Terrific Pentagon Analysis
It could use a little MTV background music, but factually this video is excellent and the look at how the Pentagon video (as hard to make out as it is) dovetails is superb. Highly recommended:
posted by Pat @ 8:47 AM
43 comments
43 Comments:
How did that cruise missile knock down all those lightpoles?
"And how did over a hundred people somehow confuse a missile for an airliner? "
Like hey man, 'cause, I mean, they wanted to be on TV?
That amazing thing is all the "scholars" still buy the no plane theory, and they try to pass themselves off as the scientific ones.
That amazing thing is all the "scholars" still buy the no plane theory, and they try to pass themselves off as the scientific ones.
Well if Judy Wood feels the towers were like trees, then I'd imagine that the Pentagon is like a gigantic, angular HoneyNut Cheerio. And, regardless of any cartoonish animation, I think we can all agree that a 757 would not be able to cause that kind of damage to any General Mills product, especially one that's proven to reduce cholesterol.
This analysis still doesn't explain exactly how Hanni Hanjour piloted the plane into that building. You make the claim (these aren't your exact words)-"So what if he had trouble landing and taking off on a plane? He didn't need to land, and it isn't hard to crash a plane into a building." Let me point out that Hanni allegedly had a specific target, that was planned, and especially with the Pentagon being a low level building, he had to descend, he couldn't have just driven straight forward into a building. Explain how he managed to do this. Do not ignore me.
Let me point out that Hanni allegedly had a specific target, that was planned, and especially with the Pentagon being a low level building, he had to descend, he couldn't have just driven straight forward into a building. Explain how he managed to do this. Do not ignore me.
Huh? It is the largest office building in the world, how could he miss? Even the guy who flew with Hanjour says it would have been a simple matter for him to point the nose at the Pentagon and crash it. Do you know more about Hanjour's skills than he does?
This is like saying that because someone is a horrible parallel parker, that they are incapable of crashing a car into the side of a shopping mall.
How did that cruise missile knock down all those lightpoles?
Better question, how did the wings stay intact going 500MPH and after hitting various light poles. We see the engines got damaged, why didn't the whole thing ignite before it even hit?
this video is just great, btw
Props to Alex Jones for showcasing it!
Hmm, a 100 ton jetliner traveling at 500 MPH hits a 500lb lightpole with a breakway base. Who is going to win?
They are called BREAKAWAY poles for a reason, Einstein...
The video shows the plume of smoke from the damaged engine so the "breakaway" obviously didn't prevent that. How do you figure the (ridged and think) engine got damaged and the wing, with a very thin skin stayed in one piece? I'd like to see you explain that.
The are also roots theory that are in blackness and only the boldest talk about. CIA supporting of the tailban, Kroll, Marvin Bush, drug ties, oil profits, etc. Os'ers tend to avoid roots and CT love to dig them up.
Well I can't and won't speak on anyone else's behalf but I've pointed these things out to some degree. You also have to understand that past acts hold no weight. If there was a court case where the only evidence that a person commited a crime was that he had commited past crimes it wouldn't hold up. I'm very much aware of some of the f'ed up things this nation has done but what nation hasn't? Plus most of the points you talked about to don't hold up such as Marvin Bush being "head" of security. Or the fact that were not swimming in oil right now. Every time we bring up these points we don't get an answer. So what is the deal?
A lie can be dealt with like a tree; there are three area of a theory or lie. The trunk, the limbs, and the leaves.
Why's everything a fucking tree to you people?
I'm rather glad that the oil companies are posting record profits. They're the ones in the best position to take us from fossil fuels to alternate energy sources for vehicles. The more money they make now, the better chance there is we'll be able to smoothly transition away from fossil fuels in the near future. And record profits aren't exactly indicative of involvment with 9/11. I made a lot more money after 9/11 than I did before. Does that mean I'm also part of the conspiracy?
I'm rather glad that the oil companies are posting record profits. They're the ones in the best position to take us from fossil fuels to alternate energy sources for vehicles. The more money they make now, the better chance there is we'll be able to smoothly transition away from fossil fuels in the near future. And record profits aren't exactly indicative of involvment with 9/11. I made a lot more money after 9/11 than I did before. Does that mean I'm also part of the conspiracy?
well skin isnt really the structural part of the wing now is it? the skin was probably torn off in places, but the framing underneath was string enough to hold together
Good point, however you're saying that the very thin, lightweight and aerodynamic skin survived the impacts of, not 1 or 2 but 5 light poles?
Look at this photo:
Pole
It looks like it was sliced in half! You mean to tell me the wing was more rigid than the light pole? I highly doubt it.
I'm rather glad that the oil companies are posting record profits. They're the ones in the best position to take us from fossil fuels to alternate energy sources for vehicles. The more money they make now, the better chance there is we'll be able to smoothly transition away from fossil fuels in the near future. And record profits aren't exactly indicative of involvment with 9/11. I made a lot more money after 9/11 than I did before. Does that mean I'm also part of the conspiracy?
No, with a few billion dollars getting infused into the economy via the war machine, some people are going to do pretty darn good. But the guys at the top controlling the whole thing, those are the prime suspects.
As for actually believing the Oil companies are in any position to better our lives, the notion is very laughable.
You don't even take inflation into account and that's a big part of the hike in prices. But oil companies are not looking out for you and me. They actually suppress alternate energy and silence invertors and patent holders. If everybody knew how many fuel saving inventions have been suppressed by big oil, we would have riots in the streets! Poverty and ignorance keep the oil people where they are, don't bet on that changing anytime soon.
OK nesync, even if we accept your proposition that a 757 could not have knocked down 5 lightpoles, how exactly does making it a cruise missile make for a better explanation?
They actually suppress alternate energy and silence invertors and patent holders. If everybody knew how many fuel saving inventions have been suppressed by big oil, we would have riots in the streets!
Actually things like Congress pushing production of ethanol is one of the variables that lead to the increase in gas prices. I'm not saying that I'm against ethanol but you can't just say that anything "nice" like alternative fuels will make the price of gas go down. There are tons of variables that go into the ultimate price of gas and I'm pretty sure a massive government plot isn't one of them.
How 'bout the fact that only a fraction of a second passed from the time it struck the pole to the time it hit the Pentagon.
These people don't have any concept of time. They think the plane went slow-motion across the highway into the building. Even had the lightpoles done massive damage to the wings (unlikely), it's forward momentum would've propelled it into the Pentagon.
Please tell me you're both joking. That guy beats out nesnyc if you're for serious.
Shawn, for your reading pleasure!!
Clearly I died in my sleep last night, and I am now in Hell.
Shawn, you want to see real nuttiness check out this post from about a month ago. This is not just ordinary nuttiness, this is from a guy who gets hundreds of responses to his posts over at Democratic Underground.
You seem to think that making money off of the economies of scale of oil energy with it's built-in obsolescence (combustion) implies a willingness (given the means) to create cheap, independent, renewable sources of energy.
This is like saying if the railroads make enough money they invent the airplane faster.
Railroads aren't exactly a depletable resource. The airplane was an improvement on existing technology, but it wasn't a neccesity. On the other hand, moving away from fossil fuels IS a neccesity, and as they say neccesity's a mother :)
Oil companies have two options. One, they can continue pushing fossil fuels untill they run out at which point we're all screwed, and they're not making any more money. Or two, be the first to use their existing infrastructure to provide a reliable and inexpensive alternative to fossil fuels, thereby increasing their revenues and ensuring their continue prosperity.
If you were the CEO of Shell or Texaco, which one of those would you go with?
hits a 500lb lightpole
I'd have to guess closer to 100lb, really.
Huh? It is the largest office building in the world, how could he miss? Even the guy who flew with Hanjour says it would have been a simple matter for him to point the nose at the Pentagon and crash it. Do you know more about Hanjour's skills than he does?
It would be easy for a plane pilot to smash his plane into one of the twin towers, they ARE some of the largest office buildings in the world. But the pentagon? It's a low level building, you have to descend and swerve and use many complex maneovers to get to it, this is what the experts said- "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
I don't claim to know much about the pentagon, but I seriously doubt that a plane hit it, considering the evidence out there.
At the point those remarks were being made the plane was not flying into the pentagon. Did you even read the posts above!?!? They were referring to how rough the plane was being flown. How much evidence would it take to convince you that it was a plane? I seriously can't see how you believe that still.
they ARE some of the largest office buildings in the world. But the pentagon?
The Pentagon is THE largest office building on the planet.
But train tickets are.
Train tickets are a depleteable resource? Uh....I REALLY don't know how to respond to that.....I'm hoping you're not serious.
You say necessity is a mother but this is an invention for a competitor, not oil companies which would be happy enough if no alternatives were physically possible.
Listen Einstein, if your business is about to go tits up in a few decades because you can no longer provide your product or service, it's in your interest to find a way to provide a better product or service. It's not rocket science. You either fix the problem, or you go bankrupt. Maybe you'd be happier if no alternative were possible, but hoping for something doesn't make it so. You either evolve or get overtaken by the competition.
Suffice it to say (though I was tempted, I admit) that you're missing some possibilities.
1) DARPA-type internet/Manhattan project/etc stuff the government does so well (though people seem to ignore or deny that fact)
What's that got to do with anything at all? You're suggesting the government will beat private industry to the development of a viable alternate fuel source for vehicles? Well, GREAT! That gives the oil companies even MORE incentive to start their own projects now.
2) The possibility, in caricature I must stress, that as oil runs out profits get bigger and bigger out of proportion with the number of barrels of oil they sell (which number becomes fewer and fewer) until, in the absurd extreme, they trade the very last barrel of oil in the world for all of humanity's assets since it's now all junk anyway, having no oil upon which to run.
Caricature eh? No shit. That possibility assmues that no alternative to oil fueled vehicles is possible.
3) The absolute certainty that a reliable, cheap and timely alternative to scenario 2) would NOT result in comparatively more revenues.
That's the wonderful thing about a free-market economy. While the oil companies would make more money under "scenario 2", they would make a hell of a lot LESS money when either the government or a private company came up with an alternative which in no way involved the current oil giants. How can you be so dense? Your argument would ONLY work in a world where no alternative exists! As long as the possibility of viable alternate fueled vehicles exists, SOMEBODY is going to develop it. And whoever opens up that market first will have the opportunity to make TRILLIONS, whereas those who continue to market fossil fuels will shortly find themselves running massive defecits. The same thing has happened on a smaller scale hundreds of times in recorded history.
Your move, Chief, but the literature is so clear on this that you'd really have to be able to tell me you have something innovative.
Eh?
What I'm trying to say is that the pentagon is a low level building...you can't just point your plane nose at it and crash into it.
What I'm trying to say is that the pentagon is a low level building...you can't just point your plane nose at it and crash into it.
Really? Why not?
Isn't that rather like saying you couldn't crash your car into a small house?
How many aircraft have you flown anyway? Ever handled a large passanger or transport aircraft? I know I have. But maybe your experience was different than mine.
What I'm trying to say is that the pentagon is a low level building...you can't just point your plane nose at it and crash into it.
Have you ever been there? I've had a private tour of the complex and it is IMMENSE.
And you certainly can just point your nose at it, that's kinda how you crash into things.
That's the wonderful thing about a free-market economy.
What I've never understood about "progressives" (not saying anyone on here is one, just making an observation) is that they want a more planned economy. That stigles progress. A free-market economy is the most democratic form of economics. While people cry about the evil corporations running everything, it's quite easy to cause them to change/evolve. Stop buying the product. You vote with your dollar.
While I agree with you in theory Shawn, it's the same problem as giving too much power to the government. Theoreticaly if you don;t like what the government is doing you can vote for someone else, but in practice it's never a good idea to give unlimited power to a government, regaurdless of how democratic it may be.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of free-market economics, however, I also understand the need for SOME regulation. As little as possible idealy. Prevent monopolistic practices. Regulate certain industries. That kind of stuff. Mainly, I think laws concerning the economy should be based around creating as much opportunity as possible for small start-ups and entreperneurs. That means keeping large companies from simply squashing any small business which may become a problem for them.
however, I also understand the need for SOME regulation. As little as possible idealy. Prevent monopolistic practices.
There are two sides to the monopoly argument. The one that it keeps the competition fair and the other that the consumer should go elsewhere if they don't want a company gaining all the power and price gouging. It's the same with a dictatorship, the people can always remove it if there are enough against it.
In reality, we need the monopoly laws, if not for the fact people are too afraid of change to go elsewhere for products.
You can see from your very argument that the oil companies prefer a world where no alternative exists for as long as possible.
Who cares what they prefer. Unlike the CT crowd, Oil companies have to deal with how things actually ARE rather than how they'd like them to be.
You seem to think somebody is hard at work on alternatives but that's placing a little too much faith in the market.
Actually it's placing faith in greed and self-interest. Two human qualities which rarely fail to deliver.
If anyone is interested, Mike will be updating this animation, SW2007 just came out and has some great new features that will improve this wonderfull animation
It is pretty simple really.......Hanjour was very skilful pilot he managed to see the Pentagon on approach and thought to himself where can I do the most damage.....are if I hit this building head on it will cause enormous damage...wait a minute what if I survive....I know I will do a 270 degree turn and hit the part that is under construction......I will need evidence of this I had better notify the FBI and have them confiscate all the videos of my crash so they can see what I have done is truly honourable.......now how do I get this damn thing to slip into a really confined space and do less damage (in case I survive).....I know I will computer animate myself into a 16 foot hole and they will see how truly honourable I am (in case I survive)
Richard "Or the fact that were not swimming in oil right now." you are not swimming in oil right now because part of the 911 operation failed......flight 93 was supposed to hit the White House but unfortunately didn't make it....had it hit it's taeget Marshall Law would have been instigated (Jeb Bush did jump the gun in Florida but had to retract order) Has Marshall Law been instigated we wouldn't be blogging about anything there would be no truth movement and America could have done what it wanted anywhere in the world.....and nobody would have blamed them.
Your a smart person you work it out for yourself.
Sorry I meant to say "fortunately" didn't make it....no not a Freudian slip
Interesting video.....look closely and see how the smoke trail just disapears in 1 frame. Not possible!!!
The animation of the plane hitting the Pentagon shows the engines hittng the building where is the damage from this?
With all the videos thew FBI have on this why put out something as Ambiguous as this.
Something hiding behind a pole hits the Pentagon and instantly looses it's smoke trail
Yeh sure!
If you want to see a real video rather than a cartoon...follow this link.... http://justpaolo.blogspot.com/
Loose Change is not the only site which is of any merit. ( they have already admitted their mistakes and appologised) debunk "Press for the Truth" or are there cowards among you who only fight the battles already lost by the other side.
I enphasise battles, the war is still alive and well and as far as I can see being fought on all sides.
Post a Comment
<< Home