Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clear evidence for why the Pentagon hit makes no sense

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 02:21 PM
Original message
Clear evidence for why the Pentagon hit makes no sense
This frame (frame 2) of the officially released video:


The bright white flash here strongly suggests the explosion is taking place AT IMPACT, right at the wall.

If this were the case. the plane HAD to have blown up-- at this point-- right outside the wall.


This means the explosion should have blown up most of the plane, if not all of it, OUTSIDE the Pentagon. At minimum, this explosion should have left many large pieces of plane all over the lawn.

Yet relatively few plane pieces were visible on the lawn.

This means, either the video is completely fabricated or the explosion shown had nothing to do with a plane crash.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 02:25 PM
Response to Original message
1. Apropos
"TEHRAN, Iran - An Iranian military transport plane crashed into a 10-story apartment building as it was trying to make an emergency landing Tuesday, ripping open the top of the structure and igniting a huge fire. At least 128 people were killed — 34 on the ground. (...)

Firefighters managed to put out the fire in the building, which was damaged and charred but still standing.
(...)
The C-130 aircraft had just taken off from the nearby Mehrabad Airport en route to the southern port of Bandar Abbas. The plane experienced a technical problem and was returning to the airport for an emergency landing when it hit the building, state-run television said."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iran_plane_crash;_ylt=Ant3D4WC3IBRNRFEi6wfcI_lWMcF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5bGVna3NhBHNlYwNzc3JlbA--
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Yes, this would seem to be quite different from what happened on 9/11
from your link: "Most of the plane fell at the base of the building, smashing parked cars and damaging the structure's support columns. Witness Mohammad Khatibi said the fuselage fell nearly straight down after the wing hit the top of the building. Wreckage was scattered over a wide area."

So much for planes going into buildings and vaporizing and so forth. Also, it seems as though the building withstood the hit quite well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. How fast do you think it was going? (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. self deleted
Edited on Tue Dec-06-05 08:23 PM by hack89
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #2
16. It seems the hit today by big Iran plane on building left the building
standing. I don't know the details but to what degree was that similar to WTC?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
3. Either it's a fake or it's missile
If that picture is real, the Pentagon was hit by a missile.

Here's the picture of the object approaching the Pentagon:


Here's a picture of what we would see if a 757 were present:


However, I don't think they're real. I must have posted this link:
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/Pentagon/what-hit-it.htm
about a million times. Have you read the bit about the photos yet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 04:44 PM
Response to Original message
5. Think for a second...
Where is the fuel on an airliner - in the relatively flimsy wings.

Where is the center of mass of an airliner - the fuselage. There is no fuel in the fuselage.

It seem pretty clear to me that what you are seeing is the fuel in the wings exploding on impact and disintegrating the wings. The fuselage did not explode (no fuel remember) and penetrated the building.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. oh yeah-- wings disintegrate ALL THE TIME when a plane hits something
and blows up.

However, I do believe having the wings blow up would cause the fuselage to break apart some.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. They do ..
what else would you expect volatile aviation fuel to do in a crash? Give me a break!

Your second point might be relevant except half the fuselage would be inside the building before the wings impacted and exploded - right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. And the other half would blow up outside-- which is precisely my point
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Not quite right...
First off, the explosion you see is a low pressure explosion as fuel is atomized and ignited. It is not comparable in any way to a high explosive detonation, where there is barely any flame but rather a quick black puff of smoke. The fuel explosion would not generate the destructive shock waves that high explosives would.

Secondly, as Lared has pointed out, all that wreckage is still moving towards the building at 500 feet per second.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. Also, there is typically fuel in the center fuel tank. Surely that would
blow if the wing tanks went.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-07-05 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #5
25. but where's the debris field, then?
there would be debris left from the plane, including the area BEHIND the wings, which would be pushed AWAY from the building by the force of the explosion. There would be a huge section of the tail, at the very least, I would think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 06:37 PM
Response to Original message
8. Please explain how a white flash strongly suggests
the explosion took place at impact, verses say 100 milliseconds after impact when at least some of the jet was inside.

Lets say the jet was moving 340 MPH. That equates to 500 feet per second at impact. At those speeds it is not possible to determine if that image was at impact or some time after.

BTW, even if what you are theorizing is true, the exploding jet is still moving at 500 feet per sec into the building.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Surely the impact slowed things down
Regarding your point about the flash-- if it blew up inside, we wouldn't see the flash. Surely you're not telling me the explosion was disconnected from the plane itself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. If what you are saying is true, then why
do we see fireballs exiting the WTC after the aircraft are inside?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. I'm not talking about the fireballs-- I'm talking about this bright flash
--which we didn't see with either wtc hit. The bright flash would indictae the exact point of detonation. I don't buy at all that the plane exploded and then somehow the fuselage continued in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janedoe Donating Member (540 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-07-05 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. How long does it take for 100% of the fuel to ignite?
Also, I just see one fireball. Shouldn't we at least see two?
(One for each wing.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-07-05 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #19
22. Indeed. Also, if it was the wings blowing up, wouldn't we see the tail
sticking out of the flash?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-07-05 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. Generator
If the stills weren't faked, we might also see the generator, fence, construction equipment, firetruck, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 10:32 PM
Response to Original message
15. I thought there was general agreement that the picures are a hoax
There have been lots posted on this and I thought virtually everyone agreed these pictures were fake.

The blast color is not the color of a gasoline explosion- as at WTC
If this is real what happened at Pentagon was not same as at WTC.

As you note, the explosion appears outside the building and above the building primarily, and at that time the building was still intack so it makes no sense how there could be an explosion above the Pentagon other than the primary explosion was outside. such as at the trailer.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. I think frame one that shows some sort of "plane" is fake
I think the other frames show the real explosive event.

What actually happened there is a diffeent story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-07-05 05:58 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. How do you explain the date- and time stamp,
and the skipping of a whole second in that sequence of images?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-07-05 07:52 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Stupidity? I don't know-- how do you explain it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-07-05 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. I think it's doctored.
At any rate i think there are to many anomalies in this footage for it to be considered reliable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC