Pentagon releases AA77 video

Azrael 5 said:
I think the consensus of (woos)opinion is that it was a U.S missile from a fighter jet that was scrambled to bring down the plane. :eye-poppi
Click to expand...

I'm going to go out on a conjectural limb here and say that I don't think a AIM-9 Sidewinder, or even a AIM-54 Phoenix, (or their equivalents) would create that level of damage to the building.
 
Azrael 5 said:
I think the consensus of (woos)opinion is that it was a U.S missile from a fighter jet that was scrambled to bring down the plane. :eye-poppi
Click to expand...
...the same woos who scream at the people (with some justification) who sent the fighters in the wrong direction, resulting in the fact that no fighters were anywhere near flight 77.
 
Being Devil's Advocate here,isn't it odd that most Americans and tourists have cameras(still and video) surgically attached to them,yet all we have of the crash is a few time lapse images?
The Pentagon crash is something that has always intrigued me,due to lack of evidence of a plane probably.
 
Azrael 5 said:
Being Devil's Advocate here,isn't it odd that most Americans and tourists have cameras(still and video) surgically attached to them,yet all we have of the crash is a few time lapse images?
The Pentagon crash is something that has always intrigued me,due to lack of evidence of a plane probably.
Click to expand...
:jaw-dropp Lack of evidence? Where have you been?

After two attacks on the WTC, do you think people are going to continue their visit to the capitol as normal, casually strolling along taking photos of the Pentagon? There is nothing strange about the scant photographic evidence of the crash itself.

How much photographic evidence is there of the first plane to hit the WTC?

How about all the other evidence? There's scads of it.
 
Azrael 5 said:
Being Devil's Advocate here,isn't it odd that most Americans and tourists have cameras(still and video) surgically attached to them,yet all we have of the crash is a few time lapse images?
The Pentagon crash is something that has always intrigued me,due to lack of evidence of a plane probably.
Click to expand...
Lack of evidence? What in the world do you mean?

And look at all the photos that were taken within a minute or two of the crash. Several people had cameras there. They just didn't happen to have them on and pointing at the plane as it approached at 600-800 feet per second.

eta: didn't mean to sound rude there. Check the "Pentagon" section of my "Loose Change" analysis, linked below.
 
No offence taken Gravy.I was referring to pics of the plane approaching actually.But anyway its no matter as Im not a CT,just a thought...*goes to hide*
:D
 
Luke T. said:
The average rational person can usually be dissuaded from falling for a conspiracy theory with one good question.

For the lunar landing hoax CT, it's, "If the government can't keep one guy's blowjob in the Oval Office a secret, how are they going to keep thousands and thousands of people from telling they took part in a lunar landing hoax going on more than 3 decades now?"

For the 9/11 CT, it's, "Where are the passengers of Flights 77 and 93?"

Anyone else is just too whacked to even bother talking to.
Click to expand...
I want to revisit your post, Luke.

A CTer would likely answer your question regarding the passengers with more (unverified) nonsense: they were whisked away and killed, or some such.

Let's instead try this:
  • Given the enormity of what a US govt.-planned and executed event such as 9/11 would require
  • Given its supposed rationale (to rally support for the present administration, as well as provide the groundwork/excuse to invade Iraq)
To me, two rather more persuasive questions regarding a 9/11 "inside job" present themselves:

- Where was/is the follow-up attack on this country, presumably necessary to keep its citizens on the side of the administration and their cause?
- Would it not be extremely easy to plant evidence of WMD in Iraq in order to justify the invasion after all?
 
As Paxman pointed out last night, the time available to catch the Pentagon plane was very short. And Washington has a lot fewer people around than central NY. There were only two catches of the first plane that hit the north WTC tower, one very bad indeed and the other an almost miraculous coincidence (the French documentary maker having a camera running and in line of sight of the tower when he heard the aircraft noise).

The many good shots of the second plane that hit the south tower tend to lead us into a false impression as to how likely it is that something like that might be caught on camera. Of course, many people were already looking at and filming the burning north tower (with the south tower in shot) when the second plane came in.

The matter for wonder isn't that so few images of the other events exist, it's that the north tower strike was caught at all.

Rolfe.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Ugh, does that mean the JREF forum will be the Donald Sutherland of the 'net, alone and crying in the middle of a sea of CT websites?
Click to expand...

And instead of Brook Adams shriveling into compost in your arms, her head spins around and she repeats "free fall, free fall, free fall" over and over again.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
I want to revisit your post, Luke.

A CTer would likely answer your question regarding the passengers with more (unverified) nonsense: they were whisked away and killed, or some such.

Let's instead try this:
  • Given the enormity of what a US govt.-planned and executed event such as 9/11 would require
  • Given its supposed rationale (to rally support for the present administration, as well as provide the groundwork/excuse to invade Iraq)
To me, two rather more persuasive questions regarding a 9/11 "inside job" present themselves:

- Where was/is the follow-up attack on this country, presumably necessary to keep its citizens on the side of the administration and their cause?
- Would it not be extremely easy to plant evidence of WMD in Iraq in order to justify the invasion after all?
Click to expand...

I was talking about the average rational person. Not CTer's. CTer's fall in the "too whacked to even bother talking to" category . :)

To reach the obvious conclusion that the passengers had to have been killed requires a level of belief beyond the pale. Thus, too whacked.

I think a rational person would see the point and realize the whole thing falls apart around that obstacle.
 
Rolfe said:
Another item of interest was a computer simulation of the crash produced by a university, in which they looked at the structure of the building and the damage done and worked out how the plane had to have hit.
Click to expand...
You mean this one?

video-pentagon-boeing.gif
 
Last edited:
Patricio Elicer said:
You mean this one?

[qimg]http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/gif/video-pentagon-boeing.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...


Am I imagining things or are the wheels out on that plane?
*(first frame of the animation)

if it was a computer sim why would they need to have wheels extended?

*After looking at it some more I think I am imagining that.


Edited to add: *comments
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
Another item of interest was a computer simulation of the crash produced by a university, in which they looked at the structure of the building and the damage done and worked out how the plane had to have hit. This clearly showed how the wings were pretty much ripped off by structural columns, and concluded that the plane must have been pretty much daisy-cutting when it hit - essentially on a landing trajectory, close to touchdown. It was then pointed out that the video clip showed exactly what the simulation predicted.

But of course the BBC and Jeremy Paxton are all in the pay of the CIA or something, I suppose.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

That would probably be the work done at Purdue University. First they used FEA simulations to predict what would happen to the plane and the building structure. Then they used CGI to create an animation of the results which looked more realistic than the FEA output.

One thing I found particularly interesting was the way in which they worked up from a relatively simple scenario (a mass of fluid striking a single column) through stages of greater complexity until finally running a simulation of the entire plane and the area of impact. Another thing that struck me was the way the computing power and time needed escalate as the models become bigger and more complex.

Anyway, the sims and CGI animation can be found here:

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/
 
Something they didn't seem to account for in that analysis is the reinforced exterior wall. It seemed to be a simulation of the jet hitting the internal support columns only. What tells me this is that the wings enter the building, and they didn't on Flight 77. Also, the nose seems to go in deformed only by the columns it hits, withough accounting for the fact that the cockpit would have been mostly smashed just penetrating the wall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom