Off Topic – Did this really happen?

[Borat]

You’re not gonna see anything in that video. That plane was moving at 500mph when it hit; the camera didn’t capture frequently enough to catch it in the air.

[no_such_reality]

Basij Mostazafan.

All I need to know about President Ahmadinejad is that he’s part of the Basij movement during the Iran-Iraq war. Sending waves of martyrs and children to clear minefields. To this day he aligns and revels in Basij propaganda frequently wearing the Basij black and white symbolic scarf in appearances.

Ahmadinejad is the culture of death.

[Anonymous]

You can see ‘something’ in that video, and what that something is isnt clear. I was able to screencapture the only frame containing that object in movement. And, that object in movement was the cause of the Pentagon explosion.

I find it hard to make out a 757 in this screen capture. The object is small and hugging the ground. Given its orientation in the video, I dont think that the object was transitioning from higher altitude flight to low level flight as an 757 might be flying. It looks like simply an object that is following the ground.

[jztz]

I agree with Borat, that the video snapshot was not frequent enough to capture a fast approaching airplane. Unfortunately, sometimes people throw in too many things that are slightly suspicious, but are quite explannable.

The biggest question marks for me are: a) how could all three buildings collaspe straight down with all signatures of a controlled demolition but none of a pure “pancaking” collapse due to some structural damage and gravity? Note that demolition requires well placed engergy sources to blow things up — what was how those WTCs went down. What provided that energy? not jetfuel ’cause they were burned quickly (the initial fireballs). Even if the jetfuel provided some energy, the mix (fuel + Oxygen) was random (Oxygen was lacking as seen from black smoke) and concentrated at the impact site, not evenly distributed as it happened. b) why would there be smolten steel with residue of high-temperature demolition material? These facts require scientific investigation.

Another sign that makes the official story very suspicious was that they want to avoid these scientific investigation as much as possible. The formal report from National Institution of Standard (I think) stopped at explaining why the buildings collapse the way they did. In another word, it basically said that the planes likely made the structures weak and that led to collapse. Then it stopped there. If these weren’t controlled demolitions, then the government should organize the best scientists/engineers trying to figure it out why and how. But a formal report that didn’t even touch on why the buildings collapsed the way they did?

[Borat]

Brian, you’re not going to be able to make anything out because that camera is not designed to capture objects moving across its field of vision at 500mph only a few hundred feet away. It’s simply not fast enough, even if it happened to capture a frame with the object in the field of view. Exposures are not instantaneous; when objects move during exposure you will see image distortion. With film cameras this presents as blurring, and with digital cameras as aliasing. The object might appear smaller than it really was, it might appear bigger, or it might not appear at all. In either case, the medium doesn’t respond quickly enough to capture the information. Just because you don’t see a plane in that frame doesn’t mean that there wasn’t a plane. It just means that the camera wasn’t fast enough to record everything that happened.

[salo_t]

jztz, I agree that the snapshot in the video does not capture enough to give a complete accurate picture but its the only picture we have. So when people who were onsite said that it looked more like a missile strike than a full on 757 hit than the picture of the little object starts to raise a lot of questions like, what was it? Where are the seats and bodies and personal belongings? Where’s the black box? You see that stuff at any crash site but not this one. The second video I posted shows that the fire couldn’t have been hot enough to burn away everything because there was office furniture right next to the crash zone that was in perfect shape. All’s they found of the plane was the engine rotor and a piece of sheet metal. Plus, since when are 757’s built like bunker busters? The tip of that object penetrated through four columns of concrete and steel. From my limited knowledge of planes the front tip is hollow and houses the radar right? but it managed to make it through four columns of concrete and steel. Hell, the plane that hit the wtc tower even stoped in its tracks but not at the Pentagon.

[Borat]

salo_t, as I wrote earlier, the image from that security camera is worthless. And you see “that stuff” at other crash sites because the plane is usually not traveling at 500mph in other crashes. Most airliner crashes have been during takeoff or landing when speeds are lower and angle of approach is smaller. In that Pentagon crash you had a heavy jet moving 500mph slamming head-on into a wall. The energy difference is huge vs. an airliner on takeoff or landing at 150mph crashing at a shallow angle into the ground. This was not a typical airliner crash at all, which is why there’s not a lot of debris, most of it disintegrated and burned. And as to why it penetrated so far into the building, it was a large, heavy object carrying a tremendous amount of kinetic energy; it had to go somewhere.

[salo_t]

Borat, I don’t buy your theory that this crash was different. It could have hit at 1000mph and there would have been debris on the ground. 500mph is not so fast that it would cause everything to just disintegrate on impact. I have seen pictures of fighter jets that have crashed into the sides of mountains and there is plenty of usable evidence and even body parts.
Your stuck on the camera being the evidence when really its just a small part of the big picture.
Its fine if you want to believe that I’m a cook for thinking that this is bs. Plus I dont think anyone has mentioned anything about energy beams. All this is really hard for people to understand I was sickened when I first started to look into it. Nobody wants to believe something like this could happen but there are just too many problems with the stories we were given and the data thats available. Feel free to believe what you want to.

[jztz]

salo_t, I didn’t know other aspects about the Pentagon crash. You mean they didn’t discover bodies of the passengers who were supposed to be on that airplane?

For those who’re interested in this matter in a serious way, here is the official version — read the FAQs,
http://wtc.nist.gov/

THen read those disputing the NIST’s answers (right, roll down)
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

Rationally, I believe that the WTC implosion (collapse is not the right words, ’cause the buildings didn’t simply collapse, they imploded) can’t be caused 100% by the planes. Emotionally, I don’t know where I am — this is just too hard to believe.

[Anonymous]

A agree with the video being basically useless.

Why wont the Pentagon release a clear video to finally put this argument to rest? Recent FOIA requests have netted a few videos, all of which were as useless as the imfamous security camera shot. We know there were multiple DOT cameras and other security cameras in the area facing in the direction of the Pentagon. Surely, releasing a clear video shouldnt be that difficult.

[salo_t]

“And as to why it penetrated so far into the building, it was a large, heavy object carrying a tremendous amount of kinetic energy; it had to go somewhere.”

Again Borat, a soft object even when traveling at 500mph will hit a solid object and the energy will transfer into the wall not through it. I do a lot of shooting so this might help.
If you shoot a soft lead hollow point bullet at a cinder block the bullet will simply flatten out against the block. Much like the hollow shell of an aircraft.
Now if you shoot an armor-piercing bullet at the same cinder block the energy will be able to push the bullet much deeper and maybe even through.
The plane is a soft shell and not made of armor. Thats why bunker busters were even developed so we could blast through concrete and steel.

[no_such_reality]

So when people who were onsite said

What people on site?

Plus, since when are 757’s built like bunker busters?

Simple physics time. kinetic Energy = 1/2 *m v^2

Cruising speed of a 757 is .8 Mach. or 270. Intentional dive and crash speed will be faster.

Weight of a empty 757 = 65000KG

Weight of fuel in aircraft = 11466 gallons at 6.84 lbs or 3.1 Kg or 35,000 Kg of fuel.

total craft weight 100,000 KG.

Energy density for combustion (explosion) of jet Fuel = 42.8 MJ/kg or 42,800,00 J/Kg

Kinetic Energy = 0.5 * 100,000 * 270 * 270 = 3,645,000,000 J (Joules)

Energy of unused fuel at 80% remaining = 0.8*35000* 42,800,000 = 1,218,077,275,484 J

Energy of a ton of TNT explosive = 4,184,000,000 Joules.

TNT equivalent of plane was a Ton of TNT.
TNT equivalent of remaining fuel was 290 Tons of TNT

An Exocet missle, used to turn a ship in the Falkland islands war into a floating slag has a warhead equivalent of 1/6th a Ton TNT. So the plane by itself slammed into the building like 6 Exocets.

For a massive ordinance penatrator bomb (bunker buster) weighs 13,600 KG ( 1/7th of the plane weight) it’s warhead is 2.7 tonnes, 1/100th of the energy in the plane’s fuel.

[Anonymous]

And, here is the video of the F4 Phantom hitting a concrete block at 500 mph. Somebody referenced that video earlier.

Was the Pentagons outter wall reinforced like the concrete in the video? Would the 757 have then disintegrated like the F4 on impact leaving very little behind?

[Borat]

Yes, bullets deform on impact with a wall. Bullets weigh a few grams. A big jetliner weighs many tons. F=mA.

[salo_t]

NSR, all that data you posted still does not explain why the videos were confiscated, no existing black box, the reports of witnesses does not match anything the government is trying to tell us and the fact that there is little to no debris to suggest that a 757 actually crashed there.

The bullet hitting the brick was used as an example. You made a good observation Borat bullets do only weigh grams but if you put the idea to scale its a little more reasonable I think. A bullet hitting a single brick at mach speeds is similar to a 757 hitting a steel and concrete reinforced building that weighs millions of tons. Its not exact science by any means but what I was trying to show is that a soft shelled aircraft will more likely hit a building and cause a large impact of damage without substantially deep penetration. A bunker buster type missile would be the opposite. It would penetrate deeper and create a smaller cavity. looking at the photos the size of the impact does not look anything like a full size 757 flew into it. The small hole where the “plane” stopped is what begs the question. What on that plane was hard enough to keep moving and push through to the last wall? There wasn’t even any debris there that could have caused the last hole.
Even if the wings had sheered off while entering the building that would mean that the wing debris would be somewhere near by.

[Author]

Posts