Inertia
This whole cruise missile argument is so absurd that many of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists themself has given up on it as too bizarre. Even the makers of Loose Change discount it at one point when they claim an A3 Skywarrior hit the Pentagon, but since people keep proposing this theory I will address it one more time.
The filmmakers (at this point) claim:
So what could blow a 16 foot hole in the outer ring of the Pentagon, smash through 9 feet of steel reinforced concrete and leave another 16 foot hole? A cruise missile. This is what Slobodan Milosevic's residence in Belgrade looked like after a Tomahawk cruise missile had hit it. See any similarities?
What the filmmakers are leaving out is that this is all the damage to Slobo's place. The missile didn't continue and blow up the next house two blocks away.
Cruise missiles are relatively small, lightweight unmanned flying planes, with engines not much bigger than the V-8 on my Mustang. They hit their target with precision and blow up, leaving everything within a few dozen yards on every side pretty much trashed. They don't knock a 90 foot hole in a concrete wall, and then continue 310 feet through the world's largest office building. They don't have the inertia.
in·er·tia
Physics. The tendency of a body to resist acceleration; the tendency of a body at rest to remain at rest or of a body in straight line motion to stay in motion in a straight line unless acted on by an outside force.
Most of a cruise missile is the warhead, after the warhead and fuel explode, there is not enough force to push the remaining couple of hundred pounds of engine, aluminum and carbon fiber 300 more feet through 2 more rings of the pentagon.
270,000 lbs of 757 travelling at 500 MPH. Now that has inertia.
posted by James B. @ 12:59 PM
10 comments
10 Comments:
Before any of the CT crowd beat me to it....the OTHER conspiracy theory is that the "cruise missle" was a "bunker buster". Which ofcourse would mean it could easily punch a hole through the first wall, and hit the second ring of the pentagon.
What those particular nuts fail to mention is that bunker-buster munitions detonate only after burrowing, meaning that the initial hole (in the outside wall of the pentagon) would be extremely small, and the second ring would have taken most of the damage instead (once the missile detonated).
Although on second thought I probably should have waited untill one of the fruitcakes posted here just for the fun of trashing someone directly....
Besides, it is a bomb. Bombs don't generally tend to fly sideways.
What a bunch of hooey: arguing about these details. If the video of the event at the Pentagon supported the govt. lies, and proved Loose Change wrong, that video, which the govt. (FBI, Pentagon, who knows who else) holds, would be released in a New York second.
I realise the above paragraph is not a lot to base an argument on. I wouldn't want anyone to stop short of doing his/her own research. I would not expect anyone to be convinced that anything in Loose Change proves diddlely.
However, if one reads David Ray Griffin's books, reads Webster Tarpley, views various other vids like 911 Eyewitness, the evidence leads to the inescapable conclusion:
the govt. story is toast.
Oh please, if hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw an AA 757 wouldn't convince you, why would a grainy video tape?
If the government released any more videos, within 2 days you would have 50 websites dedicated to proving the video was faked by ILM.
I have to admit James, I do agree wit h you to some extent in your comment: All the evidence points to the liklihood that any video released now would be fake.
If you really have looked at the evidence, and you honestly believe what you state, I'll just add you to my list of mysteries of nature.
I respect this blog beging the property of the authorized posters (to say whatever they want), and appreciate what appears to be a fairly open commenting policy.
BG, we're happy to have people like you checking our work diligently. We want to get it right.
I will note that not a single poster has thus far contested any evidence we have posted, just disagreeing with our interpretation.
"I will note that not a single poster has thus far contested any evidence we have posted, just disagreeing with our interpretation."
But that's all you've done with Loose Change. You're mostly arguing menutia points. The larger points like the demolition you interpret differently.
I'm interested in what you have to say about WTC7 which to me is the most absurd part of the Official Conspiracy Theory.
However, if one reads David Ray Griffin's books, reads Webster Tarpley, views various other vids like 911 Eyewitness, the evidence leads to the inescapable conclusion:
the govt. story is toast.
I agree especially on the 911 Eyewitness video. There are definitely explosions heard clearly in the background and corroborate firefighter, news reports and eyewitness account of such.
Gee,a plane with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel crashes into a skyscraper at 500 MPH and sets 4 floors on fire, and people hear explosions. What are the odds of that?
Post a Comment
<< Home