What hit the Pentagon? 9/11

[Paul]

The Pentagon's security cameras show some aircraft being shattered by a missile automatically from one of the defense batteries that surround the Pentagon. The Pentagon admits the aircraft came in low. It did so to get under the radar that controls those missles. Fight 77 had a wing span of 129 feet. It CANNOT fly that low and that fast due to the ground effect cushion that is formed. 757's have to stall, that is quit flying, in order fly that close to the ground. Cruise Missles and remotely piloted vehicles such as the US's Global Hawks, however , can.

What hit the Pentagon?

Peace be with you, Paul

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Paul What hit the Pentagon?

Remember the A 10 Warthog that went missing over Colorado a few months prior?


Thats what I think it was.


It has the engine placement required to meet the eyewitness accounts, it is an airplane, it is closer to the actual dimension of the damage on the building, and it has never been found.


Sort of a sacrificial lamb.

[Mr.Vicchio]

I think it was an alien space craft. I mean, all that debris from inside the Pentagon, adn those eyewitnessess, and of course.. the missing airliner and crew.. obviously it's all part of an alien plot to cover up a crash landing...

[Chris]

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

[Sonart]

I wouldn't even bother trying to disuade Paul, guys. Nothing you or I could possibly present has the power to escape the "Yeah, that's what they want you to believe!" black hole.

.

[Chris]

Quote by: Paul It CANNOT fly that low and that fast due to the ground effect cushion that is formed.

It cannot fly that low and fast, even if it is about to crash?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Physics leson 101.

Ground effect only does so much. Inertia beats ground effect... every time.


So if you can pull out the math formula for us, showing the net effect of ground effect, vs. the inertia of the aircraft at the time of impact... then you have a case.

Just saying no aircraft can fly that low because of ground effect makes for a very big claim.

Ground effect becomes moot point at high speeds, you can over come it, and it isn't hard.

Well, that depends. You can use ground effect to accelerate an airplane after lift-off on a short- or soft-field takeoff -- or you can float halfway down the runway by being too fast on final. Therefore, whether ground effect is good or bad depends -- like most things in aviation -- on your understanding and use or misuse of the phenomenon. Short- and soft-field takeoffs have at least one element in common -- they both use ground effect. You’ll remember that in each takeoff technique, the aircraft is lifted off the runway and then immediately leveled to remain in ground effect for acceleration. The aircraft will accelerate much faster without the rolling friction of the tires on the runway/takeoff surface and will accelerate much faster in the reduced drag of ground effect. Care must be taken to remain in the ground effect until a safe airspeed for continued climb has been achieved. It’s possible to fly in ground effect at speeds that would not be possible when out of the drag-reducing effect. Just as it can be said that ground effect reduces the lift-induced drag, climbing out of ground effect will have the opposite effect. There will be a dramatic increase in the drag, which may be seen by the pilot as a loss of thrust. At any rate, the increase can be quite dramatic when an aircraft that was flying just a second ago quits and settles back to the runway. This has happened many times to those who thought they were getting away with grossly overloading an aircraft. Just as they are thinking, "I knew the charts were too conservative. Just look how my aircraft is performing ..." the aircraft climbs -- slowly -- out of ground effect and refuses to fly further. Some unlucky folks have been beyond the end of the paved runway when this occurred and were required to have their airplane hauled out of the field of a farmer who was less than impressed with their "test pilot" antics. Some did not live to attend their NTSB hearing. Because the elevator of most aircraft is affected to some extent -- depending upon its mounting in relation to the wing -- by the downwash from the wing, the elevator can be much less effective in ground effect. That can cause interesting problems on both takeoff and landing. The test pilot we just talked about may find that not only does the drag on his airplane increase dramatically when he climbs out of ground effect, but the elevator all of a sudden becomes more effective. And, before he knows it, that large amount of nose-up elevator he was using to haul his overloaded beast from the runway suddenly puts him into an extreme nose-up pitch and the aircraft stalls while falling back to mother earth. On the opposite end of the flight, a heavily loaded aircraft with a CG forward of the forward limit may not have enough elevator authority in ground effect to keep the nose wheel from being the first gear to touch down on landing. This does not make for graceful landings. In fact, the effectiveness of the elevator in ground effect has a great influence on the setting of the fore and aft limits of the CG. When an aircraft enters ground effect during the landing flare, the aircraft may tend to float because the lift-induced drag is reduced quite dramatically as the aircraft descends below one wingspan distance from the ground. Any excess speed at all -- you know, the 10 knots for Ma and the kids -- will cause this float to become excessive. This can cause an inexperienced pilot to grope for the ground and possibly induce pitch oscillations. At any rate, the bent nose gear and the excess wear on the tires and the brakes are of no use to anyone except the folks who sell spare parts. As you can see, wingtip vortices affect not only the aircraft in trail, but they have a great effect on the aircraft you are flying. Like anything else in aviation, once you understand the phenomenon you can use it to your own benefit and not be surprised by that lovely float at the end of an otherwise perfect approach. Use ground effect to your benefit to facilitate short and soft field takeoffs. Just remember to stay in the ground effect until you have obtained a safe climb speed. Be ready for the decreased drag encountered when descending into ground effect on landing by controlling your speed on final and maintaining the recommended speeds. Don’t be lulled into a false sense of security by those "extra few knots" that will cause you to float an amazing distance down the runway. http://www.avweb.com/news/airman/185905-1.html

[Paul]

Here is an interesting website

Controversial New Film About American Airlines Flight 77
Rumor Control. Controversial New Film About the Al Qaeda Strike at the
Pentagon ~ Questions Where is American Airlines Flight 77? ...
http://www.silverstatenews.com/rc/91...ted/index.html - 9k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages

Peace be with you, Paul

[liverleef]

ah geez, I hate conspiracy theories. A PLANE hit the pentagon. Common sense should tell everyone this. What happened to the plane if it didnt hit the pentagon? Hundreds of people would have to be involved to destroy the plane and its passengers and then create another explosion at the pentagon. Thats a lot of people keeping a mighty big secret. Plus there were people who gave eye witness testimony. They also claim to have found the remains of the passengers at the pentagon. If they isn't true, how many people would have to be involved to manufacture that story? The people who cleaned up the site, the forensic professionals not to mention the people who perform the DNA testing, the people who monitor air traffic, and the people who participated in launching the missle. C'mon people, everything the Bush administration has touched has been a complete train wreck, do you really think they could pull this off?.

It kills me that the same people who accuse the Bush administration of being completely inept and incapable of getting anything right somehow managed to pull off the greatest conspiracy in history.

Heres a few websites that the conspiracy theorists might want to look at

Paul Boutin's site

Purdue University's findings

[Whodoe!]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio I think it was an alien space craft. I mean, all that debris from inside the Pentagon, adn those eyewitnessess, and of course.. the missing airliner and crew.. obviously it's all part of an alien plot to cover up a crash landing...

Alien space craft fly by the use of interplanetary magnetism (gravitational pull) and the Pentagon’s lead bottoms interfere with the field. There is no way they could fly close enough to even crash there. Besides, you have no real proof.

[oranged]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio I think it was an alien space craft. I mean, all that debris from inside the Pentagon, adn those eyewitnessess, and of course.. the missing airliner and crew.. obviously it's all part of an alien plot to cover up a crash landing...

People don't listen if you over use Sarcasm Vicchio. I think it was the missil, too.

[Nono]

Quote by: Paul 757's have to stall, that is quit flying, in order fly that close to the ground.

They do? In that case, 757s (unlike all other jet airliners) have to make full-stall landings, otherwise it would be impossible to land them. So this is bullshit.

As Vicchio's quote points out, if your airspeed is too high on approach, you're in for a long float -- and what is a long float if not flying very close to the ground without quite being able to get those wheels on it?

I see no reason to believe it wasn't the 757 in question. How it was allowed to get anywhere near the Pentagon given what had happened in NY some time before, however, remains a damn good question.

[Prometheus]

You gotta love these conspiracy theorists... the US government bombed it's own military headquarters. The pictures of the destruction were public - there wasn't a huge explosion like with a missle, it was crash damage.

Just because you don't like bush dosen't mean that you have to accuse him of ridiculous things to justify his position. There are plenty of reasons to disagree with him... but I guess your life is so boring you have to make it more exciting. The man's a sitting presedent for god's sake. You can't cover up something that big. That man is under more scrutiny than anyone in the nation. Except maybe micheal jackson and martha stewart...

[Nono]

Quote by: Pro The man's a sitting presedent for god's sake.

A "war president", don't forget, and this protects him. As does his snarling bodyguard of character assassins. Even now, you need some pretty big brass balls to speak the honest truth about Boy George in public. In its supine timidity, the US media just won't allow the fact to be uttered that the emperor has no clothes.

You can't cover up something that big.

There I'm with you. I think it possible that the neocons may have knowingly allowed certain things to happen. (The lack of a proper investigation suggests it.) But as I remarked in another thread, the only thing people like better than conspiring against each other is blabbing about it afterward. And for anything this big, there would have been some prime blabbing by now.

[Prometheus]

Maybe I'm just having blind faith in the charictar of a man I have never met, but I really don't bebleive our presedent wouldknowingly allow that many people to die. For everything he has screwed up in public and foriegn policy, I have a confidance in basic humanity for ones own countrymen. I just don't see a person like Bush having the moral depravity (or the gumption for that matter) to let 5000 of his felow citizens get carved up like that. Maybe this is an irrational confidance, I'm not sure. But I do like to believe the bset about people when possible.

[Nono]

My view is that he's allowing thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people to die in Iraq for no reason at all, other than what he mistakenly thought would be a cakewalk to the oil tap.

No matter how one explains 911, there can be no doubt that the event was a political godsend for Bush. The dude's ratings were plunging as it began to dawn on people what they had in the White House. Yet with the proper media coaching, in a matter of days he was soaring high. The deaths you mention made it possible for him to turn shock and fear (i.e. terror) into political gold. Not least, this enabled him to crank up preparations for Iraq (which has been shown to have been already on the drawing board). And it has generally allowed him, ever since, to do pretty well what he pleases, because if you criticize him you're unpatriotic.

In his own mind he isn't depraved. But then neither was ... well I don't want to launch another Bush/Hitler discussion.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Nono My view is that he's allowing thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people to die in Iraq for no reason at all, other than what he mistakenly thought would be a cakewalk to the oil tap.

Yes, but from a moralistic point of view he can justify those deaths as part of war. I don't think that Bush could justify killing his own civilians in such a way. Remember, G. Bush is a person too. A person we can disagree with, but he's no monster.

No matter how one explains 911, there can be no doubt that the event was a political godsend for Bush. The dude's ratings were plunging as it began to dawn on people what they had in the White House. Yet with the proper media coaching, in a matter of days he was soaring high. The deaths you mention made it possible for him to turn shock and fear (i.e. terror) into political gold. Not least, this enabled him to crank up preparations for Iraq (which has been shown to have been already on the drawing board).

Well war does tend to make the hero prez. popular - that's just how it is. Do you begrudge our WWII presidents thier popularity? How about Eisenhower? They were enormously popular because of a war. Now I admit it was a different kind of war, but you can't use war popularity as an on face attack.

And it has generally allowed him, ever since, to do pretty well what he pleases, because if you criticize him you're unpatriotic.

Yah, I agree. I hate to say it, but I agree with hilliary clinton's rantings on this one. We have a right to disagree with any administration and still be patriotic.

[Nono]

Quote by: Pro Do you begrudge our WWII presidents thier popularity? How about Eisenhower? They were enormously popular because of a war. Now I admit it was a different kind of war, but you can't use war popularity as an on face attack.

Begrudge them it? As you say, it's a fact of human psychology: rally round the leader (no matter how crosseyed) in the face of external threat.

But to take your examples:

Roosevelt, before he died, laid the groundwork for the Marshall Plan, which paved the way for the EU and has pretty well kept the peace in Europe for 60 years. In other words, he had the wisdom not to yield to cheap vengefulness but rather to take an internationalist approach, one that showed its worth.

Bush's instincts are the exact opposite.

Eisenhower certainly used his war-hero status to get elected (as did Kennedy and Bush père after him). But this same Eisenhower publicly warned his country about the "military-industrial complex". Bush/Cheney must have him spinning in his grave.

[Prometheus]

I don't want to get in a debate about who was a better leader. I'm just saying that the bush-is-a-war-hero-so-he's-bad argument is not valid.

I think we can agree that Bush and Cheny are taking thier war powers too far, and we can criticize thier stratgey in the "struggle on extremism", but I really can't swallow that bush intentionally allowed 5000 us citizens to be carved up so he could play soldier.

[Mr.Vicchio]

There are several problems with the "it was a missile" theory.

1. Eye witnessess. There were too many that SAW the thing crash.

2. The Crew of the 757.... You mean they jsut "snuffed" them quietly? Why bother with the other 3 airliners at all? All smokescreen to fire a missile at the Pentagon??

3. The firecrews, the pictures of the debris... all of that says Airliner. No firefighter has comeforward saying there was no airliner, no one says "Yeah they loaded the pentagon with Airliner debris before the crash...

4. It's easy to believe the missile theory because the crash site didn't look like a nomral crash site. No airliner has ever rammed a concrete block like the Pentagon before.