F-4 Phantom Disintegrates On Impact
Click Here
Printable View
F-4 Phantom Disintegrates On Impact
Click Here
I found this a long time ago, and I was looking for it the other day... figured I'd post it.
Has anyone not seen this movie before?
seen it....but not sure why it has circulated the web so much. (i mean i have a theory)
is it supposed to tell us something? like that is why no plane survived the pentagon?
"even the tips of the wings survived" it says
no wings at all at pentagon, no nothing.
sorry that i keep trying to define my world with evidence and questions instead of faith in my government.
it defines me.
It shows that the idea of a plane disintegrating on impact is possible.
How does it show that? It does not show the aftermath, just the collision, do we have to assume it disintegrated and that there were no pieces of wreckage left?
Furthermore, its plain to see in that video that the wings do not fold up neatly into whatever size hole the nose of the plane makes.
Additionally, it is a much smaller plane hitting a target at 90 degrees under controlled circumstances. I honestly do not know how it can be compared to a huge passenger jet that hits a wall at a 40 degree angle.
The plane disintegrated, that's how it showed it. There are several factors that differ from the Pentagon. #1 was the wall at the Pentagon as strong a the wall used in this experiment? #2 The tips of the wings went past the wall because the wall's width was less than that of the plane. #3 It is not a passenger jet. The comparison, at best, is weak, however, it does show that it IS possible a plane can disintegrate on impact. It does not show that Flight 77 disintegrated on impact. The 85 videos currently stored by the Government might. I have ALWAYS thought it was dangerous of the movement to promote the Pentagon/Missile/Global Hawk/Something other than Flight 77 theory. Especially now that we've proven mathematically that it WAS possible that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. I just think any theory the Government is more than willing to "expose" in their critiques of the 9/11 Truth Movement, is a dangerous theory for us to promote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gold9472
no doubt you are right about promoting "iffy" theories.....
but i don't think they are hiding the videos just to spring them upon us to prove we are nuts.
they picked those videos up from the surrounding businesses quickly and put the pentagon videos away in their vault (or wherever)....as if they needed to hide something....i don't think they anticipated this one point so as to prove us wrong later....remember they only released those 5 frames of video after the Thierry Meyssan made his claim that is wasn't a boeing 757. they could have just released the all video. that would have ended the discussion quickly, and made the movement (once/if it sprang up) less effective.
there are many dangerous theories to promote, like the one saying Bush did it....i think that does real harm because it avoids the true nature of the beast...the corrupt corporate-government complex...our wonderful fascist state....gettin rid of bush does not solve the long term problems, it only provides short term solutions...plus it immediately turns off republicans and crazy, blind bush lovers.
as for the pentagon, i think it is much more damaging to the official story if we focus not on the "where is the plane" but rather the impossibility of the flight path for a 757, the horrible pilot the gov't has said was flying the plane, and the amount of time the plane was supposedly off radar without any interceptors being launched...follow that up with Norman Mineta's testimony about Cheney and the aides conversation, "the plane is 40 miles out, 30 miles out, etc"
if people were not so emotionally attached to the official story these questions would stick in their brain easily...but i've said before, people are more likely to accept visual evidence instead of using thought and reasoning to deduce that the official story is BS.
on a semi-related question: if remote control take-over of planes can turn off transponders, could it not also change the code to allow it to send a friendly signal which would allow it to penetrate the airspace over the pentagon without the anti-aircraft battery firing on it?
I don't know about this...This is nuclear proof concrete they are using in the vid it is rienforced with all sorts of expensive polymers, fibers and god knows what else. It was made for nuclear power plants in order to with stand melt downs as well as possibale attacks from missles or nukes, It actualy flexes and moves even though it is a meter thick. As far as I know it was developed in the 80's
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?8300619
The pentagon's construction stared exactly 60 years before sept 11 to the day
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/pentagon1.html
I really would be surprised if the same type of concrete at the same thickness was used in the construction.
The video proves that a really thick concrete wall designed to contain (presumably) a nuclear meltdown can withstand the impact of a small fighter.
It fucking well better stand up to a small fighter smacking into it.
The Pentagon walls, although "recently reinforced" do not look like like solid concrete walls, several yards thick to me.
Didn't "Flight 77" hit a "construction entrance" where work was still underway?
If "Flight 77" disintegrated upon impact, how did it then did fold up and neatly carry on through the hole it created upon impact, and leave a large "punch-out" hole inside the C-ring? Somehow the nose supposedly passed through support colums and walls and all that jazz and wound up on the driveway inside the C-ring, yet we have no photos of this miraculous occurence.
Why do NO photos show the impact areas on the facade of the Pentagon where the engines had to hit before they disintegrated? Or, did the engines, realizing they were doomed, spontaneously disintegrate before impact?
Why was at least one air traffic controller under the impression that "Flight 77" was a military plane, due to the precise maneuvers the plane conducted at high speed?
Hani Hanjour could barely wield a Cessna, yet we are to believe that on 9/11 he suddenly became a crack pilot who could wield a fully computerized commercial jet, flying it a few feet above the ground?
We are expected to believe that an inexperienced pilot perfectly compensated for the "ground effect" in a plane type he had never landed before.
We are supposed to believe that the two former Navy pilots, (Saracini and Burlingame), did not put up much of a fight, did not execute an 8-click "barrel roll"; (at 4th click, you are inverted; at 8th click, you are once again upright and straight and level; total maneuver time: 10 seconds) which would have sent their assailants head over heels smashing about the cabin.
Why are there no Arab names on the flight passenger lists for any of the hijacked planes?
And I don't why anybody is so quick to dismiss the concept of remote control. 100% total remote control, from liftoff to landing, of full-sized Boeing commercial jet aircraft (fitted with the appropriate gear), has been a practical reality since at least 1984 and probably further back than that.
I will address both rayray and reprehensor... I just have to get some coffee... I just woke up from a very long, and very relaxing nap... groggy...
All I've gotta say is Flight 77 had two 5 ton (I think) engines, one under each wing.
http://www.rense.com/1.imagesG/early_PentagonC.jpg
Riiiight... (said like Dr. Evil).
Anyway, I would never try to convince a skeptic of this, demolition of the towers is our best evidence. However, I will never believe 77 hit the Pentagon just because the gov't said it did. After all, the gov't also said 19 hijackers carried out the attacks alone, and we all know that is nonsense.
Flight 77 disappeared from radar hundreds of miles away, therefore it was not 77. Radar data IS evidence, and therefore is more valid than government hearsay. Therefore, based on this we must conclude that 77 did NOT hit the Pentagon.
Something DID hit the pentagon, and thats all we know for sure.
Look at it from this perspective... there are some very good points in these arguments. I don't even like Mark Robinowitz. He has been a prick to dz.
Meyssan and Rumsfeld manufacture the missile hoax
http://www.oilempire.us/state.html
The "no Boeing hit the Pentagon" claim is the most important and widespread 9/11 hoax. It was probably set up before the event since government agents seized surveillance camera videos within minutes of the crash (which is evidence for foreknowledge, but not for “no plane”). It is extremely unlikely that the conspirators who allowed (and assisted) 9/11 would not have taken care to create misdirecting hoaxes before the "attack," since they are very aware that large segments of the population would have suspicions about the events and therefore they would "need" to disrupt skeptical inquiry with red herrings, hoaxes, false dichotomies, etc.
This hoax is based on misrepresentation of photos taken shortly after the crash, ignoring of physical evidence and documented reports from hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw the plane. There is NO credible, verifiable evidence in support of ANY of the many and varied "theories" pretending that a plane did not crash into the Pentagon, and therefore, 9/11 was an inside job. See www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html for details.
It was first floated in early October 2001 by French author Thierry Meyssan and US War Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Monsieur Meyssan started a webpage that suggested a plane did not hit the Pentagon on October 7, and Rumsfeld gave an interview to Parade magazine on October 12 where he said a "missile" hit the Pentagon. That "missile" quote was then used by many no plane advocates as part of the campaign to draw attention to this claim. Meyssan went on to create the "Hunt the Boeing" website and then published two books "The Horrifying Fraud" (published in English as "9/11 The Big Lie") and Pentagate. These books have been translated into a total of 28 languages, which ensures that they are the dominant version of the claim suggesting complicity or conspiracy that is seen around the world.
On September 4, 2004, two months before the pseudo Presidential election, Parade magazine claimed that this quote was a mis-statement and the sole source for the no plane hoaxes, thus dismissing 9/11 "truth" to an audience of millions of voters.
www.pentagate.info/revue-en.html
Chronologie
Lundi 8 octobre 2001 : le Réseau Voltaire publie sur son site internet « Les mystères de l'attentat contre le Pentagone ».
translation: Monday October 8, 2001 - the Voltaire Network published on its internet site “The Mysteries of the attack on the Pentagon.”
This was the first website to suggest that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon.
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...1_t1012pm.html
Friday, Oct. 12, 2001
Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with Parade Magazine
(Interview with Lyric Wallwork Winik, Parade Magazine)
Q: This is a question that's been asked by many Americans, but especially by the widows of September 11th. How were we so asleep at the switch? How did a war targeting civilians arrive on our homeland with seemingly no warning?
Rumsfeld: There were lots of warnings. The intelligence information that we get, it sometimes runs into the hundreds of alerts or pieces of intelligence a week. One looks at the worldwide, it's thousands. And the task is to sort through it and see what you can find. And as you find things, the law enforcement officials who have the responsibility to deal with that type of thing -- the FBI at the federal level, and although it is not, it's an investigative service as opposed to a police force, it's not a federal police force, as you know. But the state and local law enforcement officials have the responsibility for dealing with those kinds of issues.
They [find a lot] and any number of terrorist efforts have been dissuaded, deterred or stopped by good intelligence gathering and good preventive work. It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center.
http://www.parade.com/aol/current/co...elligence.html
Parade magazine, September 4, 2004
In this week's "Intelligence Report," Lyric Wallwork Winik writes that 9/11 conspiracy theories are growing and that people from all walks of life believe them. How do these theories get started? ....
The Internet, too, is a potent tool for spreading conspiracy theories. PARADE found this out after Lyric Wallwork Winik interviewed Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in Oct. 2001. In a transcript of Winik's interview with Rumsfeld, which was published on the Department of Defense's Web site, Rumsfeld seemed to indicate that the Pentagon was hit by a missile on 9/11 instead of a plane. It turns out that a transcription error led to the confusion, but conspiracy theorists latched onto Rumsfeld's supposed admission and spread it over the Internet.
If this was really a “transcription error,” then why does the official Pentagon news service still have this quote on their website? Rummy’s “missile” quote was bait to set up the “no plane” hoax.
Sander Hicks and the 9/11 Truth Movement
http://www.pressaction.com/news/webl...ckeyz12062004/
When you have a sensitive topic here, when so much political power is involved, there's going to be a series of false reports, disinformation put forth to obscure the real story, red herrings to throw off the dogs. It happened in the JFK assassination, and it's happening now.
My quick analysis on how this is happening right now would be to point out two red herrings: The Pentagon Theory and the accusations of anti-Semitism. Paul Thompson of the 9/11 Timeline was on the Morning Sedition show and host Mark Marin dismissed the entire 9/11 Truth website by saying, "Oh, it’s one of those sites that say no plane hit the Pentagon." We're being judged by our weakest link. And it is pretty weak.
You had rush hour traffic on I-395 that saw the plane hit, you have 100 eyewitnesses compiled in the pamphlet published by Penny Schoner. Where the hell did this theory come from? Thierry Meyssan’s book "The Horrible Fraud" was the original source. Meyssan wrote his book from Paris, he didn't travel over here. The book is highly imaginative, and in the middle of a trauma, people are searching for answers. A lot of people in the 9/11 truth movement glommed onto this one and I think it’s hurt our credibility over all. You have to wonder if that was by design. For instance, all the right-wing magazines (e.g. National Review) have had a field day.
I've also seen media voices dismiss the entire topic of 9/11 questioning by sweeping it all into some kind of anti-Semitic whacko camp.
-- Sander Hicks (author, “The Big Wedding: 9/11, The Whistleblowers, and the Cover-Up,” http://www.sanderhicks.com
Physical Evidence: the hole in the “no plane” theories
The biggest claim for the no plane hoax is that the "hole" in the facade of the Pentagon was supposedly too small to have been created by a 757. Many of these claims state that photos taken during the half hour between the crash and the collapse of that part of the building show a hole merely 16 to 18 feet across. However, these photos show only the area hit by the fuselage of the plane, and the larger damage caused by the rest of the plane is obscured by firefighting foam and smoke. The hole on the ground floor (where the plane hit) is about 90 feet wide, with additional damage caused by the wingtips visible for tens of feet beyond the hole. The impact on the outside of the building was the size and shape of the cross-section of a 757. A number of photos and reconstructions documenting these facts are linked from http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html
The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics
by Jim Hoffman October 7, 2004
The idea that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon is easily the most controversial and divisive issue among researchers of the 9/11/01 attacks. Effectively promoted since early 2002, this idea has enjoyed an increasing acceptance in the 9/11 Truth Movement, despite its blatant incompatibility with the extensive body of eyewitness evidence that a 757-like twin-engine jetliner flew into the Pentagon and exploded.
Many researchers have ignored or dismissed this eyewitness evidence in favor of a seemingly overwhelming physical evidence case that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon, based on photographs of the crash site. As I show below, however, each of the pieces evidence adduced in favor of the no-757-crash theory can be reconciled with the crash of a 757.
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7384Quote:
Originally Posted by rayrayjones
Well, I've about had it with the division created by the notion that Thierry Meyssan and Dave Von Kleist are some sort of 5th column here to trip up the "9/11 Truth Movement".
The very notion itself is an unfounded Conspiracy Theory, which, compared to Meyssan's 'it wasn't a plane' theory, is wholly unsupported by any facts whatsoever.
In an irony too mind-numbing to be contrived, we find several 9/11 researchers in alignment with the US State Dept. assertion that, "Yes Virginia, Thierry Meyssan is a misinformation specialist."
And in the topsy-turvy Bizzarro universe which could only exist in a Neocon fever dream, the State Dept. web-site, (I shit you not), links to Rense.com to prove that Thierry Meyysan is a liar!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...nsor/rense.jpg
Now, who is directing who to 'misinformation' here?
------------------------------
I've been watching this little play unfold, and from what I can remember, it's roots begin in May, 2004, with Daniel Hopsicker's venemous article, "The Red Herrings of 9/11", which Carol Brouillet responds to here.
Read both articles and tell me who is trying to create division, who has his knickers in a wad, and who is honestly trying to let everyone have a fair say?
Now, Hopsicker has a right to feel neglected and even maligned by the mainstream press, because he has been.
But that has absolutely fuck-all to do with the fact that there are theories that conflict with his.
But don't worry, Hopsicker, because you too are a CIA fake. Just ask Fintan Dunne, who helpfully, without anybody even asking, provided us with this helpful guide;
"The CIA's Internet Fakes"
Thank God. Hopsicker was leading me astray. Thank you Fintan, thank you. I love you, man.
No I don't.
Then of course, there's Rabinowitz, who seems to have a real hard-on for Von Kleist.
I mean, he's practically saying, "If only everyone would check with ME to find out what is disinfo and what is not, I wouldn't have to send emails to other webmasters smearing Dave Von Kleist as a disinfo artist..."
Spare me thy platitudes, Rabinowitz, Fintan Dunne has already cast ye into the wildes!
You CIA fake, you!
And again, who is creating division? The CTers who come up with misguided, off the wall theories, or the 'real researchers' who with frightening alacrity align themselves with the US State Dept., and have decided that Dave Von Kleist must be sent into the desert as a scapegoat for the 'movement'?
I find it just pathetic that Rabinowitz offers us a deconstruction of the State Dept. 'Misinfo' site, but only on the stuff he disagrees with. He asks us to firmly reject (I'm paraphrasing) disinfo... but I guess he means only when it suits your particular Theory (in Rabinowitz's case, 'peak oil' as prime motivator).
I'm with Tarpley on all of this bullshit;
Quote:
There are some people who try to make the notion of some kind of airliner hitting the Pentagon some kind of ‘required credential’ before you can be taken seriously as a researcher in this field, which I think is absolutely absurd. And I would just take this opportunity to say we don’t need ‘gatekeepers’ ‘border guards’ ‘Thought Police’ or whatever, in this debate we need, rather, an open debate in which it’s perfectly legitimate to attack people for their ideas, but not this kind of ad hominem stuff.
#1 Whatever gets people initially interested, but ALWAYS address contradicting accounts if they make sense. If we wanted to build installations on the moon, would we do so without first looking at the possible dangers in doing so, or would we do a THOROUGH study to be sure? If that study said it might be dangerous to build installations on the moon, would we just DO IT or would we do so with caution? It is smart to try to disprove yourself. If you find contradictory accounts of something, it is smart to keep the idea open, but put it on the shelf. Until something comes out that either proves or disproves a theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by reprehensor
#2 It is dangerous to promote theories that cause separation within the movement. Your response proves that. We should ONLY promote that which is verifiable to the BEST of our ability. Dr. David Ray Griffin recently said, "The mark of a good theory is that it can explain, in a coherent way, all or at least most of the relevant facts and is not contradicted by any of them. A bad theory is one that is contradicted by some of the relevant facts. An outrageous theory would be one that is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts."
#3 It is dangerous to promote theories that our Government specifically targets. The reasons why are self explanatory.
#4 I have RARELY posted anything from Jeff Rense.
#5 Do you have a picture of what hit the Pentagon? I'd like to see it please. If not, focus on the 85 videos they're keeping from us rather than promoting, AS A SMOKING GUN, that which we can't agree on. And for GOOD REASON.
It took a LONG time for me to accept controlled demolition. I STILL have a problem with making it one of my first arguments when talking to someone new, but I HAVE come to accept it. The reason being, Dr. Jones. If not for Jones, I would still be on the sideline.
I'll tell you what though. If a video comes out tomorrow of a missile hitting the Pentagon, or a whistleblower comes forward with knowledge of something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, I'll be the FIRST to comment on it, and if I was wrong, I will be the FIRST to tell you.