F-4 Phantom Disintegrates On Impact
Click Here
Tired...
Tired...
I found this a long time ago, and I was looking for it the other day... figured I'd post it.
Tired...
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.
Tired...
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.
Tired...
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote