9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate

[Tyger]

Ok.. one more time...we have multiple witnesses that saw a plane hit the pentagon..we have pics and vids of plane parts..we have the remains of the passagers and crew of the aircraft..doing the math this adds up to a plane hit the pentagon....

I was teaching school in Bethesda MD when this all took place. My class was outside on the school playing fields when we heard the impact. For days the Washington Post was filled with interviews of truck drivers and car drivers who were on the highway - and saw the plane pass in front of them. This incident was exhaustively covered. There were photos and video of the site - people describing what they saw that day. After the fact people were driving by - standing on the overpasses - to see the scene. Even me - though memory is fuzzy since the facts at the time were never an issue - it was the enormity of the event, the nation's capital under martial law and the cessation of air flight. This idea that there was no plane is puzzling beyond puzzling - because there were the pictures - and I seem to recall seeing one for some reason. All those news articles must be archived - should be an easy matter to access them.

BTW - I am finding this conversation fascinating - have learned some new facts. Can't contribute much because of work, but the 'conspiracy' around this event imo is the way the government used it to plunge the US into a state of aberrant psychosis. The world loved the US back then [sympathized with us] - the world was united in its support of us [candle vigils world-wide]. What a chance was lost when the road to war and torture and fear was chosen for us as a nation. [What a different world it would now be had we chosen differently.] There is a before-and-after to 9/11 in the national psyche of the US (and the world - given how the US decided to respond) that will be very hard to explain to future generations. Everything we are now is an outcome of that unholy moment. It's hard to remember the 'before'. The 'inside job' is the government potentially 'allowing' it to happen and it's 'reaction' in the months and years after. The belief of so many regarding the actual event (as a false flag operation) is their inkling of that pre- and post-9/11 manipulation imo. The 'real crime' was not 9/11 but what came before and after.

 

[Pygar2]

I've always wondered why people find it so surprising that the Pentagon jet did not touch the ground... since pilots are trained to keep this from happening until they want it to. Parts from the jets *were* all over; and parts from the people, too- but the skin, aluminum, was of course gone. The wall that actually "did in" the wings crumbled; the wall beyond had simply a hole- precisely as would be expected. I admit most jet crashes don't happen in a series of separate concrete chambers; obviously, this will allow some stuff to survive that otherwise wouldn't. And as far as the footage goes... it is routine for evidence footage to be withheld while the case is still open- or if the footage does not actually belong to the FBI. I do hate to say, however, that the world was not by any means "united in its support for us" and that our reaction to the refusal of Afghanistan to turn over OBL unless we ratted out all our intel sources for disposal, was entirely justified. All Afghanistan or Iraq had to do, as I said, was cooperate, and then it would have been impossible to push through a war. As I said, it takes two... and they did far more than their part. Some of the confusion, I think, stems from the idea that a President who has been handed a memo saying "OBL wants to attack us", has been handed actionable intel that would allow the attack, whatever it turned out to be, to be thwarted.

Oh, and to the induhvidual who thinks he can impress me by simply declaring me wrong ex officio... get some officio first; you are impressing no one.

 

[boomerang]

It's a fascinating topic and so much hinges on it. I would recommend at least a quick read over of the analysis found at pixelsmith's link:

Physics911, by Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven, 9/11/2001
http://letsrollforums.com/entry-point-pentagon-consistent-t10528.html

It is hard to reconcile what we know about building damage with the supposed type of aircraft. The original hole, before the fire, was incredibly small, with closely spaced exterior windows apparently intact. The lawn was also unscathed, and there was apparently no impact crater just inside the walls.

Analysts seem to conclude that a high speed jet aircraft of some kind did indeed hit the Pentagon that day. But that it was much smaller. It also suggests an aircraft resembling flight 77 was probably in the air over the area that day, presumably to confuse witnesses. This is admittedly loose speculation.

BTW, The shift in public trust levels began much earlier than 9/11. I would date it to the Kennedy assassinations (note the plural). But perhaps that is a function of my age.

The last video mentions an 8000 ft. dive and turn just prior to impact. Assuming a large passenger jet did hit the Pentagon, this leads us to another difficult question: Who was at the controls? Not a low-time Cessna driver, I can assure you. This is a relatively easy task in a some small aircraft. In a "jumbo jet", it would require the kind of flying skill associated with many hundreds of hours of flight or flight simulator time. Access to large turbine simulator time (of high quality) is very expensive and limited to relatively few locations. What we have here is one helluva' precision high speed landing. The only caveat that comes to mind is skillful manipulation of the aircraft's automated control features. I have no idea if such is possible.

 

[Tyger]

BTW, The shift in public trust levels began much earlier than 9/11. I would date it to the Kennedy assassinations (note the plural). But perhaps that is a function of my age.

The 'defeat' in Vietnam meant that for close to 20 years no US President could go to war. The Gulf War was so orchestrated it was a scripted hour-by-hour reality show. 9/11 was used to plunge the US into continuous war of a kind it had been unable to achieve since Vietnam.

 

[boomerang]

The 'defeat' in Vietnam meant that for close to 20 years no US President could go to war. The Gulf War was so orchestrated it was a scripted hour-by-hour reality show. 9/11 was used to plunge the US into continuous war of a kind it had been unable to achieve since Vietnam.

Tyger, I hope you are not as old as I am. Suffice to say, the Vietnam era was one of the strangest in U.S. history.

 

[Tyger]

Tyger, I hope you are not as old as I am. Suffice to say, the Vietnam era was one of the strangest in U.S. history.

Might be! But as surreal as the 60's were, the 00's of this 21st century were pretty much in a class of their own imo - and we're not out of it yet.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I was teaching school in Bethesda MD when this all took place. My class was outside on the school playing fields when we heard the impact. For days the Washington Post was filled with interviews of truck drivers and car drivers who were on the highway - and saw the plane pass in front of them. This incident was exhaustively covered. There were photos and video of the site - people describing what they saw that day. After the fact people were driving by - standing on the overpasses - to see the scene. Even me - though memory is fuzzy since the facts at the time were never an issue - it was the enormity of the event, the nation's capital under martial law and the cessation of air flight. This idea that there was no plane is puzzling beyond puzzling - because there were the pictures - and I seem to recall seeing one for some reason. All those news articles must be archived - should be an easy matter to access them.

BTW - I am finding this conversation fascinating - have learned some new facts. Can't contribute much because of work, but the 'conspiracy' around this event imo is the way the government used it to plunge the US into a state of aberrant psychosis. The world loved the US back then - the world was united in its support of us. What a chance was lost when the road to war and torture and fear was chosen for us as a nation. There is a before-and-after to 9/11 in the national psyche of the US and the world that will be very hard to explain to future generations. Everything we are now is a outcome of that unholy moment. It's hard to remember the 'before'. The 'inside job' is the government potentially 'allowing' it to happen and it's 'reaction' in the months and years after. The belief of so many regarding the actual event as a false flag operation is their inkling of that pre- and post-9/11 manipulation imo. The 'real crime' was not 9/11 but what came before and after.

Please can you find me a single picture or video of such a plane hitting or about to hit the pentagon? Now the inquiry is over, any confiscated footage should be available? I don't think it happened, I think it was a missile of some sort. I'm more than happy to be proved wrong but no-one seems to be able to provide footage from what must be one of the most watched buildings on earth. Funny that. Also funny how the 9/11 commission even said that certain 'evidence' was withheld from them!

 

[Muadib]

I know I said I wasn't going to post again, but some of this is just so funny that I can't help it. "Show me the video footage or it didn't happen" sounds a lot like the argument most skeptics will use about UFO's, "Show me a saucer or it didn't happen." Obviously the government has their reasons why they aren't making the footage available and it seems like one hell of a huge leap to assume that because they aren't releasing the footage it must mean that they fired a missile at their own building and there's a huge conspiracy.

I mean, c'mon, if there was no jetliner, why are there literally hundreds of people saying they saw a jetliner? Why if there was no jetliner, were there jetliner parts strewn about the area where the jet crashed? Did they fill up the missile with spare jet parts that just happened to have the same serial numbers as the parts on the flight that was highjacked? Did they also fill it with dead people, because we have their DNA as well, and that DNA matches known passengers that were on the flight. How do you reconcile all of this with the idea that there was no jetliner? I just can't see it. You would have to imagine a conspiracy so massive, involving so many people that it's just nonsensical. Did they fire a missile at the Pentagon, then run outside, throw a bunch of jet parts around, sprinkle DNA evidence everywhere, and then go strong arm all of the witnesses so that instead of reporting that they saw a missile, they would report a jet instead? Don't forget they would also have to knock down the light poles that the jet clipped on its way in and handle any other evidence that would point to a giant jet instead of a missile. The idea is just plain silly.

Don't forget that if they released the footage from around the Pentagon, that anyone who saw that footage would now know the location of a security camera (or several if they released multiple angles) on or around one of the most secure buildings in the world and exactly how to avoid it. There's a reason why they don't publicize the locations of security cameras around the White House and Pentagon and it isn't necessarily because there's some giant 9/11 conspiracy. Not to mention, what do they have to gain by releasing that footage at this time? So they can sway a bunch of fringe conspiracy believers, half of which would probably end up saying "Well, it's from the government and you can't trust them, it must be CGI!" or something similar? They still haven't released all of the info on the Kennedy assassination and how many years ago was that? Is it suspicious? Maybe. Does it prove a conspiracy? Not even close.

 

[pixelsmith]

It's a fascinating topic and so much hinges on it. I would recommend at least a quick read over of the analysis found at pixelsmith's link:

Physics911, by Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven, 9/11/2001
http://letsrollforums.com/entry-point-pentagon-consistent-t10528.html

It is hard to reconcile what we know about building damage with the supposed type of aircraft. The original hole, before the fire, was incredibly small, with closely spaced exterior windows apparently intact. The lawn was also unscathed, and there was apparently no impact crater just inside the walls.

Analysts seem to conclude that a high speed jet aircraft of some kind did indeed hit the Pentagon that day. But that it was much smaller. It also suggests an aircraft resembling flight 77 was probably in the air over the area that day, presumably to confuse witnesses. This is admittedly loose speculation.

BTW, The shift in public trust levels began much earlier than 9/11. I would date it to the Kennedy assassinations (note the plural). But perhaps that is a function of my age.

The last video mentions an 8000 ft. dive and turn just prior to impact. Assuming a large passenger jet did hit the Pentagon, this leads us to another difficult question: Who was at the controls? Not a low-time Cessna driver, I can assure you. This is a relatively easy task in a some small aircraft. In a "jumbo jet", it would require the kind of flying skill associated with many hundreds of hours of flight or flight simulator time. Access to large turbine simulator time (of high quality) is very expensive and limited to relatively few locations. What we have here is one helluva' precision high speed landing. The only caveat that comes to mind is skillful manipulation of the aircraft's automated control features. I have no idea if such is possible.

not to mention the "pilot" could have flown directly into the pentagon rather than fly around to the other side to perform a miracle move and then fly inches off the grass, (with no LIFT which is required to fly) then hit the building without damaging so much as a blade of grass. That question needs to be answered...How does an aircraft of that size fly inches above the ground with no lift?

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I know I said I wasn't going to post again, but some of this is just so funny that I can't help it. "Show me the video footage or it didn't happen" sounds a lot like the argument most skeptics will use about UFO's, "Show me a saucer or it didn't happen." Obviously the government has their reasons why they aren't making the footage available and it seems like one hell of a huge leap to assume that because they aren't releasing the footage it must mean that they fired a missile at their own building and there's a huge conspiracy.

I mean, c'mon, if there was no jetliner, why are there literally hundreds of people saying they saw a jetliner? Why if there was no jetliner, were there jetliner parts strewn about the area where the jet crashed? Did they fill up the missile with spare jet parts that just happened to have the same serial numbers as the parts on the flight that was highjacked? Did they also fill it with dead people, because we have their DNA as well, and that DNA matches known passengers that were on the flight. How do you reconcile all of this with the idea that there was no jetliner? I just can't see it. You would have to imagine a conspiracy so massive, involving so many people that it's just nonsensical. Did they fire a missile at the Pentagon, then run outside, throw a bunch of jet parts around, sprinkle DNA evidence everywhere, and then go strong arm all of the witnesses so that instead of reporting that they saw a missile, they would report a jet instead? Don't forget they would also have to knock down the light poles that the jet clipped on its way in and handle any other evidence that would point to a giant jet instead of a missile. The idea is just plain silly.

Don't forget that if they released the footage from around the Pentagon, that anyone who saw that footage would now know the location of a security camera (or several if they released multiple angles) on or around one of the most secure buildings in the world and exactly how to avoid it. There's a reason why they don't publicize the locations of security cameras around the White House and Pentagon and it isn't necessarily because there's some giant 9/11 conspiracy. Not to mention, what do they have to gain by releasing that footage at this time? So they can sway a bunch of fringe conspiracy believers, half of which would probably end up saying "Well, it's from the government and you can't trust them, it must be CGI!" or something similar? They still haven't released all of the info on the Kennedy assassination and how many years ago was that? Is it suspicious? Maybe. Does it prove a conspiracy? Not even close.

You obviously haven't seen the single piece of footage supposedly showing the jet hitting? It was a thin white streak and I bet you could crash a hundred large jets into the Pentagon and the damage would look nothing like what did occur.

I agree there was a jet and it probably flew over, it didn't hit it though. Where is all the CCTV? 3 frames from a crap stills camera? Lots of tape was confiscated, fact. Why can't we see it now?

 

[Muadib]

You obviously haven't seen the single piece of footage supposedly showing the jet hitting? It was a thin white streak and I bet you could crash a hundred large jets into the Pentagon and the damage would look nothing like what did occur.

I agree there was a jet and it probably flew over, it didn't hit it though. Where is all the CCTV? 3 frames from a crap stills camera? Lots of tape was confiscated, fact. Why can't we see it now?

Yes I have seen it and you can bet all you want, the fact is that neither you nor I has any real idea, because we've never seen anything like that before. You have no frame of reference to judge what it should look like, other than whatever you can conjure in your head. The footage you're talking about was a security camera from a gas station or some other local business (I forget) and a shitty one at that, (obviously) we don't know (at least to my knowledge) how many frames per second it was set to record at and what kind of shape it was in. I've seen security cameras produce some strange images, and since the plane was going over 400 mph, it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility that it wouldn't show up very well, in fact streaking is probably exactly what you would expect to see in that case.

As for your second sentence, let me get this straight, you think a plane flew over, extremely low to the ground in front of countless witnesses, knocked over some telephone poles, and then.... what? It climbed back into the sky without anyone noticing? It disappeared and nobody noticed? Did it drop a couple of care packages full of DNA evidence and plane parts as well before it vanished into thin air without anybody seeing it vanish? You're free to believe whatever you want, of course, but it's just way too much of a stretch and there's way too much conflicting evidence that has to be explained away by any conspiracy theory. There could be literally hundreds of different reasons why the footage hasn't been released, the fact is, we don't know why, and it's likely we won't for a long time, if ever. Like I said before, it's a huge leap in logic to assume that because they haven't released the footage, (that they have no reason to release and pretty much every reason not to release) that means a missile must have hit the Pentagon.

 

[Randall]

Sorry if it's a bit off the thermite debate, but here's something a bit odd.
While trying to find specs for parts recovered from the 911 crash to confirm whether
or not those parts matched the types of aircraft, I looked at a couple of photos of the landing
gear and tires. I found that some people were claiming discrepancy.
So I tried to find some photographic evidence and came upon the photo I posted here.
That picture is included again below ( top photo ):​

Now look at the photo below: This appears to be a photo of the same piece of landing gear from another angle.
What happened to the crosswalk? Is it just out of view or is some photo manipulation going on?​

Does this tire appear to be a minimum 46" in diameter? It looks a little less to me.
If you live there it would be possible to figure out based on the dimensions of other things in the photo.​

 

[Bob Watson]

Sorry if it's a bit off the thermite debate, but here's something a bit odd.
While trying to find specs for parts recovered from the 911 crash to confirm whether
or not those parts matched the types of aircraft, I looked at a couple of photos of the landing
gear and tires. I found that some people were claiming discrepancy.
So I tried to find some photographic evidence and came upon the photo I posted here.
That picture is included again below ( top photo ):​

Now look at the photo below: This appears to be a photo of the same piece of landing gear from another angle.
What happened to the crosswalk? Is it just out of view or is some photo manipulation going on?​

Does this tire appear to be a minimum 46" in diameter? It looks a little less to me.
If you live there it would be possible to figure out based on the dimensions of other things in the photo.​

it seems to be the same landing gear. but if you look at the top photo it seems to have been moved! in the top photo the wheel is
touching the last pole and in the lower pic its in more..also in the top photo the axle is at a 45 degree angle and in the bottom its straight. also in the top photo the crack is at the top of the wheel. on the bottom the crack is on the side..there fore I believe the pics were taken at different times AND the wheel was MOVED...

 

[Pygar2]

The plane, while moving forward and still in possession of its wings, still had lift. The plane went around the Pentagon, during which it lost altitude, and, IIRC, was then lined up so the pilot would have familiar landmarks. Planes are tough, btw- you *can* treat them a lot harsher than any professional pilot ever would. It's not as though the FAA would be revoking his license, after all.

 

[Randall]

it seems to be the same landing gear. but if you look at the top photo it seems to have been moved! in the top photo the wheel is
touching the last pole and in the lower pic its in more..also in the top photo the axle is at a 45 degree angle and in the bottom its straight. also in the top photo the crack is at the top of the wheel. on the bottom the crack is on the side..there fore I believe the pics were taken at different times AND the wheel was MOVED...

I noticed that too. I guess the crosswalk must start right at the edge of the bottom picture just out of sight. It just seems like after looking at the top picture that it should start closer to end of the scaffolding than on the bottom picture. I guess the wheel could be 46" or more, but it doesn't look that large in the photos. For example, assuming the caution tape is 3" wide, then 46" is about from the sidewalk to the where the cross members in the scaffolding cross. According to specifications, that is the minimum tire size for a 767. Even if we imagine it standing upright, the tire doesn't appear to be tall enough. But then again maybe my estimates are way off. Maybe some else could play around with the photo and see what they think. I used a screen ruler and converted pixels to inches and extrapolated using math. We could be even more certain if we knew how far it was from the sidewalk to the underside of the window opening on the building in the background.

​

​

 

[dyingsun]

Well. 'they' have to at least get something right...DUH. Nice to see/read from you again Lance, still the same 'ole party pooper' I see.

 

[boomerang]

Many light posts along the flight path were clipped off as the plane came into the Pentagon.

The distance between these light posts is MUCH wider than known missiles.

But the distances fit well within the wingspan of United 77.

DUH.

Lance

Then you have raised yet another issue and my question regarding it is analytical and not flip, and we know you do your homework. One does not fly very far after clipping light poles at 500 m.p.h. plus. How far were the clipped poles from the point of impact? This scenario might or might not be possible depending on distances involved.

Did anyone bother to take pics of the damaged light poles? They would certainly be considered as evidence.

 

[boomerang]

What most strikes me about the two landing gear photos is a thick accumulation of dust in the second one. Dust would probably account for obscuration of crosswalk stripes, etc.

 

[Tyger]

I'm trying to summon up the images: I seem to recall a huge - what? - tarpaulin kind of thing erected all around the site. For some reason I recall a plane - on the ground, very much so and I mean seriously crashed into the Pentagon. Why would I have that image if there was no intact plane? Rhetorical question. As it happens I have someone local to me by pure happenchance who was also in D.C. at the time. I'm going to ask him about this. It will take me a few days to broach this - probably by Wednesday I'll have his memory of the event.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

If a plane hit the pentagon, it wasn't the plane that supposedly hit and the video certainly doesn't show it....

911 Pentagon Footage Fraud - See the MISSING FOOTAGE! - YouTube