Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 86

Thread: I Think Flight 77 Hit The Pentagon

  1. #41
    Ignatius Riley Guest
    <note: this is a continuation of the text from the preceding post, which is from physics911.net and written by someone Riley thinks knows his shit>

    It has been claimed (Catherder 2004) that the part is a rotor from the auxiliary power unit (APU) of a 757. The APU is a small jet turbine engine that supplies power to the 757's electrical system. The author in question gave no evidence to support the claim beyond providing a link that shows a bump in the rear of a Boeing 757 where the APU exhaust vent can be seen. If the APU lies within this bump, it is probably too small to be the source of this part. A further argument can be made on the basis of the power needed to supply electrical power. The rotor element found at the Pentagon is about the right size for the engine of a military jet like the F-16. It is not clear why such a large engine would be needed to supply power that is only the tiniest fraction of the electrical power that such an engine, suitably harnessed, could generate.


    Finally, the 50-foot gap in the support columns of the Pentagon wall easily accommodates the 32-foot wingspan of an F-16 or an aircraft of similar size. Some have proposed that a cruise missile was employed for the job, but it is difficult to sustain this proposal, given the size of the turbine rotor element. A cruise missile has a 20-inch diameter, which makes it too small to contain a motor with a 24-inch rotor. Given its 9-foot wingspan, a cruise missile is unlikely to take out more than two columns as it enters such a building.

    Counterfactual evidence

    If the Pentagon attack was essentially a massive deception, it would be very much in the interest of the real perpetrators to sidestep the analysis presented here. Since it cannot be argued against successfully, the perpetrators would be forced to adopt a counterfactual strategy: explain why the crash must have occurred as described. Such an approach would be merely puzzling to anyone who understands this article. If it could not have happened, it did not happen. To someone in the media, however, with eyes glazed over from reading our simple argument, the counterfactual approach would carry telling weight.

    In November of 2001, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) completed a massive study of the DNA of Pentagon victims (Kelly 2001), finding matches between remains and DNA samples allegedly retrieved from victims' homes (gleaned from hairbrushes and other articles of personal use). Although it may well have been the case that matches were expertly made, the weak link in the chain of evidence lies in the collection of samples. DNA technicians would have no way of knowing where all the samples came from. That would be the job of army and FBI personnel that did most of the collecting.

    Few people realize how simple it is to obtain tissue samples or body parts clandestinely from morgues, medical school cadaver rooms, any place that dead bodies may be found. Such venues are easily entered by persons who identify the,selves as officials of one kind or another.
    A piece of liver or arm tissue complemented by a few hairs, all from the same corpse would be all that's necessary to "identify" a particular person. Would DNA from these different sources match? Of course they would, since they're from the same individual. Hypnotized by the word "match," media types would probably not even realize that "match" does not mean "identify," unless there were independent verification of the source of the samples.

    Other problems with the DNA identification process involve contradictions with other claims made by the White House and/or Pentagon about the attack. One claim, that the aircraft was "completely vaporized" makes it doubtful that any of the DNA survived the holocaust. Another claim, that the aircraft was blown into little bits by the initial explosion, would imply that body parts would have been scattered all over the Pentagon grounds - which they weren't.

    Given the poor track record of the US government and military in providing accurate information about its military and "antiterrorism" activities, any counterfactual claims must be taken with a large grain of salt.

    Summary

    The main burden of this article has been to demonstrate that the debris found outside the Pentagon is inconsistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 or any aircraft of comparable dimensions. In particular, in the absence of some agency (possibly unknown to physical science) that removed the wings, there is no way to avoid the conclusion that the wings (and therefore the aircraft) were never present in the first place. In this case, no Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon building on the morning of September 11, 2001.

    We have also presented a scenario that may be much closer to the truth of what happened on the morning in question, but our main conclusion is reached quite independently of the scenario and neither implies it, nor is implied by it.

    Note

    We are aware of another study of the Pentagon crash by scientists at Purdue University. (Sozen 2002) One of us (Dewdney) has designed scientific simulation programs and has taught the subject for many years. A simulation program invariably involves a model of the phenomenon being simulated and the simulation is never better than the model. The Purdue simulation modeled the wings of the 757 as essentially kerosene-filled aluminum bags, in essence, with little structural strength. The wings break into sections when the plane strikes the building, each section passing between columns and spewing fuel into the growing conflagration. The rudder and tailplane pass into the building unscathed, as well.

    The main problems with this model is the complete failure to take into account the structural integrity of the wing as well as the fact that fuel is stored only in tanks in the wing root, adjacent to the fuselage. As for the tail section being completely undamaged, no comment is necessary.

    A home experiment

    One of the authors made a simple home experiment to determine for himself just what the burning properties of kerosene might be. Here are the steps of the experiment:

    1. Prepare a wheelbarrow (or other wide container made of steel) by removing all debris and cleaning the interior surface of all residue.

    2. Pour in enough kerosene to cover the bottom of the container to a depth of one centimeter or slightly less.

    3. Add a crumpled ball of aluminum foil, an empty pop or beer can, and any pieces of old aluminum you can find, such as lawnmower parts, aluminum door hardware or panels, etc.

    4. Set the kerosene ablaze and wait a minute for maximum temperature to be reached.

    5. Record which items survived the fire, as well as the degree of damage to each.

    What do you observe? (See end of article for answer.)

    Acknowledgments

    The authors thank members of the S.P.I.N.E. Panel, in particular, Derrick Grimmer, Jim Hoffman, Joseph D. Keith, and Martha Rush. We also thank independent investigators Richard Stanley, Jim Hoffman and MIchael Elliott for providing critiques of an earlier version of this article. We also wish to thank John Dorsett and Marianne Sanscrainte for assistance in locating appropriate imagery.

    About the authors

    A. K. Dewdney is a mathematician and computer scientist who lives in London, Ontario, Canada. <www.csd.uwo.ca/~akd/>

    G. W. Longspaugh is an aerospace engineer who makes his home in Fort Worth, Texas, USA.

    References

    (ASCE 2003) ASCE Releases Pentagon Preliminary Performance Report. 2003. <http://www.asce.org/responds/> Retrieved October 29 2003.

    (Bosankoe 2003) D. Bosankoe 2003. Pentagon video evidence shows fraud of war on terror. <http://www.world-action.co.uk/pentagon.html> Retrieval date unrecorded.

    (Catherder 2004) Above Top Secret.
    <http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html> Retrieved December 21 2004.

    (Citoyens 2003) no attribution. 2003. Hunt the Boeing <www.asile.org/ citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm> Retrieved September 20 2003.

    (Desmoulins J.-P. 2003) Jean=Pierre Desmoulins. Pentagon 2001/9/11. 2003. <perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/english.html> Retrieved October 1 2003.

    (Desmoulins J.-P. 2003a) Jean-Pierre Desmoulins. 2003. Image of tailfin. <perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/cctv.html> Retrieved October 1 2003.

    (Eastman 2003) Dick Eastman, 2003. For AFPN: What convinced me that Flight 77 was not the killer jet. <www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman1.htm> Retrieved September 30, 2003.

    (Elliott 2003) Michael Elliott. Pentagon Attack Debris. (From 911Review.org) <http://www.911review.org/Wiki/PentagonAttackDebris. shtml> Retrieved September 30 2003.

    (Emiliani 1988) Emiliani C. 1988. The Scientific Companion. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

    (Flugzeugtriebwerke 2003) <cip.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de/~pschirus/ aviation/flugzeuge/alt/engines2.phtml> Retrieved September 2 2003.

    (Infoplease 2003) Infoplease.com. The Pentagon. <www.infoplease.com /spot/pentagon1.html> Retrieved June 12 2003.

    (Jane's 2003). Jane's All the World's Aircraft. 2003. Entry - Boeing 757. Retrieved from <www.janes.com/aerospace/civil/news/java/boeing_757 .shtml> Retrieved June 12, 2003. [note: this subsite is no longer publicly available to non-subscribers.]

    (Kelly 2001) Christopher C. Kelly. November 30, 2001. Forensic feat identifies nearly all Pentagon victims. Stars & Stripes. Retrieved from <216.70.54.91/army/stripe/6_48/national_news/12279-1.html> Retrieved October 8, 2003.

    (Killtown 2003) Killtown. 2003. Questioning the 911 attacks. (From Killtown <http://www.geocities.com/killtown/>) <http://thewebfairy. com/killtown/flight77/witnesses.html> Retrieved October 1 2003.

    (Nat. J. 2003) Carol A. Valentine. The National Journal. <http://globalfire. tv/nj/03en/jews/911remote.htm> Retrieved Sept 28 2003.

    (NASA 2003) National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 2003. Commonly used elements and their properties. <http://www.ueet.nasa. gov/materials/elements.php> Retrieved October 2 2003.

    (pi911 2003) PI911. 2003. <http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ericbart/index. html> Retrieved October 6 2003.

    (PW 2003) Pratt & Whitney Inc. Turbofan Engine PW 2000 <http://www.pratt-whitney.com/?SMIDENTITY=NO]> Retrieved June 8/03, removed from website by September 20/03.

    (Sozen 2002) Mete A. Sozen et al. Sept 11, 2002. September 11 attack simulations using LS-Dyna. Purdue University. <www.cs.purdue.edu/ homes/cmh/simulation/phase1/> Retrieved December 14 2003.

    (USAF Museum 2003) USAF Museum; General Dynamics f-16A "Fighting Falcon." Retrieved from http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/outdoor/od11.htm Retrieved August 20 2003.

    (Raytheon 2004) Tomahawk Cruise Missile. http://www.raytheon.com/ products/tomahawk/ref_docs/tomahawk.pdf, Retrieved December 20 2004.

    Results of Home Experiment

    If you tried this experiment at home, you may well find the paint burned off the outside of your container. However, the aluminum machine part, the door hardware, the crumpled aluminum foil and, yes, even the pop can will be untouched - except lettering on the can may partially disappear.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    America
    Posts
    30,749
    *sigh*... you know I can go get whatever I need from Hoffman's site, and www.pentagonresearch.com, etc... which is WHY these "arguments" never go anywhere... which was original purpose of this thread... I was just trying to debunk the "missile" theory. Just for the sake of debunking it. It's a junk theory.
    No One Knows Everything. Only Together May We Find The Truth JG


  3. #43
    Ignatius Riley Guest
    And I conceded a long time ago on the missile theory.

    And I concede to your strategy towards the penagon issue when addressing the public.

    It is in the best interests of the movement and it will best serve the progress of the movement if we address the pentagon issue under the understanding that American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on that day.

    That should be our stance when in the public sphere, no doubt. It will reduce the number of times we are called crazy by the naysayers by maybe 25 percent, which helps.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    America
    Posts
    30,749
    You have, but a lot of people have not.
    No One Knows Everything. Only Together May We Find The Truth JG


  5. #45
    werther Guest
    Gold I am not sure if you thought of this theory....

    That Riley is in fact a member of the inner circle and is trying to convince us conspiracy theorists that flight 77 did not hit the pentagon so that we can later be proven wrong and our 9-11 truth movement ruined by video footage showing flight 77 hit the pentagon.

  6. #46
    Ignatius Riley Guest
    Ha!
    Wait a minute.
    R U serious?

  7. #47
    werther Guest
    no -just some conspiracy paranoia humour!

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    America
    Posts
    30,749
    I do think there's footage waiting in the wings to discredit us. It's the Pentagon... you're going to tell me that the video camera that enters into the parking lot is the only video camera focused on the Pentagon at any given moment? PUHLEESE....
    No One Knows Everything. Only Together May We Find The Truth JG


  9. #49
    werther Guest
    its hard for me to believe that that cameras speed is only 1 frame every half second.

    oops

  10. #50
    Ignatius Riley Guest
    we need footage from the nearby interstate, from the Sheraton, from nearby gas stations

    even audio alone would let us know if it was a boeing jumbo jet. They are loud and the sound of one landing is distinct. If it was a military jet, say a b-12 bomber for example, the sound of it landing would differ from the sound of a boeing landing.

    Think I saw somewhere online that something like 80+ (exhibits) on the Pentagon are being witheld. Think that was total411.info

Similar Threads

  1. 9/11 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77 - Video Inside
    By Gold9472 in forum 9/11 Justice Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-03-2006, 07:18 PM
  2. New Pentagon/Flight 93 Photos
    By 911TRUTH in forum 9/11 Justice Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 05-01-2006, 11:38 PM
  3. Flight 77
    By kmwittig in forum 9/11 Justice Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-15-2006, 09:01 PM
  4. The Pentagon Attack And American Airlines Flight 77
    By Gold9472 in forum 9/11 Justice Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 12-09-2005, 07:45 PM
  5. Flight 93: The Flight that Fought Back
    By somebigguy in forum 9/11 Justice Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-05-2005, 12:34 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •