the pentagon

[exo_doc]

Do you mean you saw lots of cameras outside pointed at the area of the crash or do you mean you saw lots of camera inside the building.

As I mentioned above, the conspiracy mongers did create a false story of a large number of videos being hidden from the public This story was somewhat dulled by the release of a list of all of these videos and their sources and the fact that they did not show anything helpful to the case.

Lance

Most of them were inside as I recall, but there were several in the parking areas. Whether they were pointing in the right direection I just can't remember. The planes impact site wasn't over main walkways, so I'd guess not many of those cameras would have actually been pointing to the impact site.
I don't buy into any of these conspiray theories for a minute, I just think there's an oversite or some security reason why various security tapes haven't been released to the public.

 

[Han]

My understanding is that an Aeroplane flying at low altitude and high speed causes an upward flow of air*(see diagram)

Modern Jet Aircraft especially Airliners require a long and good quality Runway in order to take off and land effectively as a result of the effect that I am attempting to describe. They (modern Airliners) Generate a tremendous amount of "Lift" due to massive Jet engine Thrust and a huge Wingspan and as a result if they where to fly at very low altitude over a "loose" Surface e.g. Grass or gravel the "Lift" or "up thrust" would disturb the said surface (rip up the grass/gravel causing a visible trail) also and more importantly this "Lift" force would not be of a stable nature and would severely and adversely effect the pilots ability to controll the Aircraft.
I believe it was the lack of a "trail" or "track" in the grass at the Pentagon which has lead people to the conclusion that it was not an aircraft that hit it. I also recall that acording to the "Official" "Flightpath" the Plane would have impacted with several trees and a lampost that where "undamaged " when they should have been if the "Official" "Flightpath" was correct.
To me its logical that the "Pentagon" would be one of the most "Guarded" and "Overwatched" buildings in the world.

 

[Kieran]

This may help the discussion along, looking down from above a map of the Pentagon.

Yglesias s Parking Lot

---------- Post added at 07:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:09 PM ----------

My understanding is that an Aeroplane flying at low altitude and high speed causes an upward flow of air*(see diagram)
View attachment 2192
Modern Jet Aircraft especially Airliners require a long and good quality Runway in order to take off and land effectively as a result of the effect that I am attempting to describe. They (modern Airliners) Generate a tremendous amount of "Lift" due to massive Jet engine Thrust and a huge Wingspan and as a result if they where to fly at very low altitude over a "loose" Surface e.g. Grass or gravel the "Lift" or "up thrust" would disturb the said surface (rip up the grass/gravel causing a visible trail) also and more importantly this "Lift" force would not be of a stable nature and would severely and adversely effect the pilots ability to controll the Aircraft.
I believe it was the lack of a "trail" or "track" in the grass at the Pentagon which has lead people to the conclusion that it was not an aircraft that hit it. I also recall that acording to the "Official" "Flightpath" the Plane would have impacted with several trees and a lampost that where "undamaged " when they should have been if the "Official" "Flightpath" was correct.
To me its logical that the "Pentagon" would be one of the most "Guarded" and "Overwatched" buildings in the world.

if you look at some of the photographs taken at the Pentagon some of the light poles were knocked from their foundations, a clear indication something hit, them a missile wouldn't do that a plane would.

 

[Han]

To be honest I was trying to clarify the arguement and highlight why people think what they do about the "pentagon" scenario. Personally I think that its not a very water tight idea to assume that a missile was used as it creates more problems, like for example all the people on that flight. Not to mention that missiles have a "signature" and would appear very differently to an Aircraft on a Radar display. However I am not party to to the releveant information for obvious security reasons (radar data etc).
I am puzzled why you (Lance) would compare a Tornado to an "Aircraft"? I hope you will concede that they are very very different. I would request that you take another look at what I stated when I pointed out that "Modern Jets" especially "Airliners" require a high quality "tarmac/asphalt" surface to operate safely that is a fact and is clearly demonstrated by the presence of such Asphalt Runways at all Airports that are utilised by Aircraft over a certain size.
If you think about it logically a large metal Aircraft must generate a massive amount of "Lift" to become Airborne(take off) and the power of this "force" should not be underestimated. Propeller aircraft are very different and can be operated on much lower quality "Runways" due to the fact that they operate at much lower speeds and do not require as much "Lift" infact most Airfields in Britain in WWII where just that "Fields" when the age of the "Jet Engine" arrived it was no longer possible to use "Airfields" and "proper" (high quality tarmac) "Runways" had to be built.
Moving back to the "trail" or "track" that I mentioned before I can offer a simple experiment to demonstrate this concept: If you have a Hoover/Vacuum cleaner with a bendy pipe (not a stand up model) plug it in turn it on and hold the pipe say 12" away from the palm of your other hand* and slowly move the pipe(or your palm) gradually closer together you will observe that at a closer distance the amount of "pull" or "suction" will increase dramaticaly and at a very close distance it will be hard to keep them apart and steady. Now repeat the same process replacing your palm with a fixed hard flat surface like a table top for example, you will notice that even when the nozzle(pipe) is in close proximity to the hard flat surface it is much easier to controll the pipe. The same principle effects Large Jet Aircraft, they Basically have a minimum altitude that they need to maintain in order to avoid instability, a "good quality" runway negates this instability because it is by its very nature hard and flat and allows the "aircraft" to function in the way that it was designed to. In other words "comercial Airliners" are not designed for high speed low altitude aerobatic manouvers (even with a highly skilled and experienced pilot).

I apologise for my long winded post all the best Harry

P.S. Just to make it absolutely clear, I believe that an "Aeroplane" did hit the Pentagon not a missile.
Finaly (I promise) Like my opinions on most things my views on this situation are contradictory and I feel it would not be fair if I did not point out or mention that maybe part of the reason that there is not any "quality" footage of the impact could be because there where less tourists and journalists(tv crews etc) present in the surrounding area of the Pentagon like there where in New York (Twin Towers).

*you could also place some powder/loose material on your palm or table top and observe it being propelled into the nozzle/pipe at a certain distance depending on the weight and consitancy of the said material/powder.

 

[Ron Collins]

Hi HAN, I do not find anything wrong with what you have said. However, if the guy flying the plane (sorry but I refuse to use the word pilot to describe those spineless jackasses) was decreasing power, and the descent angle was sharp enough at the end it could have avoided this. We know that 4 light poles were knocked down. We know they where about 80 feet high. I have not read where on the poles they were struck.

In my view I would expect that the altitude would have varied greatly over that distance. Probably by as much as 100 or 150 feet in a sort of undulating motion. Horizontally, I would expect a lot of motion as well. Depending on the wind perhaps even some rudder movement. Basically, it would be exactly like any pilots first landing attempt. The last thing I would expect is for a plane to be flying perfectly flat and normal or on a shallow descent over the entire distance. But, I could see that said spineless jackass would be able to hold the plane flat for a few seconds. Perhaps the last 1000 to 1500 feet or so.

Now, that is just how my mind imagines it. I have not looked at this in detail. And, to be honest I doubt I will. For me I just can't take the time to look into this stuff. There is just too much stuff.

 

[Han]

I totally agree with the point that the Aircraft was not being operated safely.I will also admit that I had wrongly assumed that it was a much larger plane than it actually was. Also now I think back I am probably a "victim" of false or "biased" reporting because I did learn about the "controversy" through a "conspiracy" documentary, it would not be right if I did not acknowledge this. The same is true of the "flightpath". I will in future pay more attention before "jumping the gun" and trusting people with an agenda (making money or fame). I am actually quite dissapointed in myself that I did not double check the information personally, I am learning through this forum that I am probably too reliant on "instinct" or "trust" and my mistake was to "trust" the makers of the "documentary" I mentioned before.

My knowledge of aviation comes from a life long love of "Aircraft" infact I actually wanted to be a military pilot untill I realised that this would involve dropping bombs on "people".

Here are some links about the "boeing 757" and its "runway requirements" http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/pf/pf_200tech.html and http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/753sec3.pdf


and here are some about the "737" http://boeing.com/commercial/737family/pf/pf_700tech.html runway requierment http://www.airportsites.net/MasterPlans/PVD/Final mp exhibits/CHIII/EX_III-1-9_Rwy-Length.pdf

further reading http://www.airforcebase.net/usaf/runways.html and http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...ge&q=commercial runway specifications&f=falsealso
http://utca.eng.ua.edu/projects/final_reports/01111rpt.htm

Regarding Tornado "tracks"
"Q: How much power does the strongest tornado have? And, I know Twister is not true but can a tornado be a mile wide?
Answered by: Joe Schaefer, director, NOAA/NWS Storm Prediction Center, Norman, Okla.
A: The total energy in a tornado is relatively low. A typical tornado contains 10,000 kilowatt-hours, while a hurricane contains 10,000,000,000 kilowatt-hours. (For comparison, a Hydrogen Bomb also contains 10,000,000,000 kilo-watt hours.) However, because a tornado is so much smaller than a hurricane, the energy density (energy per unit volume) of a tornado is about 6 times greater for a tornado than for a hurricane. In terms of energy density, a tornado is the strongest of nature's storms.
In a study of 34 years of tornado tracks (over 22,800) storms, it was found that the median tornado had a path length of 0.3 miles, and a width of 0.1 mile. But tracks 31 miles or longer were reported with 17 tornadoes, and 60 tornadoes had tracks that were at lease one mile wide!"((source))(http://www.usatoday.com/weather/wtwistqa.htm and here is a website with pictures of "tornado tracks" http://flyprescott.blogspot.com/2010/10/evidence-of-tornados-in-az-pictures.html


all the best Harry

 

[trainedobserver]

I am sure that you are aware that the hijackers WERE trained to fly.

It is true that the supposed pilot of the Pentagon plane did have a pilots certificate.

I spent some time a few years ago tying to get a better understanding of 911. I went to Architects for 911 Truth and Pilots for 911 Truth and I didn't find anything there that looked to be generated by stupid or uneducated people. There is also a Fire Fighters for 911 Truth as well. I've also read through and watched Popular Mechanic's presentations on the subject. What I came away with was not a "favorite conspiracy theory" but rather a disenchantment with the official one.

Lance, you're welcome to think I'm stupid because I'm not sold on the official story and believe another investigation should be undertaken but I don't have the energy or desire to revisit it or debate it so I guess I should just keep my mouth shut when it pops up in the forum.

There are no real conspiracies except the official ones we are presented with. Hallelujah, I have seen the light. I feel so much smarter for it.

 

[Double Nought Spy]

Han, what you are apparently hung up on is called "ground effect," and it is well understood. It affects all aircraft to some degree, particularly when landing. It does complicate the safe, smooth landing of any large plane. It has essentially zilch to do with flying a plane into a building. Or flying one into the ground, for that matter.

I read somewhere in recent years (forget where) that the safest way to land a big jet is to plop it down on the tarmac with considerable authority but passengers don't like the jolt. I think they said that cargo planes and military transports are routinely landed this way, which gives the pilots better control at a critical time. But again, this all has little or nothing to do with using a heavy jet as a missile. Maybe the hijackers had better aim than one might expect, or maybe they got lucky, but then we don't even know what part of the Pentagon they intended to hit.

 

[Han]

Han, what you are apparently hung up on is called "ground effect," and it is well understood. It affects all aircraft to some degree, particularly when landing. It does complicate the safe, smooth landing of any large plane. It has essentially zilch to do with flying a plane into a building. Or flying one into the ground,* for that matter.

I read somewhere in recent years (forget where) that the safest way to land a big jet is to plop it down on the tarmac** with considerable authority but passengers don't like the jolt. I think they said that cargo planes and military transports are routinely landed this way, which gives the pilots better control at a critical time. But again, this all has little or nothing to do with using a heavy jet as a missile. Maybe the hijackers had better aim than one might expect, or maybe they got lucky, but then we don't even know what part of the Pentagon they intended to hit.

*As I have already stated I was going on dubious information(flight path from documentary) however I would contest the assumption that "ground effect" would not be a factor when attempting to collide with a building or the ground. Unless the Plane was is a controlled dive.(see diagram below)
You will notice that if the Aircraft is in a controlled dive it spends very little time within the "Ground Effect Zone" conversely if the Aircraft approaches at Low Altitude it spends a greater amount of time in the "Ground Effect Zone" .

**There are many different landing techniques but I think we agree that in the case of "heavy" or "Large" Jets tarmac/asphalt is essential and only in a critical emergency situation would the pilot attempt to land on a different surface. The undercarriage of an "Airliner" is specifically designed for use on "tarmac" The Wheel Tyres themselves are very sticky and and interact with the "tarmac" resulting in greater traction.

 

[Double Nought Spy]

So what is your point, exactly? That ground effect would make it difficult to hit an enormous building with a very large plane? What do runway requirements have to do with ramming into a wall? The gear was not down, was it? You seem to think the cushion of air near the ground should have made the plane "bounce off" or something. It's just another physical force the "pilots" had to compensate for. Planes crash into buildings and into the ground all too frequently. There is nothing unusual about it, unfortunately.

 

[Double Nought Spy]

So the theory must be what? Were the light posts clipped off by the conspiracy prior to the attacks?

Probably the same crew that planted the airliner parts on the lawn. Sneaky bastards did all that without anyone noticing.

 

[Han]

@https://www.theparacast.com/forum/members/967-Double-Nought-SpyDouble Nought Spy I tried to keep things as simple as possible, please show me where I said the plane would bounce of a cushion of air? I was attempting to show that when a "Large" Aircraft does fly at Very low altitude especially over uneven ground there will invariably be "Ground Effect" or "Turbulence" hence my constant referral to "high quality Runways". With all due respect the holes in your understanding of "fluid dynamics" are your responsibility not mine.
And yes I am saying that it would be "difficult to hit an enormous building with a very large plane?" I am not saying for one moment that this did not happen at the pentagon. But the skill level and flight hours of the pilot/highjacker (spineless bastard) can not be overlooked and are part of the reason that controversy remains.
I would also like to point out that just because you understand someones arguement does not mean that you agree with it.
like I said before I have revised my view on this matter if in attempting to clarify the arguement I have caused any upset or ill feeling I sincerely apologise as this was never my intention.

 

[Double Nought Spy]

@https://www.theparacast.com/forum/members/967-Double-Nought-SpyDouble Nought Spy I tried to keep things as simple as possible, please show me where I said the plane would bounce of a cushion of air? I was attempting to show that when a "Large" Aircraft does fly at Very low altitude especially over uneven ground there will invariably be "Ground Effect" or "Turbulence" hence my constant referral to "high quality Runways". With all due respect the holes in your understanding of "fluid dynamics" are your responsibility not mine.
And yes I am saying that it would be "difficult to hit an enormous building with a very large plane?" I am not saying for one moment that this did not happen at the pentagon. But the skill level and flight hours of the pilot/highjacker (spineless bastard) can not be overlooked and are part of the reason that controversy remains.
I would also like to point out that just because you understand someones arguement does not mean that you agree with it.
like I said before I have revised my view on this matter if in attempting to clarify the arguement I have caused any upset or ill feeling I sincerely apologise as this was never my intention.

Thank you for clarifying. Please forgive my ignorance of fluid dynamics. My lack of education in such matters had me believing it would be about as easy to miss a supermarket with a pickup truck as to miss the Pentagon with an airliner. So you are saying there is a credible source who says that was too difficult a task for someone who only knew how to steer an airliner? Don't jump down my throat about it, I have not studied this topic as it seems all too loopy from what I've seen.

 

[Han]

I also described for you large airliners that have landed and even are designed to land on grass.

Sorry but no you talked about a "Boeing 737" I provided a link to the spec previously. a "737" is a relatively small "Airliner" even compared to a "757" which is about a 1/3 Larger and is itself small when compared to a "747" or an "A380"
Here are the spec links again "737" http://boeing.com/commercial/737family/pf/pf_700tech.html "757" http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/pf/pf_200tech.html "
"747"http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/pf/pf_classics.html and "A380" http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/passengeraircraft/a380family/a380-800/specifications/
Also I would point out that although I never thought or will think that a "Missile" hit the pentagon you are clearly guilty of "GUESSTIMATION" because in fact a "Proton" rocket is about 20 feet longer than a "757

 

[Han]

Just a quick message to Harry,

You have been scrupulously polite in this thread and I have been bristly and snarky. So I offer an apology for that.

I am still not sure if you think the issues you raise imply a (different) conspiracy or not. I think it has been demonstrated here that there is good evidence that the things you brought up do not rise to the level of proof of any such conspiracy and indeed seem very unlikely to have a bearing on this case at all.

Lance

Thanks lance but dont change your ways I am gratefull for your dedication to skepticism and admire the way you go about it. keep up the good work also being snarky and bristly is a very good way of getting to what people actually think.

I honestly dont know what I think about the pentagon incident, in isolation given the fact that we do have the black box, Eye witness accounts and testimony I would probably agree with the "official" version of events, however if I look at the bigger picture I am still convinced that the "events" of 9/11 where perpetrated by terrorists abetted by "internal" "conspirators".
I can not prove it is so, its just my opinion.

All the best Harry

---------- Post added at 09:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:34 PM ----------

I honestly don't know if you are being intentionally obtuse here, but what are you saying?

Please state what your proposed scenario might be for the Pentagon attack.
If you are saying that it was impossible for the flight path shown by the data to have happened in a 737, then back up your claim please without using your own layperson estimations of what might have happened.
All of your responses strike me as intentional misdirection.

Thanks,

Lance

I think we have a definate miss understanding here I was only trying to point out that (1) A "737" is smaller than a "757" in response to you saying that a 737 was designed to land on grass.
(2) my understanding is that AA Flight 77 was a "757" not a "737" although they might appear similar in name they are very different in size.
(3) you said "Or is the theory that a missile 50 times bigger than any known missile was rammed into the building?" that was what I was referring to when I said about GUESSTIMATION as I said a "Proton" rocket is 20 feet longer. sorry for not making things clear.

by the time this is posted you will have probably read my previous post but if you havent I cannot offer a theory contrary to the "official" one.

 

[Han]

I have just re-read this whole thread and I had overlooked Rons link to the findings on flight 77 after reading it I must admit I was totally wrong to talk about "ground effect" being a factor. I will insert the text that convinced me of my error below:

"[FONT=arial,helvetica]In addition, many modern airliners are not directly flown by the pilot but by automated systems. Most newer aircraft even use fly-by-wire (FBW) systems that take control inputs from the pilot, process them by computer, and automatically make adjustments to the control surfaces to accomplish the pilot's commands. Though the 757 is not equipped with a fully digital FBW system, it does carry a flight management computer system (FMCS), digital air data computer (DADC), and autopilot flight director system (AFDS) that provide sophisticated control laws to govern the plane's control surfaces. The AFDS not only controls the plane when the autopilot is enabled, but Boeing recommends that these computerized systems always be in operation to advise the pilots on how to best fly the aircraft. The primary advantage of computerized control systems is that they can make corrections to an aircraft's flight path and help prevent the pilot from accidentally putting the plane into an uncontrollable condition. The 757's flight augmentation system is also designed to damp out aerodynamic instabilities, and computerized control systems often automatically account for ground effect by making adjustments to the plane's control surfaces to cancel it out." [/FONT] ((source))(http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml)
[FONT=arial,helvetica]
[/FONT]in other words the "highjacker" was assisted by the planes own saftey features.

So apologies all round especially to Double Nought Spy it was actually my ignorance of this onboard system that lead me to my conclusions.

Regards Harry[FONT=arial,helvetica]


[/FONT]

 

[Double Nought Spy]

Thanks for posting that, Harry. That's interesting. I knew about some of those systems, at least in general terms but did not know how they applied to the specific plane.

I should have read the thread more closely myself. I'll try to keep that in mind. It's pretty easy to get emotionally invested in a thread about 9-11. There are still many raw nerves there.

 

[Ron Collins]

HAN got me thinking like a programer on this. The airplane should be able to detect decent angles and altitude combinations and cross reference those with airplane health and topography/urban obstructions. Then, if appropriate, disable cockpit control and perform a "safety maneuver". In my head I am thinking that it alerts ATC and immediately climbs to a predetermined altitude and begins a holding pattern. Theoretically the aircraft could then be piloted to the ground either by the on board computer or via a remote pilot. Man I hope someone is working on that type of a system!

 

[pixelsmith]

HAN got me thinking like a programer on this. The airplane should be able to detect decent angles and altitude combinations and cross reference those with airplane health and topography/urban obstructions. Then, if appropriate, disable cockpit control and perform a "safety maneuver". In my head I am thinking that it alerts ATC and immediately climbs to a predetermined altitude and begins a holding pattern. Theoretically the aircraft could then be piloted to the ground either by the on board computer or via a remote pilot. Man I hope someone is working on that type of a system!

now if we can just figure out how a 757 squeezed thru a round hole and punched thru those concrete interior walls with an aluminum nose cone...

 

[Angel of Ioren]

now if we can just figure out how a 757 squeezed thru a round hole and punched thru those concrete interior walls with an aluminum nose cone...

No matter how much evidence is presented, you will never let go of your conspiracy theories, will you. Think of how you perceive people that believe every word of the bible? Are you picturing it? Well that's how you look when you insist on stuff like this. People died in the plane that hit the Pentagon. Dismissing that is disrespectful to those that lost their lives and their loved ones. I hope you can see that.