911 Pentagon

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Getting back to the context: the damage to the Pentagon (as shown in various photographs) indicated that the brick & masonry were penetrated by the fuselage, inner wings and engines. The hole was "too small" only in the sense that the wingtips & the tail didn't penetrate the building. So, only the wingtips and tail were too light & frail to penetrate, but must have reflected instead.
Or, instead of "reflected", these appendages were bent back and drawn into the building, or a combination of both? Or more likely:
Or: if there was no 757 impact, then the perpetrators did a credible job of imitating the damage that a real 757 might have done to the facade.
I believe this is exactly what we stated at the conclusion of The Five-Sided Fantasy Island.

The problems are not with the entry hole so much, as with the issues involved with the official story's flight approach to the building. The following is a view from the top of the Naval Annex. One can see that the plane needed to dive down from above the approximate ground height of the Naval Annex, hit the 5 lamp posts, barely miss the overhead highway sign (in the lower right corner), and conveniently leave the outside footprints of the 757 engines, ... all so that it could enter the building's first and second floors. The two floors that just so happened to provide covered access all the way to the back of the C-Ring. As I have stated before, there was no requirement for terrorists to take this approach, but there would be if one wanted to stage the event in a freshly 'refurbished' section of the building.

I think we should call this The Case of Too Much Plausible Deniability, as in the Case of the Man Who Protesteth Too Much.

415

417

BTW, as seen above, the official story's flight approach would place the plane in clear view of all the traffic on the main highway (395), and other than Gary Bauer, where all all these eyewitnesses?

416

And, from the above two views, note the much greater visibility to the public if the building had been more logically approached from any other direction (except over Arlington National Cemetery which is out of view to the left), and from which juicier targets in the building would have been afforded. Juicer than a mostly empty, just renovated, wedge provided that is.

Contrast the above to this view from over the cemetery:

418

From this view above the cemetary, one cannot even see highway 27 below the bluff in front of the building. An overflight plane could appear out of seeming nowhere and once above the building veer sharp to the right for a landing at Reagan National's transverse runway. Many people, indoors at this time, were likely glued to their television sets looking at the destruction in NYC, rather than looking out their windows.
 

Suchender

Member
How long does a vortex persist after the airplane passes? How long did it take for the explosive clouds to take shape after the impact?
There MUST be SOME kind of vortex after the explosion / impact on BOTH towers !
(where is it ?)

Something like this (real) airplane does :
.
 

Suchender

Member
Those vortexes were caused specifically by the plane's propellers. But in any case, so what about these claimed vortexes?
Immediately after the explosion 2 vortexes have to hit the smoke and set it in rotation, Richard.

Or did the "terrorists" steal the air around the towers to prevent the vortexes to disturb the smoke ???

What is so complicated about it ???
.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Easy for you to find more immediate reactions on that day. Like this one :
In Suchender's video links, several more witnesses say there was no plane. And, Dan Dahler was caught switching his story an hour later, saying he saw the plane, when earlier he clearly said he didn't.

I did not know this.

I said:

I don't have much patience for no-plane scenarios.
OK, I am hereby retracting my former position.

From now on, I fully accept all no-planers as "911 Truth Advocates" in good standing. I am not going to argue any more, in favor of the existence of those WTC impact planes.

Let the advocates of the official story come forth with evidence that they really existed. Or, let those who wish to spend their time & energy seeking consensus within the 911 truth movement, continue to argue about it.

This particular aspect of 911 has never been a specialty of mine, and I've never spent much time researching it. It's still hard for me to believe that all the footage of the 2nd plane impact, from so many vantage points, was all faked. I was never convinced by the arguments about the relative strength of the wall vs. the plane, and I never saw any basis to believe it was some sort of mass holographic illusion.

But if several eyewitnesses said the planes weren't there, then maybe they weren't there.

I will take a position of 911 WTC plane agnosticism, and curiosity.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Immediately after the explosion 2 vortexes have to hit the smoke and set it in rotation, Richard.

Or did the "terrorists" steal the air around the towers to prevent the vortexes to disturb the smoke ???

What is so complicated about it ???
OK, I see what you're getting at now. I was thinking in the context of what I had mentioned just prior about a proposed singular vortex inside the Pentagon, and I was confused by your original graphic, as it is looking to the west, perpendicular to the 'alleged' flight of the plane.

If this normal effect should be observable in these views, I would guess that it would not be so much in effect to the fireball and smoke directly in front of the building, i.e. the east face, or to the right or north of the building.

In watching the A380 vortexes, it seems to me that the vortex action shown is relatively weak and short lived, but the point is now well taken. I wonder if there are any available videos (such as scaled down in a laboratory) of air vortexes being carried through such as a fireball for reference?
 

Suchender

Member
...I was confused by your original graphic, as it is looking to the west, perpendicular to the 'alleged' flight of the plane...... I wonder if there are any available videos (such as scaled down in a laboratory) of air vortexes being carried through such as a fireball for reference?
1) It was the best image I could find. Even looking perpendicular, there must be enough movement of the smoke ! Just not seen as a perfect rotation...

2) I did encounter a video of a militar jet flying through a fireball explosion similar to that in my image of WTC. The rotation of the smoke was dramatic, not just some ! I was trying to find that particular video, but was unable to :-(
I will try again.
 

Suchender

Member
All aluminum parts of the facade are flying outward with force...... No sign of an 'impact' where the force is directed into the tower. Instead the parts are flying in the opposite direction.

The flame does not look like a 'fireball' of burning kerosine. That initial flame has a direction ->>>
.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
All aluminum parts of the facade are flying outward with force...... No sign of an 'impact' where the force is directed into the tower. Instead the parts are flying in the opposite direction.

The flame does not look like a 'fireball' of burning kerosine. That initial flame has a direction ->>>
.
It does seem like most all of such a fireball should be carried forward by the momentum of a large plane. But how to know what is correct, based upon the variables of such as how much fuel is in the wings, and our limited experience for reference. This as seems like it could be experimentally simulated fairly easily.

A rather strange 'airplane' :
.
This one is problematic. For one thing, he is trying to make definitive analysis on his 'original' which clearly has a lot of digital compression 'artifacts', which is a big problem with fast moving objects, particularly on the digital technology of the day. This is why the static elements can appear better and the moving object have aspects appear to come and go, particularly at the immediate background alters as the plane moves through it. The compression algorithms can't keep up. While one can say that this phenomenon is being taken advantage of it doesn't allow me to come to a conclusion.

As I have done frequently before, I dispute this common notion that an airliner can't enter such a 'steel' frame building. The dynamics of kinetic energy of the plane will easily overcome the bolts that hold the hollow box column sections together. The wings have a liquid, the fuel, inside them and this liquid does not compress. So, for the immediate impact, it might as well be solid.

Funny that he, Truth Soldier, would include at the end a man saying that he saw a large grey plane, and that Truth Soldier even 'accidentally included a clip of a grey USAF tanker. Why didn't he just edit 'his mistake' out of the video?

While a l;ot of things are possible, I would not like to plan a mission that required two precision strikes of cruise missiles to overlay exactly with pre-planted demo charges. This even knowing that the military had extra precision GPS capability. I'm going to go out on a limb, as before, and say that two KC-767 (now KC-46) prototype tankers were used and that they were outfitted with such high precision GPS remote control capability.

As such, I believe in all or nothing approaches, either two 767s or full demolition with CGI.

In any case, I can't imagine why anyone would release computer doctored videos that have such as wings dissappear and re-apprear. One would have to offer that the fakers were trying to simulate digital compression artifacts, .... or that these are indeed compression artifacts.
 

Suchender

Member
While a lot of things are possible, I would not like to plan a mission that required two precision strikes of cruise missiles to overlay exactly with pre-planted demo charges. This even knowing that the military had extra precision GPS capability. I'm going to go out on a limb, as before, and say that two KC-767 (now KC-46) prototype tankers were used and that they were outfitted with such high precision GPS remote control capability.
The noses of both planes flew directly into secure computer rooms, sais Christopher Bollyn :

North Tower
.....on the 95th floor, Marsh & McLennan had a "large walled data center along north and east sides," according to the NIST report. And that's exactly where the plane hit – the north wall of the 95th floor.....

South Tower
..... if the 81st floor was a normal office floor of Fuji Bank, why doesn't the NIST report simply say so? Silence was all I ever received from NIST.
Then, out of the blue, a former bank employee came forward, a person who had visited the 81st floor on a weekly basis. His information explains more than he probably thought and provides us with a major clue about what really happened on 9-11. Fuji Bank had torn up the 81st floor, he said, and stripped it down to reinforce the trusses so that the floor could hold more weight....
"The whole floor was batteries," he said, "huge battery-looking things." They were "all black" and "solid, very heavy" things that had been brought in during the night. They had been put in place during the summer prior to 9-11, he said. But were they really batteries? "It's weird," he said. "They were never turned on." So, what really was on the 81st floor of WTC 2? What was in these heavy "battery-looking things?"....."Nobody worked on that floor," the source said about Floor 81. The whole floor was taken up with a "whole bunch of batteries" and "enclosed server racks" that were so tall that one could not see over the top of them. The enclosed server racks were locked and the only people who could open them were employees of the Shimizu Corp., he said.....

http://www.bollyn.com/9-11-planes-flew-directly-into-secure-computer-rooms-in-both-towers
 

Suchender

Member
I dispute this common notion that an airliner can't enter such a 'steel' frame building. The dynamics of kinetic energy of the plane will easily overcome the bolts that hold the hollow box column sections together. The wings have a liquid, the fuel, inside them and this liquid does not compress.
At 1.44 in this short video a wing can't overcome a pole. Instead it is sliced by the pole :
.
.
But on 9/11 a wing melted into / cut through a steel FRAME of much heavier 'poles' !!!!
.
421
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
At 1.44 in this short video a wing can't overcome a pole. Instead it is sliced by the pole :
The wing is sliced by the pole, yes. But it continues flying forward, with the momentum of the intact portions largely unchanged. And the pole is eventually sliced in half also, and the top half is pulled forward by the airplane as it falls. All of this is completely consistent with what we see with the WTC airplane videos: the airplane is sliced into pieces as it passes through the wall, and the wall is sliced up as well.

In the other video of the F-14 impact test, the block wall is much more solid than the aircraft, so it is heavily abraded but not penetrated. This illustrates that the outcome depends on the relative mass and strength of the objects involved in the collision.

Rick and I were involved in online debates about this issue back in ~2002 through 2005. One of the researchers involved in the debate was able to obtain actual engineering drawings of the WTC towers, and we got some plausible information about the wing spar design. It turned out that the wing spar was probably stronger than the WTC steel posts.

9/11 Violates Laws of Physics
These two videos are not too bad.

I'm not sure about the conclusion of the first one. They haven't really completed the proof of whether the downward momentum of building fragments would be sufficient to continue the collapse or not. But it's very plausible that it might not be.

This is a lot better than the early videos from AE911T, which showed Richard Gage making simplistic (that is, wrong) arguments using a couple of cardboard boxes.

I agree completely with the conclusion of the 2nd video, that the fragments of the building were thrown outwards with a surprising amount of horizontal and upward momentum.

Even a gravity-driven collapse would involve some degree of explosive energy, from snapping structural elements and accelerated combustion of building contents. So I don't consider this a conclusive proof, but again it's very plausible.

There's also forensic evidence that seems to point to nuclear fusion rather than chemical explosions -- see www.911u.org and my essay here at this site:

https://postflaviana.org/explosive-puzzle-nuclear-fusion-wtc-911/

But this is all speculation based on information drawn from questionable sources.

A funny video with a philosophical conclusion
I agree with the philosophical conclusion, but not so much with the physics.

I've long since given up hope of achieving any sort of consensus within the 911 truth "movement". But I still feel that oversimplified or wrong physics arguments do more harm than good. Real professionals aren't impressed, and 911 activists who repeat these wrong arguments can find themselves self-discredited.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
At 1.44 in this short video a wing can't overcome a pole. Instead it is sliced by the pole :
What happens when a steel automobile hits a wooden utility pole?
How fast was that plane going?
How much fuel were the wings loaded with?

But on 9/11 a wing melted into / cut through a steel FRAME of much heavier 'poles' !!!!
Again, you are speaking of 'relative' aspects. Is a hollow box column of 1/4 inch steel walls really stronger than a wooden utility pole?

When one is dealing with liquids, speed makes a difference. Because one needs time to displace a liquid. In slow motion a liquid is 'soft', but the higher the speed of impact it can act more like concrete, because it needs time to be displaced.

See those black rectangles at the top of that column section being assembled?

422

Those are holes ... so that workers can install bolts and nuts connecting to the assembly that will be above it. The whole columns are full of .... air. They are full of air to importantly save weight in such a tall structure.

See the space between each column? That is full of air as well, and this is one reason that the plane can 'appear' to melt into the building. But sooner or later, relatively speaking, the columns will give way.

I have previously noticed the occupants of the impact floors on the two towers (one of which was a company called The Beast). This would allow workers access to install demolition gear and other equipment into these floors. The column bolt access holes seem like a good means to position charges at different heights.

I am sympathetic to the view of no planes at the Twin Towers, but then why employ cruise missiles? Which that photographer guy who saw no plane also implied that he didn't see or hear a cruise missile right? Then there was the guy who saw the big grey [KC767] plane right?

It's just like the JFK assassination, where here they have provided multiple ways to see different means, as opposed to different groups of assassins. The confusion, as we're seeing with Trump, allows for a social paralysis to take place, letting politicians and law enforcement off the hook to take proper action.
 

Suchender

Member
See the space between each column? That is full of air as well, and this is one reason that the plane can 'appear' to melt into the building. But sooner or later, relatively speaking, the columns will give way.
No, you are totally wrong on this, Richard !
I see, you are a bad structural engineer ! LOL

In reality there is almost NO space / air between the columns for the wing (and the tail) !

I made a small illustration for you :

.
423

.

424
 
Top