Conspiracy theory

[Gaz6002]

The video doesn't prove anything for me Gaz. I watched almost half of it

 

I'm done here.

[Scott]

I'm done here.

 

I was only interested in the pentagon part for the moment. The video is nicely broken up into sections so I watched the part I wanted to. No need to drop your toys out of the pram.

[Gaz6002]

I was only interested in the pentagon part for the moment. The video is nicely broken up into sections so I watched the part I wanted to. No need to drop your toys out of the pram.

 

I'm not, but you're showing the classic signs of the tinfoil hat mentality and for that reason I'm not going to try and reason with you. Toys firmly in pram mate. I have more important things to do.

[Scott]

I'm not, but you're showing the classic signs of the tinfoil hat mentality and for that reason I'm not going to try and reason with you. Toys firmly in pram mate. I have more important things to do.

 

Lol, clearly.

[AJI]

 

However, the pentagon was punctured all the way through as I understand it. This would mean that something made it all the way through to the other side.

 

Remember that you have to look at this airliner impact as where is the energy concentration point, and how does this energy carry through as the collision occurs.

As mentioned and as the F4 vid demonstrates, things like wings did not carry enough momentum to puncture reinforced concrete but the main body of the airliner in this particular impact with the pentagon did have enough energy.

So the main body did puncture the first wall and even carried enough energy forward to puncture further walls. Knowing a little about building structures I would guess that the interior walls of the pentagon would not be as strong as the exterior. Therefore as the main body of the plane continued to carry enough energy through the building it was able to puncture further walls within the building. Along with the impact of the plane, the plane will have also have carried along with it a pressure wave. This pressure wave is all part of the collision energy and you can imagine how a concentrated pressure wave that would go along with a fuselage body could ‘add’ to the physical mass and velocity of the fuselage structure.

 

For example you can see the pressure wave exiting the twin towers on the clear video footage of that crash. The plane goes in one side and you get an explosion effect out of the other side of the building. This is all the compressed air and material that is forced to get out of the path of the forwarding collision. The interior of the plane carries along with it an amount of air travelling at 500mph (ish). Like an air-cannon if you can think of it like that. Take this length of air to be the length of the entire fuselage and you have a significant amount of force concentrated in a relatively small area.

 

The smallish round hole on the other side of the pentagon building to me would fit the profile of a concentrated pressure wave and/or an amount of remaining fuselage structure impacting on a small area of the wall.

The things that would carry through the internal walls would be the heaviest items on the plane, such as the landing gear structures. I think I am correct in saying that at least one of the landing gear parts was found near to this exit hole. (This is purely from memory of a documentary I watched a few years ago – I stand to be corrected on this of course).

 

 

As the demonstration video the plane doesn't cortina so would it not be more likely that most of the surviving fuselage would be past the hole.

 

 

As the plane reached through the number of walls that it did, there would be very little of anything left. So on this basis there would be very little identifiable parts of anything on the other side of the exit hole. If anything then maybe a landing gear strut at best, but maybe this impact that created the hole took what kinetic energy the landing gear had left in it.

 

 

Using the F4 as an example, if it had actually managed to puncture a hole in that concrete, say by the halfway mark of the main body, the latter part of the plane and the tail wouldn't be hitting concrete, it would be torn and broken and in bits but it would pass through the hole due to there being nothing in the way to stop it.

 

At low speed impacts this is what you see yes. You would get a crumple zone like in a car impact. But at these levels of speed you get a different effect taking place. The forces involved are huge and it has a brittle effect on metals and other materials, basically the metal can’t bend in time with the speed of the collision like it can with a car impact. So what you see st the metal parts and other materials simply turning to unidentifiable fragments.

If the speed involved is of this nature then the whole plane is likely to have gone through this impact before the ‘g’ forces become low enough to stop the plane from impacting further in to the object.

 

 

Obviously this is just an observation, but I don't see how something can create a hole all the way to the other side without any of it actually making it through. Just to add, the hole that was left on the other side was perfectly round, this would say to me that the fuselage was in fact intact enough to create that hole and therefor there should definitely be a lot of debris on the other side. If it was simply the impact that knocked the hole out then it wouldn't be such a tidy shape.

 

 

My observation on this is that the wall likely took an impact on the inside from something solid combined with the pressure wave as mentioned above. The heavy item releasing its final kinetic energy to the wall and so falling short on the inside, while the pressure wave using its force to knock the wall through. A pressure wave is actually a nice uniform shape in most cases.

 

Pressure waves carry a significant amount of force, as force and pressure are linked via area acting. An explosion of TNT that could be used to bring down a building for example is a pressure wave that is used to cut through concrete.

 

 

All of this is just using best evidence and tested science to make the best account for what happened. Is it possible that a missile was fired at the pentagon, yes, but the remaining evidence doesn't suggest this, the remaining evidence suggests an airliner sized object hitting at speed.

 

I'm not trying to state I am an expert on this as my knowledge is just on the side of aircraft engineering from my uni studies. I have watched a number of the conspiracy programs and also some of the more plain factual documentaries that don't have any point to prove. And all of them to me at least suggest the pentagon was hit by a plane of significant size.

[Scott]

Remember that you have to look at this airliner impact as where is the energy concentration point, and how does this energy carry through as the collision occurs.

As mentioned and as the F4 vid demonstrates, things like wings did not carry enough momentum to puncture reinforced concrete but the main body of the airliner in this particular impact with the pentagon did have enough energy.

So the main body did puncture the first wall and even carried enough energy forward to puncture further walls. Knowing a little about building structures I would guess that the interior walls of the pentagon would not be as strong as the exterior. Therefore as the main body of the plane continued to carry enough energy through the building it was able to puncture further walls within the building. Along with the impact of the plane, the plane will have also have carried along with it a pressure wave. This pressure wave is all part of the collision energy and you can imagine how a concentrated pressure wave that would go along with a fuselage body could ‘add’ to the physical mass and velocity of the fuselage structure.

 

For example you can see the pressure wave exiting the twin towers on the clear video footage of that crash. The plane goes in one side and you get an explosion effect out of the other side of the building. This is all the compressed air and material that is forced to get out of the path of the forwarding collision. The interior of the plane carries along with it an amount of air travelling at 500mph (ish). Like an air-cannon if you can think of it like that. Take this length of air to be the length of the entire fuselage and you have a significant amount of force concentrated in a relatively small area.

 

The smallish round hole on the other side of the pentagon building to me would fit the profile of a concentrated pressure wave and/or an amount of remaining fuselage structure impacting on a small area of the wall.

The things that would carry through the internal walls would be the heaviest items on the plane, such as the landing gear structures. I think I am correct in saying that at least one of the landing gear parts was found near to this exit hole. (This is purely from memory of a documentary I watched a few years ago – I stand to be corrected on this of course).

 

 

 

 

 

As the plane reached through the number of walls that it did, there would be very little of anything left. So on this basis there would be very little identifiable parts of anything on the other side of the exit hole. If anything then maybe a landing gear strut at best, but maybe this impact that created the hole took what kinetic energy the landing gear had left in it.

 

 

 

 

At low speed impacts this is what you see yes. You would get a crumple zone like in a car impact. But at these levels of speed you get a different effect taking place. The forces involved are huge and it has a brittle effect on metals and other materials, basically the metal can’t bend in time with the speed of the collision like it can with a car impact. So what you see st the metal parts and other materials simply turning to unidentifiable fragments.

If the speed involved is of this nature then the whole plane is likely to have gone through this impact before the ‘g’ forces become low enough to stop the plane from impacting further in to the object.

 

 

 

 

 

My observation on this is that the wall likely took an impact on the inside from something solid combined with the pressure wave as mentioned above. The heavy item releasing its final kinetic energy to the wall and so falling short on the inside, while the pressure wave using its force to knock the wall through. A pressure wave is actually a nice uniform shape in most cases.

 

Pressure waves carry a significant amount of force, as force and pressure are linked via area acting. An explosion of TNT that could be used to bring down a building for example is a pressure wave that is used to cut through concrete.

 

 

All of this is just using best evidence and tested science to make the best account for what happened. Is it possible that a missile was fired at the pentagon, yes, but the remaining evidence doesn't suggest this, the remaining evidence suggests an airliner sized object hitting at speed.

 

I'm not trying to state I am an expert on this as my knowledge is just on the side of aircraft engineering from my uni studies. I have watched a number of the conspiracy programs and also some of the more plain factual documentaries that don't have any point to prove. And all of them to me at least suggest the pentagon was hit by a plane of significant size.

 

 

Again this is all contrary to what we are being told. We are being told that there are loads of parts of the plane, they exited through that hole and that they just aren't releasing the pictures. This was in the link that Gaz posted up. This is where the suspicions are raised for me on these stories. The pentagon security feed only has that second frame interval recording? Not a chance. They even admit that it isn't the only footage they have, they just aren't releasing it. Apparently (citation needed here) the security video was siezed from 2 buildings in close proximity to the pentagon. This is where the tin foil hats come into it as I don't know if that is true or not, it is simply a statement of fact made in the "loose change" video.

 

The photo taken just after the impact shows a single round hole, the wings, did not enter the building. Only a small round hole can be seen immediately after the impact. The wings themselves probably wouldn't be able to take such a hit but the engine certainly would. They showed what was left of a bladed turbine disc on one side and a compressor drum on the other (I can identify them, why can't they?), those parts along with all the main components of the engine WOULD take a hit like that and still be identifiable. I've seen many a crash investigation engine and the main components are always identifiable. There are at least 20 components that would take a hit like that, countless more that would be shielded and attached by/to the main parts. For all I know these parts were found, have been identified and have been documented but there would be no reason to be clear on this fact if it had actually happened.

 

For me it's what the government, FBI, National security, the usual suspects, etc etc aren't releasing and aren't saying that is showing signs of a conspiracy and a coverup. I can't think of any conceivable reason why they wouldn't release certain details, photos, video unless there was something untoward going on.

[Charlotte]

For me it's what the government, FBI, National security, the usual suspects, etc etc aren't releasing and aren't saying that is showing signs of a conspiracy and a coverup. I can't think of any conceivable reason why they wouldn't release certain details, photos, video unless there was something untoward going on.

 

Well, personally I would have thought that a building such as the pentagon would need to get out of the public arena pretty sharpish to avoid further security breaches/anyone compromising the structure of the buildings again.

[dandan]

You mean steal.

 

No Jazz I mean "buy" - that why I said "buy".

 

It would have been far cheaper to buy this oil you are referring to than go to war to get it.

[AJI]

Scott, Yes I do agree with you that the US government probably won't or haven't release all the details relating to the events. I dare say this is in their national interest not to release it. The pentagon is the centre of the US defence and it should be accepted that they will have secrets regarding the construct of the pentagon and how much damage a certain sized plane can do.

After all, if these details were widely known then terroists or other enemies to the US will have verified data on what can do what when it comes to the pentagon.

 

Things like the level of CCTV security and high frame rate, high resolution video footage of the impact would allow the world to have too much of an insight in to the workings of the pentagon in terms of it security and design. So I have no issues with the US government releasing certain information and holding on to others. Each country government has a duty to protect its national security and I accept this.

 

 

 

The wings did not enter the building...yes I would agree with that, they would have turned to small fragments on impact leaving little damage to the reinforced concrete exterior wall. Same goes for the fin and tail planes.

You point about certain other parts of the aircraft leaving evidence, this I can agree with. The engines for example, these are indeed significant lumps of metal and you'd expect to see the locations whereby these made impact with either the ground or the building.

But the way I invisage the impact is that you could break the plane down in to components and treat each of these as an individual impact.

 

So, if I were to consider shooting a wing at a reinforced concrete building at 500mph I would expect to see minor damage to the building (assuming it is of the type of the pentagon) and virtually nothing recognisable left of the wing.

 

If I were to take an engine unit on its own going in to a building at 500mph then I have to look at one of two situations....(a) that the engine had enough energy to puncture the walls or (b) if the engine didn't have enough energy to puncture the walls.

As the walls of the pentagon didn't clearly show the 'break through' where the engine would have been then you would have to take case (b) from above in that the engines impacted the walls and for the most part became fragmented with only a few core metal parts left mangled on the outside of the pentagon walls. The visual evidence for case (b) is not clear from the images and vids I've seen but it should be there (somewhere) But then what should this visual evidence be on the pentagon walls?..... I'm not sure as such a thing has not happened before.

 

Finally if you take the fuselage as a unit to send in to the wall at 500mph then this carries significant mass to puncture through whilst fragmenting itself through the reinforcement bars and concrete whereby the energy is dissapated throughout the building internals.

 

So when I envisage how this plane went in to the pentagon I break it down in to components of the plane. If all the data from the collision was accurately obtained then put in to various maths formuals you'd have maths full of integration equations which in effect is breaking the elements down in to very small parts.

 

 

It is a shame that the world doesn't have clear video footage like we got from the twin towers. Maybe the US government do have it, maybe it will be released in the future years?

But from the evidence we do have it still remains the best fit scenario that a plane entered at high speed.

Happy of course to be proved one way or the other, as I have no particular political or nationalistic incline towards there being a missile or a plane.

[Tannhauser]

Frank Greening's report

 

Interesting technical paper here on the physics of the WTC collapse.

[jazz1]

No Jazz I mean "buy" - that why I said "buy".

 

It would have been far cheaper to buy this oil you are referring to than go to war to get it.

I'm just going by what I have read like everyone else on here who claim they know everything without being first hand witnesses, if this country is in debt already then going to Iraq to protect oil mines means something, maybe you are right but there's a reason. In the long run it's far cheaper to take over a country having billions and billions of oil then to buy that same oil. Like I stated Scott thinks I'm a lier but I have nothing to proove to anyone on here besides provide what I hear, my girlfriends father told me very few information but im sure he knows more than anyone on here considering he worked for NASA spy satellites.

[Marty]

In the long run it's far cheaper to take over a country having billions and billions of oil then to buy that same oil.

 

You could say the same about going to war in Afghanistan where there is a trillion dollars worth of precious metals and rare earth elements:innocent:

[jazz1]

You could say the same about going to war in Afghanistan where there is a trillion dollars worth of precious metals and rare earth elements:innocent:

 

See this is where politics are wrong, they go to war in one country but acts of terrorism is around other countries. There was no need to carry on fighting in Iraq now, they have killed the main man.

 

Read there's so much out there that explains the truth besides the brain washed news papers.

 

http://www.rense.com/general34/realre.htm

[j_jza80]

See this is where politics are wrong, they go to war in one country but acts of terrorism is around other countries. There was no need to carry on fighting in Iraq now, they have killed the main man.

 

Read there's so much out there that explains the truth besides the brain washed news papers.

 

http://www.rense.com/general34/realre.htm

 

We aren't fighting in Iraq any more. There's a limited force still there, at the request of the Iraqi's, purely for training purposes. It totals circa 200 men iirc.

[jazz1]

We aren't fighting in Iraq any more. There's a limited force still there, at the request of the Iraqi's, purely for training purposes. It totals circa 200 men iirc.

 

http://rt.com/news/uk-iraq-war-troops/

[Charlotte]

my girlfriends father told me very few information but im sure he knows more than anyone on here considering he worked for NASA spy satellites.

 

So now he didn't tell you anything you just think he knows more than he's telling you because of his old job? This gets better.

[j_jza80]

http://rt.com/news/uk-iraq-war-troops/

 

Can you not see that the article is 100% biased against the war?

 

Have you spent any time thinking about the alternatives to our involvement in foreign countries? Perhaps the world isn't as black and White as it seems to appear to some?

[j_jza80]

So now he didn't tell you anything you just think he knows more than he's telling you because of his old job? This gets better.

 

Also, NASA may launch the spy satellites, but the onus of monitoring the footage lies with the US DoD and the CIA, NASA is not a spy agency

[stevie_b]

This thread is the gift that keeps on giving.

 

I must try to watch Gaz's iPlayer link before it disappears off the radar.

 

I'm interested to hear more about Jazz's father-in-law's role at NASA.

[tbourner]

I watched Gaz's video on catch-up last night, thought it was very good. TBH I'm currently in a place where I think the conspiracy peeps are clutching at straws somewhat and the truth is pretty obvious if you bother to look.

 

The only thing I'm not sure on is the WTC7 collapse. I can see the 1&2 collapses as being wholly caused by the planes, just watching the videos it seems a completely natural collapse and I don't see any cause to believe it was manually demolished. But the WTC7 one obviously has less video around it, especially the apparent 'cause' of the fires and initial damage - is there any evidence of the WTC1&2 collapsing onto it in any way? Obviously there won't be video because the dust would obscure anything, but I can believe it was easily close enough for tons of debris to hit the surrounding buildings including that one.

The only doubt is that I can also easily believe that WTC7 was initially built with explosives inbuilt into each floor (under some very strict NDA I assume), since it was likely built to be used by DoD, IRS and other critical information holding organisations. An instant destruction ability would have been something they might think about as a last resort rather than relying on IS security as well as padlocks on filing cabinets! Under an extreme case where national security was at risk they could blow the whole building and destroy everything (including any attackers who may be inside). So maybe that's what they did.

But if they did that, so what? This WAS an extreme situation where national security was at risk, the building was on fire, all the personnel were being evacuated, that vital info was available to anyone who'd 'planned' it well enough, so the last resort option was the last resort!

[Ricky49]

This thread is the gift that keeps on giving.

 

I must try to watch Gaz's iPlayer link before it disappears off the radar.

 

I'm interested to hear more about Jazz's father-in-law's role at NASA.

 

His Dad was an Astronought wasnt he

[j_jza80]

His Dad was an Astronought wasnt he

 

[Havard]

I think the term is Space Cadet..!!

[scotty71]

The only doubt is that I can also easily believe that WTC7 was initially built with explosives inbuilt into each floor (under some very strict NDA I assume), since it was likely built to be used by DoD, IRS and other critical information holding organisations. An instant destruction ability would have been something they might think about as a last resort rather than relying on IS security as well as padlocks on filing cabinets! Under an extreme case where national security was at risk they could blow the whole building and destroy everything (including any attackers who may be inside). So maybe that's what they did.

But if they did that, so what? This WAS an extreme situation where national security was at risk, the building was on fire, all the personnel were being evacuated, that vital info was available to anyone who'd 'planned' it well enough, so the last resort option was the last resort!

 

That is a spot on evaluation on the preplanted devices due to the buildings occupants. In answer to your question WTC7 was hit by debris from the Twin Towers. Not on the top but on the building edges. It does not explain however how all of the supporting columns failed at the same time producing total collapse into a nice neat pile

[tbourner]

Yeah so if it were true, no matter how 'Hollywood' it seems as an idea, why are so many people angry about it? the government used their backup last resort plan to protect the national security of the country, do people honestly expect to be told everything about these options? This is high level security stuff, they come out with an 'official story' to avoid government secrets being told to billions of people, that's a good thing!