Jump to content


Photo

What really happened at the Pentagon?


  • Please log in to reply
229 replies to this topic

#21 EJ Smith

EJ Smith

    Even more advanced member

  • Forum User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 249 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:EJ Smith
  • Nation Name:Titanic

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 18 September 2011 - 06:58 AM - 0512421

I am still stuck on the dimensions of the plane. There is no way that it could have made the hole it did.

It isn't a building DW, the wings and tail are gone at impact, the fuselage get's shredded.
remember the WTC towers were Aluminum skinned, their outer skin was their load bearing support,
the Pentagon is masonry over 3 feet of reinforced and hardened Concrete, that plane aint making it past the outer 2 rings.
it couldn't have been a missile strike, considering that building was built to withstand a direct hit by Nuclear weapons, anything less than a daisycutter wouldn't have done that much damage, a daisycutter is a very distinct looking weapon.
and loud as all hell it would've broken windows 3 miles away. the plane became a Kinetic energy weapon, a giant armor piercing bullit. only the fuselage wouldve made a hole at that speed and in that kind of building. a plane hit, who was operating it? who knows.
  • 0

#22 EJ Smith

EJ Smith

    Even more advanced member

  • Forum User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 249 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:EJ Smith
  • Nation Name:Titanic

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 18 September 2011 - 07:10 AM - 0512422

Ok let's say a missile was used, the best for that application is a Tomahawk Cruise missile.
one problem though...

Posted Image

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

How on God's green earth can dozens of people, including news media with cameras mistake that beast for an Airliner, you'd have to be on acid to mistake that for an Airliner..
  • 0

#23 EJ Smith

EJ Smith

    Even more advanced member

  • Forum User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 249 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:EJ Smith
  • Nation Name:Titanic

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 18 September 2011 - 07:30 AM - 0512423

Let me reinforce this again.

757-200
Posted Image

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

NOT a 757-200
Posted Image

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

now unless 12+ people were trippin on Acid what they seen was in fact an Airliner :P

Just for the sake of Argument here's a pic of a 757-200 VIP transport.
virtually identical to the commercial version, our gov owns some of these.

Posted Image

Uploaded with ImageShack.us
  • 0

#24 bgorre1013

bgorre1013

    Should be government by now

  • Former Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 983 posts

  • NDT Link:[ Link ]

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:bgorre1013
  • Nation Name:2nd try

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 18 September 2011 - 10:07 AM - 0512424

plus commercial planes can't withstand that much stress. At the speed i was going, it was probably falling apart before it actually hit the building.
  • 0

#25 AndrewHG

AndrewHG

    MCXA Chancellor & Former Proprietor of the NADC Evening Post

  • Former Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,882 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:AndrewHG
  • Nation Name:Lalonde

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 18 September 2011 - 01:26 PM - 0512425

Posted Image

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

How on God's green earth can dozens of people, including news media with cameras mistake that beast for an Airliner, you'd have to be on acid to mistake that for an Airliner..


Oh man, that'll have the nuts saying it was a British plot! .... Royal Navy Tomahawk lol
  • 0

#26 EJ Smith

EJ Smith

    Even more advanced member

  • Forum User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 249 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:EJ Smith
  • Nation Name:Titanic

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 18 September 2011 - 06:03 PM - 0512426


Oh man, that'll have the nuts saying it was a British plot! .... Royal Navy Tomahawk lol

When in doubt blame the Royal Navy! :P

No in all seriousness I do question 9/11 but I know when/where to draw the line, destroying the Pentagon with a missile
would require an Air strike, there is absolutely NO WAY you could cover THAT up. not even Nixon could pull that off.
There was a Boeing E-3B circling the pentagon at the time of impact (it was there to coordinate our defense), retribution would have been swift and certain, we'd be in full on battle. Boeing's E-3B is a modified Boeing 747-400, it is part of the AWACS program, in times of attack they are stationed at various points in the US airspace, AWACS planes are airborne Radar, E-3B nightwatch planes are the airborne Command and COntrol centers, had an airstrike been launched against the pentagon a dogfight would have swiftly ensued.
  • 0

#27 Dark Wizard

Dark Wizard

    Lailander

  • Associate Justice
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,074 posts
  • Location: Mars

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Dark Wizard
  • Nation Name:New Carnoly

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 18 September 2011 - 06:29 PM - 0512427

there have been many government cover ups in history, im just saying its a possibility.
  • 0

#28 EJ Smith

EJ Smith

    Even more advanced member

  • Forum User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 249 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:EJ Smith
  • Nation Name:Titanic

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 18 September 2011 - 06:53 PM - 0512428

there have been many government cover ups in history, im just saying its a possibility.

there's only a couple missiles that pack enough punch to do that to the pentagon, Maverick and Tomahawk,
Given angle of approach, altitude and angle of attack you'd have to drop a tomahawk from a stealth fighter over Pennsylvania,
Mavericks are fired from Fighter jets, and are a short range missile.
Bomb wise you'd either need a Bunker buster or a daisy cutter, bunker buster would do similar damage but has to be dropped at close range from either a B-2 or a B-52, if your using the smaller Daisycutter MAYBE an F-18. either way lots of people are going to know. a daisy cutter would've levelled that entire section of the pentagon. it would've done tremendous damage. both to the pentagon and the parking lot/surrounding structures. Now it is possible to open the microwave ports on the avionics computer
on a 757-200-VIP essentially making it a giant drone, but again you'd need support infrastructure, you still have to have pilots and a flight engineer (Which would require a mobile ground station in close proximity) again that would've been noticed.
the WTC being hit by remotely flown 757-200-VIP's is more feasible as you could operate them from a navy ship at sea but again it would have to be in close proximity, the harbor logs don't contain reports of any navy ships in the harbor, Harbor entrance or the harbor approach at the time of attack, operating beyond the 12 mile limit puts them out of range.
  • 0

#29 C2Talon

C2Talon

    Should be Neiir by now

  • Immortal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,050 posts
  • Location: Orsinium

  • NDT Link:[ Link ]

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:C2Talon
  • Nation Name:Atheneum

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 18 September 2011 - 10:30 PM - 0512429

It would be much better if those images were to scale. Missiles are generally smaller in every dimension than large commercial passenger aircraft.

Edit: Also,

not meaning to piss you off but what they did to Wikileaks is deterrent enough to whistle blowers.
Even though Wikileaks was operating under the whistle blower act they still got prosecuted and shut down.
Now blowing the whistle on a classified military operation can at the least get you life in prison, at the worst case you vanish.
(btw I don't believe in what DW said, just sayin what happens to stool pigeons that snitch off the government).
People would keep quiet cause they know better than to talk.

Wikileaks is child's play in comparison to going it alone. People have been whistle-blowing for ages. Even when doing so is treason and the highest penalty for it being death.
  • 0

#30 AndrewHG

AndrewHG

    MCXA Chancellor & Former Proprietor of the NADC Evening Post

  • Former Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,882 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:AndrewHG
  • Nation Name:Lalonde

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 18 September 2011 - 11:40 PM - 0512430

Again why use a missile when you can use a perfectly good airliner? You don't have to cover up military stock control.

I subscribe to the obvious. Terrorist trains to fly- hijacks a plane- crashes it into the pentagon.

Big satan takes one on the jaw etc. Ideal opportunity to kick some ass, make some cash probably on both sides too.

Why make it more complex than it is?
  • 0

#31 Impact Strafe

Impact Strafe

    Should be AC by now

  • Forum User
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 537 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Impact Strafe
  • Nation Name:Aletho

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 19 September 2011 - 12:04 AM - 0512431

No, because if one person speaks out then more will and it is impossible for everyone to disappear. DW, if you want I can do the calculations for what force that plane hit the building with, and what the tolerance for the wings were, as far as temperature. But people have already done them and it shows that it isn't going to be like a cartoon but like a semisolid blob of metal that hits the Pentagon.

Andrew: I agree completely with you.
  • 0

#32 EJ Smith

EJ Smith

    Even more advanced member

  • Forum User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 249 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:EJ Smith
  • Nation Name:Titanic

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 19 September 2011 - 01:10 AM - 0512432

No, because if one person speaks out then more will and it is impossible for everyone to disappear. DW, if you want I can do the calculations for what force that plane hit the building with, and what the tolerance for the wings were, as far as temperature. But people have already done them and it shows that it isn't going to be like a cartoon but like a semisolid blob of metal that hits the Pentagon.

Andrew: I agree completely with you.

let's see, plane fresh on it's route, just fueled up, minus 2,000 gallons lost during takeoff a 757-200 has an 11,489 gallon capacity. full throttle at altitude your burning about 2,000 gallons an hour, that's roughly 4,000 gallons down. that means at impact that airliner had about 7,000 gallons of fuel (Give or take a few hundred gallons). not only is that airliner a Kinetic energy weapon, it's a Vacuum bomb (Thermobaric/Air fueled Bomb) with the physics involved you have one of the most powerful non nuclear weapons. plane vs Pentagon, Pentagon loses. plus your hitting with a precision guided weapon, that means the parking lot doesn't even get damaged, plus your creating a vacuum bomb, the mechanism of detonation is via fuel vapor, when it detonates it creates a vacuum, sucks all the air into the pentagon, when it reaches full detonation, all the air (and everything not nailed down inside the pentagon) is violently forces outward with the shockwave) and deposited in a manner consistent with the debris field. the air would rush back in at a slower speed than it was forced out. the Pentagon is what it is. plain and simple.
there simply isn't enough indirect evidence to support a Conspiracy/coverup.
  • 0

#33 EJ Smith

EJ Smith

    Even more advanced member

  • Forum User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 249 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:EJ Smith
  • Nation Name:Titanic

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 19 September 2011 - 01:21 AM - 0512433

Also IS I'm in agreement with you and C2T.
  • 0

#34 EJ Smith

EJ Smith

    Even more advanced member

  • Forum User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 249 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:EJ Smith
  • Nation Name:Titanic

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 19 September 2011 - 01:23 AM - 0512434

Again why use a missile when you can use a perfectly good airliner? You don't have to cover up military stock control.

I subscribe to the obvious. Terrorist trains to fly- hijacks a plane- crashes it into the pentagon.

Big satan takes one on the jaw etc. Ideal opportunity to kick some ass, make some cash probably on both sides too.

Why make it more complex than it is?

An Airliner is more efficient, we don't have a surface to surface missile with the punch of a vacuum bomb.
an Airliner laden with fuel is a poor man's vacuum bomb. it is more efficient than a full on missile strike.
  • 0

#35 C2Talon

C2Talon

    Should be Neiir by now

  • Immortal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,050 posts
  • Location: Orsinium

  • NDT Link:[ Link ]

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:C2Talon
  • Nation Name:Atheneum

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 19 September 2011 - 01:24 AM - 0512435

Planes generally don't take off with full capacity of fuel. It just isn't fuel efficient to carry all that extra weight. They get just enough to get to the destination and a little extra for a possible delay for landing.

That said, planes were still pretty effective at taking down large military ships in WWII. That is even without extra fuel, since they'd have barely enough to reach their target.
  • 0

#36 EJ Smith

EJ Smith

    Even more advanced member

  • Forum User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 249 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:EJ Smith
  • Nation Name:Titanic

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 19 September 2011 - 01:40 AM - 0512436

Planes generally don't take off with full capacity of fuel. It just isn't fuel efficient to carry all that extra weight. They get just enough to get to the destination and a little extra for a possible delay for landing.

That said, planes were still pretty effective at taking down large military ships in WWII. That is even without extra fuel, since they'd have barely enough to reach their target.

Planes generally don't take off with full capacity of fuel. It just isn't fuel efficient to carry all that extra weight. They get just enough to get to the destination and a little extra for a possible delay for landing.

That said, planes were still pretty effective at taking down large military ships in WWII. That is even without extra fuel, since they'd have barely enough to reach their target.

you gotta remember c2t them planes were headed for Los Angeles, they were express flights, they were going their full range, only 93 wasn't at full capacity. and yes, an old boss of mine was in the battle of New Caledonia, Japs used Kamakazis to great effect, we used a similar strategy if we had to ditch, our guys would find a ship, aim the plane at the ship, open the throttles, lock the controls and bail out. planes are decent weapons...
Japs and us also used them against military installations in the battles of Midway and Okinawa.
  • 0

#37 EJ Smith

EJ Smith

    Even more advanced member

  • Forum User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 249 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:EJ Smith
  • Nation Name:Titanic

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 19 September 2011 - 01:45 AM - 0512437

Grain dust explosions are also thermobaric bombs like fuel vapor explosions, here is an example of a grain dust explosion.



Grain dust is a similar explosive yield to jet fuel.
  • 0

#38 EJ Smith

EJ Smith

    Even more advanced member

  • Forum User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 249 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:EJ Smith
  • Nation Name:Titanic

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 19 September 2011 - 01:54 AM - 0512438

This should help illustrate what c2t is saying...


  • 0

#39 EJ Smith

EJ Smith

    Even more advanced member

  • Forum User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 249 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:EJ Smith
  • Nation Name:Titanic

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 19 September 2011 - 02:02 AM - 0512439

Here c2t I hope this helps your case :)



these are REAL tests performed by REAL commercial pilots.
  • 0

#40 EJ Smith

EJ Smith

    Even more advanced member

  • Forum User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 249 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:EJ Smith
  • Nation Name:Titanic

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 19 September 2011 - 02:42 AM - 0512440

Now before you start about Ground effect.

Airbus A380 doing high speed low passes and tight turns, Airbus A380 is the world's largest commercial passenger aircraft.

  • 0