911 Pentagon

[Jerry Russell]

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 vote with Richard here. There's plenty of air (or actually, window glass) between the columns. No need to be qualitative, and talk about "plenty" vs. "almost no" space. One could measure the relative proportion of air and steel from these photographs.

I made a small illustration for you :

No damage by the tail? Quite the contrary!

YES, MUUUUUCH stronger !

Again I doubt it. Steel may have more strength per volume, but the wood is thicker. As Richard explained, the mass also matters in impact situation.

Do you know how to do these computations, Suchender? I've been through this in engineering school, have you?

 

[Jerry Russell]

Suchender, think about it this way. Suppose it's true that there were no actual planes, and that the videos were fake, and the damage to the building was by demolition.

If that's all true, why would they create the fake tableau in a way that looks like basic laws of physics have been violated? Considering that they have all the money in the world, wouldn't they make it look as realistic as possible?

 

[Richard Stanley]

1. The fuselage of a 767 has a width diameter of 16.5 feet, not ~30 feet as shown in your deceptive graphic.
2. Based upon item 1, your depicted tail fin is much too tall.
3. Unlike the wings, tail fins do not need to support the entire weight of the plane, and therefore do not need to be as structurally strong.
4. I am not going to take the time to try to analyze your lateral placement of the plane's cross-section, but there is indeed an indentation in the columns to the left of where you are depicting (and Jerry caught this also in his graphic).
5. Your bottom graphic is showing the plane crashing into the lower atrium section of the building, where the (fewer) columns are necessarily much, much thicker.

Not impressed by your abilities as a structural engineer.

The philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote: “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”

 

[Suchender]

..... that the videos were fake, and the damage to the building was by demolition.

If that's all true, why would they create the fake tableau in a way that looks like basic laws of physics have been violated? Considering that they have all the money in the world, wouldn't they make it look as realistic as possible?

I guess all they do is for educational purposes !

If people don't get it, then they will get more of the same !

You can call it a parody !
.

 

[Suchender]

1. I vote with Richard here.
2. No damage by the tail? Quite the contrary!

View attachment 425

1. Again I doubt it. Steel may have more strength per volume, but the wood is thicker. As Richard explained, the mass also matters in impact situation.
2. Do you know how to do these computations, Suchender? I've been through this in engineering school, have you?

1) Physics can be determined by voting ?!

2) That tiny thing is supposed to be the tail ? That is the 'cut' by the tail ? It looks like the tail should have fallen off of the facade !

3) Both of you are wrong. Do a little experimentation with a full can of beer

4) Yes, I had classes on structural engineering, though it was just a part of my study of architecture. No, I'm not a computation guy, rather 'comon sense'.

ALL of this is just noise, rather unimportant aspects of the operation by the insiders we know as a 'terrorist plot' !
Even though it was done in a sloppy way and there are many inconsistencies and violations of physics, the whole operation is still a great success !
This thing is a great example what TV propaganda can do !
It turns humans with brains into idiots / zombies. The perfect cannon fodder.....

The DEMORALIZATION is complete and irreversible !

 

[Jerry Russell]

1) Physics can be determined by voting ?!

Physics is determined by physical reality, but sadly it doesn't always speak for itself. Thus, we humans create tools such as math and logic, institutions such as universities and research institutes and corporations, and processes such as experiments and peer review, all trying to produce something known as "scientific consensus". When consensus prevails, most everybody who is qualified to have an opinion, is in agreement about the physics.

Physics can be determined by Suchender's common sense and strongly held opinion?

2) That tiny thing is supposed to be the tail ? That is the 'cut' by the tail ? It looks like the tail should have fallen off of the facade !

Yes, it's obvious that it's either the damage caused by the tail, or else the perps intended it to look that way. Your drawing said that there was no damage caused by the tail, and your circle was placed over a location where there was no damage.

So now can we agree that the green circle on my drawing shows the alleged damage by the tail?

It does look to me like only the core part of the tail was solid enough to split the facade of the building, while the tip of the tail "fell off" or was smashed without penetrating. That is, if indeed there really was an airplane.

3) Both of you are wrong. Do a little experimentation with a full can of beer

Both of us are right. QED. I prefer a glass of Oregon Riesling.

4) Yes, I had classes on structural engineering, though it was just a part of my study of architecture.

Excellent. We share a common knowledge base for our discussion. It's easy to forget how much social and personal investment goes into a "higher education", to bring us to a point where we can even understand the issues under debate. Everybody can have an opinion based on common sense, but intuitive "folk physics" is sometimes mistaken.

Seriously, we all are just expressing our opinions, based on educated engineering common sense, and sparse and questionable data.

And furthermore, Richard and I aren't claiming to have all the data, and to have done all the necessary computation to prove our point. All we're saying is that the images look like plausible depictions of what we imagine might happen if the airliners hit the WTC buildings.

Suchender: if you claim that the images are inconsistent with the laws of physics, isn't it your burden of proof to demonstrate? That is, it's up to you to provide the facts, models, computations and/or experiments that would conclusively persuade any well-educated, unbiased person, that your position is correct?

ALL of this is just noise, rather unimportant aspects of the operation by the insiders we know as a 'terrorist plot' !

I agree that it is rather unimportant, except that you've devoted significant space here to debating the point, and accused us of being bad structural engineers. Them's fighting words Even though we are, in fact, not the best structural engineers (I had maybe one class that touched briefly on structures, and read a book and some articles, but my degree is in EE....)

It turns humans with brains into idiots / zombies. The perfect cannon fodder.....

The DEMORALIZATION is complete and irreversible !

I'm not a demoralized zombie. Are you??

Though I confess to being cannon fodder. Just two miles from the Eugene airport, which is no doubt targeted by Russian ICBM's. My wife keeps bugging me to build a bomb / fallout shelter, but I've been procrastinating about that. So... cannon fodder.

 

[Suchender]

I'm not a demoralized zombie. Are you??

Both of you are not demoralized, and I consider myself niether !
Otherwise you would not do Postflaviana, and I would not read it and profit from your work !

Thank you, Jerry and Richard !

(how can I send virtual flowers ?)

 

[Richard Stanley]

2) That tiny thing is supposed to be the tail ? That is the 'cut' by the tail ? It looks like the tail should have fallen off of the facade !

Yes, either literally .. or it was made to represent such. As Jerry suggested, the perpetrators have access to large amounts of black money, and, yes, they have computational 'guys'. For instance, they would have looked at the building plans and known that the columns were spaced at about 3'3" on center. And then they would know how large the 767 fuselage, wings, and tail fin 'impressions' should reasonably appear.

3) Both of you are wrong. Do a little experimentation with a full can of beer

This is another problem .... with such folk modeling - that I have seen. To do such properly one needs to properly represent the projectile and target material characteristics, and the velocity involved. To use a beer can to represent a wing, then you'd need to fabricate a properly representative wall that matches the scaled characteristics of the box columns, at least. And then launch the beer can at the wall at several hundred miles per hour towards this wall, which is also properly buttressed from behind.

The wall characteristics, including the buttressing, forces most all of kinetic impact force to be localized to the immediate impact site. In the case of the WTC towers, one should think somewhat of an analogy to a metal hole punch, as one should be considering the shear strength of the structural components -- compared to the localized kinetic energy applied -- in a very short span of time.

The Sugano et al. (1992) report (see link below) demonstrated that a jet aircraft should be converted into confetti, -- when hitting a solid concrete block. It says nothing about what happens when hitting a wall made of hollow steel box columns (which can be deformed and sheared along with their connecting bolts).

https://www.911-strike.com/missing-confetti.htm

4) Yes, I had classes on structural engineering, though it was just a part of my study of architecture. No, I'm not a computation guy, rather 'comon sense'.

'Common sense' is usually trumped by Uncommon Sense.

ALL of this is just noise, rather unimportant aspects of the operation by the insiders we know as a 'terrorist plot' !
Even though it was done in a sloppy way and there are many inconsistencies and violations of physics, the whole operation is still a great success !
This thing is a great example what TV propaganda can do !

I agree with you here. But you and others are wading through the minefield of photographic evidence, with your 'common sense', and providing fodder to the variously motivated deniers.

Jerry and I used the Sugano report to argue that there is a problem with the reported claim of metal confetti outside the Pentagon, as to how the claims specified. The claims seemed based upon the results of the Sugano experiment, but the building walls are, once again, not at all the same as the concrete block in the experiment. I suspect that this is one reason so many people have created and spread the mythos that the Pentagon outer walls were constructed like a medieval fortress.

I do not know what the impact videos should look like, because there is no representative imagery, that I know of, to compare with. But imagine, if real planes were involved, and that the aim of the perpetrators was more to sow confusion and muddy the waters, that they created videos that show visual flaws in the physics. What would be the result among the public? I'd guess that we'd be where we are today.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Box columns and the WTC towers.

In various photos of the debris, one can see select outer wall box columns that were bent and sheared. One can thus see the .25" wall thickness of the column material. Such as a box column (or I-beam) is utilized because it dramatically saves weight (and cost) over a solid column of equal structural strength.

While it is known that the Twin Towers design took into account the potential impact of a 707 airliner of the day, this does not mean that such an airliner was meant to be prevented from penetrating the locality of the impact. Rather, supposedly the building was meant to survive the impact, presumably allowing it to be repaired. Until the collapses, the two towers did survive, but that is a totally different story. But in any case, the collapses followed the supposed design intent, i.e. within their approximate footprint.

The two planes, or alleged planes, are shown approaching the buildings at a slight angle, not completely head-on.

The upper level, outer wall box columns were square in profile, and anyone who has studied geometrical forms understands that a perpendicular square or rectangle is so not strong when a non-perpendicular force is applied to it laterally. In this case, the angular force will apply leveraged pressure to the 90 degree bends in the box columns. These bends become the localized weak points in the column system (ignoring the bolts here), and the localized box columns under force will become quickly flattened, and hence lose the relative structural strength they had when square. The box column is transformed into 4 sheets of steel aligned in the same geometric plane.

This is the main point of this post, but in any case, in addition to and after this flattening, the various weak points in the local structure are placed under heavy stress, much too quickly for the planes' aluminum and fuel to be displaced in time. At these weakest points in the structural 'chain', these components will bend and shear, creating the holes seen.

Every skyscraper has to contend with the lateral forces of wind. The Twin Towers were known to sway, uncomfortably to some people. In such instances, the lateral force of the wind is disbursed over the whole height and breath of the structure, even if the winds are in effect at the highest floors. But, in the case of a high speed, high mass impactor, the force is localized, creating the crude effect of a metal punch. And the surrounding and backing structural elements do not perform in the same dynamic way as they do in the case with the wind.

 

[Suchender]

Yes....they have computational 'guys'. For instance, they would have looked at the building plans and known that the columns were spaced at about 3'3" on center. And then they would know how large the 767 fuselage, wings, and tail fin 'impressions' should reasonably appear.

This is another problem .... with such folk modeling....

With all of this being a strong case not to use real airplanes at all !!
Less 'piloted' by some untrained dudes ! (even experiences piplots say they could not exercise this plecision !)
Everything could go wrong !

Much better is just to fake the airplanes and 'paint' the nonexistent impacts on the walls.
(real withnesses didn't see real airplanes, just crisis actors 'saw' them)

This is what they did, Richard !
Plus lots of images and REPETITION on TV !

Remeber the 'war' in Albania ?
.

 

[Richard Stanley]

This is what they did, Richard !
Plus lots of images and REPETITION on TV !

Quite possibly so. The problem in proving this one way or the other, because all the physical 'crime scene' evidence was destroyed and such, is what made Jerry and I decide to focus on other 9/11 aspects, rather than the planes (or no planes, or whatever) at the Twin Towers. Even if there were indeed no planes at the Twin Towers, it is possible to argue that such planes could have been flown remotely into the buildings.

Did you know, "as Miss Kitty was fond of saying", that such airliners in 2001 were routinely landed at airports with no pilot hands involved? Flying large planes remotely has been an effort since WWII, when it is alleged that JFK's older brother, Joseph, died in an accident involving such efforts.

 

[Suchender]

Did you know, that such airliners in 2001 were routinely landed at airports with no pilot hands involved?

Yes, I know that.
I also saw an interview with a very expireneced military pilot John Lear who said that method was not good enough to pilot real airplanes to hit the desired target right in the center !

He did dismiss this possibility.
Since he is an expert in this subject, I have to accept his opinion until another expert will demonstrate that such thing was indeed possible to accomplish !

He also dismissed the possibility of real airplanes on other factors I didn't see discussed anywhere.
.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Yes, I know that.
I also saw an interview with a very expireneced military pilot John Lear who said that method was not good enough to pilot real airplanes to hit the desired target right in the center !

What was the desired target? Neither building was struck in its lateral center. Interestingly, except for the height difference, based upon the images provided of the holes, the lateral approach and banking utilized is pretty much the same.

He did dismiss this possibility.
Since he is an expert in this subject, I have to accept his opinion until another expert will demonstrate that such thing was indeed possible to accomplish !

Commercial airliners used the less accurate GPS capability, while the military had at its disposal then, two more highly accurate aviation systems.

As Lear mentions holograms, I have wondered the same in the last few years. Holograms have been used more recently (such as on the Jimmy Kimmel Show) to have real people, separated by thousands of miles, seeming to appear on stage (to live audiences and on TV) with each other, at both of their respective locations.



A friend took this photo, which I have cropped, in Los Angeles not long ago:

 

[Richard Stanley]

I agree that the Lear interview is very good in presenting other reasons to suspect that the official story is not remotely possible. However, the issue of how such a plane may or may not enter a building is not one of them IMHO. (That a human pilot would have difficulty, and that such planes don't fly that fast at that altitude is a different story).

At 23+ minutes is shown the Sugano experiment, and, contrary to the commentator, the jet fighter appears to melt into the solid concrete block. It doesn't really, because it shreds into confetti. But for appearance sake, the rear of the plane doesn't appear to the naked eye to decelerate or crumple.



Much is made about how a car is shredded, but look at what happened to the 1" thick metal plate. The box columns were only .25" thick.

At the time that we were involved in 9/11 research, I don't remember the NYC engine being identified. And if this is not a 767 engine then this would be significant. If it is 'only' the wrong MFR for the airline, then I wonder what MFR engine the KC767's were built with?

When researching the Pentagon, we were fortunate to have a airline mechanic get us the proper drawings for an AA 757 engine and they matched the engine component seen in the pictures. However, there was also an engine rotor component that had been carried outside, and could not be a part of the 757.

Lear's explanation about Building 7 and Flight 93 seems as good as any to me about what happened there. That the holographic projector failed and so they had to run the demolition without the illusion of an impact.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Holograms have been used more recently (such as on the Jimmy Kimmel Show) to have real people, separated by thousands of miles, seeming to appear on stage (to live audiences and on TV) with each other, at both of their respective locations.

This is a technical tour de force, to be sure. But, the stage is a controlled environment. Stage lighting can be relatively subdued. The observers are confined to a well defined (though fairly broad) point of view. And, lasers and mirrors and diffractive devices can be positioned at will, behind and around the stage.

The reason this has only started to happen recently, is because these computer-controlled holographic devices have just recently been developed, at least as far as we know in the public domain. Haha, true animated holographic projectors still don't exist. It's a trick called "Pepper's Ghost", involving a reflection from a glass panel.

The original Pepper’s Ghost optical illusion involves placing a large piece of glass at an angle between a brightly lit “stage” room into which viewers look straight ahead and a hidden room. The glass reflects the hidden room, kept dark, that holds a “ghostly” scene. When the lights in the hidden room are slightly raised to illuminate the scene, the lights in the stage room are slightly dimmed, and the apparition appears to the audience....​

​

Today, through a type of extremely high-quality video projection technology that combines motion capture technology with 3D computer-generated imaging (CGI), “digital doubles” of celebrities and political world leaders can be virtually projected to large crowds by displaying the graphics through a large-scale Pepper’s Ghost contraption.​

​

It's not so easy to imagine how to do the trick for an entire city of viewers spread through all angles, in broad daylight, and with nowhere to hide the optical equipment.

...the holographic projector failed and so they had to run the demolition without the illusion of an impact.

The holographic projector didn't exist and so they had to run the demolition without the illusion of an impact.

What other good reasons does Lear give, to indicate that it is "not remotely possible" that the perps used 757's (or KC767's) at the WTC?

 

[Suchender]

It's not so easy to imagine how to do the trick for an entire city of viewers spread through all angles, in broad daylight, and with nowhere to hide the optical equipment.

Unless they used something really exotic, the easiest way to do the illusion is to doctor videos and add an 'airplane'. This way everyone watching TV will 'see' something that was never there.
I haven't seen a video where people are reacting to the second 'incoming' plane by jumping or/and pointing fingers in the right direction and screaming expecting another 'impact'.

The reaction is always when the explosion happens !
THEN they go crazy !

And the targeted audince (99% of the population) never noticed this detail !
(I include myself)
.

 

[Jerry Russell]

I haven't seen a video where people are reacting to the second 'incoming' plane by jumping or/and pointing fingers in the right direction and screaming expecting another 'impact'.

The reaction is always when the explosion happens !
THEN they go crazy !

Maybe they don't scream until the impact, because they aren't expecting an impact. They just see a plane flying around. It doesn't seem that unexpected, that a plane would visit the scene to do surveillance.

The woman operating the camera, promptly explains that she saw the plane in her viewfinder and she has the plane on tape. So she is either an honest eyewitness to the plane, or an actor who is lying on behalf of the perps.

If she had been planted as a "crisis actor" she could've screamed as she saw the plane approaching, even knowing that the plane didn't really exist.

If indeed this video is a fake, then the perps thought it was more realistic for the observers to maintain silence until the plane hit.

I'm more inclined to take this as evidence that the plane did exist.

 

[Ruby Gray]

Well, Dick Eastman's (Venezuelan) Citgo station witnesses stated the plane flew to the north of the Citgo station, over Arlington Cemetery. This flight path makes it easier to approach the sideways runway at Reagan National, where the Arlington County After Report said there was a landing incident during all the rush to get planes landed.

Hi Richard,
If I may digress back to the topic of this thread ...

Dick Eastman officially washed his hands of his earlier flyover position, did he not? And left the movement?

As a latecomer and Antipodean, I missed all the early years excitement, including anything Eastman-related. Except for his email exchange with William Lagasse. Who, it may interest you to know, is now running a donkey rescue sanctuary.

But I am wondering about your comment on Eastman's Venezuelan Citgo eyewitnesses.
Was this pre - CIT? I guess it must have been.
So did this include Robert Turcios?
I thought Ranke and Marquis (since by definition "CIT" did not exist until late 2007) were the first to interview Turcios, and that he was the only Citgo employee to witness the NOC plane?
Were there others then?
Do you have these statements?

 

[Jerry Russell]

Dick Eastman officially washed his hands of his earlier flyover position, did he not? And left the movement?

Eastman still has an active Yahoo group, the same one that has been open since 2001, here:

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/frameup/info

And, a Vimeo channel, here:

https://vimeo.com/user38670192

The last email I have from Eastman in my inbox is from 2013, promoting a debate with Jim Fetzer. I can't find any evidence that Eastman ever renounced the flyover position, or left the "movement", but he did say that the leaders of the "movement" are corrupt.

The Fetzer debate is also discussed here --

https://jamesfetzer.org/2013/08/the-debate-over-9-11-truth-dick-eastman-vs-jim-fetzer/

Eastman says:

I was the first to prove that witnesses were right about a large plane seen heading towards the Pentagon over the Naval Annex but that it flew over the Pentagon while bombs (see Barbara Honegger on bombs inside the Pentagon here and http://tinyurl.com/smokecurtain). ​

​

As of 2013, he does seem to have abandoned his earlier "missile theory" in favor of the simpler demolition view.

 

[Richard Stanley]

I'm sorry, I conflated Ranke and Marquis witness(es?) with Eastman's efforts with Lagasse. Perhaps Jerry remembers differently, but I thought that Aldo Marquis said there was more than one Citgo witness. (Not Venezuelan individuals, but rather Citgo is a Venezuelan oil company -- part of today's drama there).

Eastman got pissed off and left the movement for some time, then briefly came back and left again (at least being in active discussions as Jerry's post shows). But I don't remember him abandoning his flyover theory.

I can't remember when CIT became a 'thing'. I just remember that Aldo got ahold of Jerry, maybe from 911-strike or some other contact and told us about their efforts, their investigative trip to DC. As I remember, Aldo told us they had more than one witness at the Citgo station that confirmed the northern flight path. I don't remember whether this was via phone or email.