/general67/911eng.htm ).

Rcronk >> 4. Account for the human remains from the passengers in the aircraft, found on the crash site [by first responders]. Some of these first responders testify that they walked among burnt bodies still strapped into their seats and carried with their own hands the body parts of the passengers. ("When [Army Staff Sgt. Mark] Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him." http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/sept01/2001-09-14-pentagon-usat.htm)

There is nothing in my OP about burned bodies. Please start a thread on that topic . . . Asking you guys to actually ‘quote >>’ from my thesis paper to offer opposing views appears out of the question, so if you choose to write ‘off-topic’ comments in my direction, then please expect the same kind of consideration from me. TY.

Rcronk >> If you ignore these problems with your theory again, I will consider you a troll and will no longer pay attention to you. Are you really seeking truth or are you just here to prove your point is true regardless of the evidence against it? Think hard before answering that question.

Consider me Santa Claus if that make you happy. Nothing from Rcronk threatens one word of the OP in anyway.

BTW, this is where you say a 100-Ton Jetliner crashed. Please explain why I should believe one word out of your mouth. GL. Since you do not even know the meaning of ‘troll,’ then I have written a comprehensive thesis paper and I ‘am’ defending my theory, claims and conclusions supported by the evidence. Those of you coming here to flame me are the cotton picking trolls with no case for anything and nothing better to do.

GL,

Terral

 

[OldTigerCub]

<snip>
Heh . . . Okay then, thank you for offering your unsupported opinions. That kind of thing might be convincing to someone, but I will believe a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed in the empty field outside Shanksville and into the Pentagon when someone coughs up some evidence. Obviously in all these years nobody has shown me one picture of Flight 93 or Flight 77 crashed ANYWHERE. Do you know why? I do. That is because none exist, except of in the vain imaginations of men . . .

GL,

Terral

The pictures I keep seeing from troothers, especially the ones claiming no crash at the Pentagon, no crash at Shanksville are always the pictures taken from a distance. Never close enough to show the real details, but with a hint of something sinister.
I have come to the conclusion that this is the only way the troother mind will choose to view reality: from far enough away to think they recognize it, but never close enough to see the hard reality that is the human experience.
The vast majority of the photographs from the crash scenes have been witheld from the public domain because of their graphic and disturbing nature. They are not readily available on the internet, and the mainstream media has, for the most part, the good sense not to sensationalize a tragedy such as the 9-11 crashes by trotting out pictures of crushed and decapitated skulls, disembodied bowels and mangled pieces of human limbs.
But those pictures exist. They exist in the files of the FBI and the NTSB, and they are available to qualified researchers, though proving "inside job" hardly contitutes legitimate qualification.
To the majority of us, the images of 9-11 and the testimony of those qualified to examine the evidence are as much as we care to read and look at...we trust our fellow citizens (yes, fellow citizens) who are trained and experienced with investigating such events to present factual information.
The denial of the existance of such photographic evidence does not prove its non-existance. It only proves that one has chosen not to see it, or cannot understand what it is they see.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

There is nothing in my OP about burned bodies. Please start a thread on that topic . . . Asking you guys to actually ‘quote >>’ from my thesis paper to offer opposing views appears out of the question, so if you choose to write ‘off-topic’ comments in my direction, then please expect the same kind of consideration from me. TY.

Your "thesis paper" ???

Where is it? I'm ready to suggest a few people to review it, depending on the subject, of course.

 

[Arus808]

why are you posting pics that show that the firefighting effports were obscuring most if nearly all the damage to the pentagon, and trying to claim that those images do not show ddamage that could have been done by an airliner?

 

[Drudgewire]

The pictures I keep seeing from troothers, especially the ones claiming no crash at the Pentagon, no crash at Shanksville are always the pictures taken from a distance. Never close enough to show the real details, but with a hint of something sinister.

why are you posting pics that show that the firefighting effports were obscuring most if nearly all the damage to the pentagon, and trying to claim that those images do not show ddamage that could have been done by an airliner?

And there you go.

Please explain why I should believe one word out of your mouth.

I'd rather hear an explanation of why anyone should bother trying. You're even more dishonest than the run-of-the-mill twoofer, and if you'll notice even your brethren who usually jump in to protect their own regardless of the argument stopped posting in this thread pages ago. It speaks volumes about how low on the scale you rate.

You are... for want of a relaxed rule on profanity... a sleazebag. Welcome to ignore.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

... Let’s try a picture with a few less lines:

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/a1-Frame1.jpg

Just so we have some points of reference: The distance from this security camera to the right-hand column is 19 feet (Goggle Earth), but we can round that up to 20 feet. Our missile impacted the E-Ring wall 550 feet from this Security Camera and the distant trees next to the Interstate are 1800 feet away from this location. Everyone can see the top of the right-hand column is ‘not’ above the trees by any stretch of the imagination. If you will look at the two white horizontal lines atop and at the bottom of the flying object, you will see even the upper line is below the tall trees on the left, as they even stick up above the “Horizon” sign. My ‘low’ line under the missile is actually ‘level’ with the grass/tree line directly to the ‘left’ of the column, as the white line by “Horizon” splits those two lines right down the middle. You could possibly have a case if the top of that column were up in the blue sky or down in the green grass, which it clearly IS NOT. The DoD security personnel did the job of leveling the camera for us, when the camera was installed in the first place. The right-hand column just happens to be 5 feet tall to share the common Horizontal X-Axis Plane with this camera lens, that point 1800 feet away on the horizon and the nose of our approaching missile. You have NO CASE for any of these points being out of line at all.

You can not draw definitive dimensions from a single photo if you do not know 1. The focal length of the lens, 2. The "film" or "sensor" size, and 3. Whether an image is cropped, and to what percentage of the original dimensions. Are you able to tell us any of those measurements? Because those are critical pieces of information in photogrammetry. The focal length tells you the amount of linear distance per degree of image view; without that, any references to dimensions at given distances is meaningless.

And if the image was taken through a fisheye lens, like people have been saying, then the uncertainty in measurements is even more pronounced.

Have you never wondered why photogrammetry requires specially calibrated cameras with known and very rigidly fixed internal dimensions? It is precisely to reduce the problems associated in making photogrammetrical measurements. You are reducing a curved 3 dimensional field of view to a flat, 2 dimensional image, and if you do not account for the distortions induced by such an act, you end up with broad errors in measurement.

So, what is the focal length of the lens? And the size of the sensor element in the camera? At a given distance, are you able to calculate how many feet of linear distance correspond to how many degrees of view in the image?

 

[Terral]

Please Show Us Your Pictures Of Flight 93 Or Flight 77 Crashed ANYWHERE. GL

Hi Hal:

I read through to Post #148 to find your comments and nobody has yet provided one picture of Flight 77 crashed anywhere. Amazing. Don’t you thing? :0)

Hal >> I shall not comment on your brother, or the other remarkable "claims" made above. But I cannot let post such as yours pass without making this, for you, the intensely personal issue it is for me. Nearly every night, I get to relive that day in some manner.

All of my arguments are standing in the OP of this thread if you ever want to offer your opposing views. You and I both know you have no evidence for any 100-Ton Jetliner crashing anywhere. Right? Okay then. I am supposed to attack the argument and not the arguer. Right? That means someone here is supposed to actually present an argument using some form of credible evidence. Do you see any pictures of Flight 77 crashed anywhere? No? Neither have I. Maybe that is why your side of this debate is writing little posts and not making a case for anything.

Hal >> I was in the Pentagon when the plane struck. Within a few minutes, I was outside the impact area, providing what tiny service I could. I held, in my hands, parts of that airliner. Me. Personally.

Great! Show us your pictures.

Here is the scene you were looking at. Right? The obvious fact staring us in the face is there is not one piece of paper on the lawn. The second fact is the E-Ring wall is still standing with no place to fit any Jetliner.

You see the difference? I have a much easier time believing a real Jetliner passed through this wall, but the Pentagon picture? No sir. The evidence simply does not support your opinion.

Hal >> Therefore, for your claim to be true, you must personally and directly call me either a liar or a dupe. So please do so. Tell me I'm a liar, or a fool.

My side is showing pictures of a Pentagon wall and your side is not showing picture of anything but some tiny debris and some engine parts from something other than a real Boeing 757-200 Jetliner. The readers can judge all parties involved about which side is sadly mistaken. My case is built upon ‘the evidence’ and not the testimony that directly contradicts what all the pictures show.

GL,

Terral

 

[tsig]

[

delete

 

[Reheat]

You are... for want of a relaxed rule on profanity... a sleazebag. Welcome to ignore.

Please don't insult sleazebags!

 

[Arus808]

again terral, why do you post pics that of the pentagon where damage are obscured by the firefighting efforts, and claim that the damage cannot be caused by an airliner

why do you post pics without additional information (the photographer who took it, the focal length, the zoom amount) as these relate to the scale of which we are seeing the objects (did you take basic photography?)

you are being intellectually dishonest if you continue to use these photos to support your claims are ignor the physical and eyewitness testimony

 

[JoeEllison]

What part of "the entire idea is stupid from top to bottom" don't you understand?

 

[Shalamar]

Amazing that a long hollow aluminum tube filled with jet fuel would shred and burn away.

Isn't it?

Terrel, what would you expect for a 757 full of fuel flying at full speed into a concrete reinforced building?

 

[Drudgewire]

Please don't insult sleazebags!

Yeah, that was out of line. Some of my best friends are sleazebags.

 

[OldTigerCub]

Hi Funk:




Why bother if this thread is going to be trashed too? Why not spend my time on a Board where everyone is treated fairly and our work is not thrown away? A Tomahawk Missile creates a bow shockwave around the nose for the same reason your boat creates waves when you go fishing. Can you imagine your kid saying, ‘Hey dad, why does the boat make waves?’ Try to come up with something that sounds good. :0) Stand out by the highway when the cars go by really fast and see what happens, the multiply that by ten times or more. Remember these are 'breakaway' light poles designed to 'snap off.' You have obviously heard of the ‘sound barrier’ at some point in your life. Here is a good basic site that does not require knowledge of fluid mechanics:

http://wilk4.com/misc/soundbreak.htm


Terral

Darth Rotor pointed out that the Tomahawk is a subsonic missle. I would like to point out that supersonic flight at low altitude results in a great deal of broken glass in houses, office buildings, hotels etc...one of the main reasons low level supersonic flight is prohibited in most areas of the country. There seems to be a lack of reports of a sonic boom along the flight path of your "missle" as well as the lack of a tell-tale path of damaged windows, broken dishes, burst eardrums...etc...

 

[Terral]

The Dog Is Laughing 'At' You :0)

Hi Rcronk:

Rcronk >> Terral cherry picks the posts he'll respond to the same way he cherry picks his evidence. Oh, and I'm not attacking him, I'm attacking his evidence gathering and debating methods.

You must be kidding. Right? You guys are chatting about whatever comes to mind. Nobody here is addressing one thing from the OP and you very well know it. When I see a case against my OP thesis, then I will make the decision to offer defensive arguments. I am gathering the impression this place is loaded down with schoolchildren. When does one of you start showing us pictures of a crashed 100-Ton Jetliner? You are the ones making that claim. Right? Okay then. Back that up with some solid evidence. There are more pictures of your laughing dog on this thread than photographs of ANYTHING related to 9/11 from your side of this debate. That means the little guy is laughing ‘at’ you. :0)

GL,

Terral

 

[Pardalis]

The pictures you post speak for themselves: You're wrong.