Something odd about the plane crashes in Russia today

[GliderGuider]

is how many big identifiable pieces there were on the ground after the crashes. There are pictures of whole engines, big chunks of fuselage, etc. etc. I thought airliners pretty much vaporized on impact. At least that's what they apparently do in the US. Or are Russian airliners just built stronger than the 757s that hit the Pentagon and crashed in Pennsylvania that didn't leave any big chunks hanging around to be photographed ???

[babylon_system]

1. Depends on angle, velocity, and terrain characteristics n/t

[GliderGuider]

6. Uh huh...

From what I've seen on the net most crashes on land (and even those on water) leave large amounts of identifiable debris. I've seen a couple of equivocal photos of debris from the Pentagon. Are there any pics of debris at Shankskill? Any at all? How are the NTSB doing reconstructing that airliner like they did with, say TWA800?

[RH]

10. Are you trying to say that 9/11 was accidental?

Most airline accidents feature pilots who do their best not to crash, to be damaged as little as possible.

It is preposterous to compare that with an opposite occasion where the intention was precisely to cause as much damage as possible.

:eyes:

[GliderGuider]

13. Nope, not at all.

I'm just saying that I think the lack of debris at the Pentagon and Shankskill is provocative. I might go so far as to say "unreasonable". I have my suspicions as to why that might be, but they're just my opinions...

[RH]

33. Yes, of course it was provacative.

They've been arguing about it endlessly.

Was it "unreasonable"?

Examine the DU archives.
There were nine "Post your Pentagon crash QUESTIONS here!!!" threads.
Every question was answered.
Reasons galore.

This was my contribution:

http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/poles_.htm

[gandalf]

55. The Shanksville crash was similar to an accident

regarding the damage that is to be expected, so it is comparable in this regard.

[RH]

58. So please tell. Do you have a similar accident

to compare it to, in terms of terrain, speed, angle of impact and aircraft construction? Where was it?

[babylon_system]

16. Valujet DC-9 crashed in the Florida Everglades and left almost no trace

http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/cepa/pubs/oldpubs/july/story1.htm

The nature of the debris field in airliner crashes depends on many conditions. The physics and forensic science of this field are things you might want to study if you are interested in becoming an expert.

I'm no expert. Just stating the obvious.

[GliderGuider]

19. But it went "glup" into a swamp

It's reasonable that there were few pieces left on the surface. It didn't vaporize, it essentially sank.

[babylon_system]

22. That's what I said - terrain characteristics play a role n/t

[RH]

36. That's what happened at the Pentagon.

The plane sank itself into the building, like a bullet.

[GliderGuider]

38. Bullets don't have wings.

As far as I can tell, the Pentagon facade had unbroken columns where the wings would have been. And the wings of a jetliner don't just fold back neatly on the main spar - if they were subjected to that kind of lateral force, the spar would snap and they'd shear off. If they'd broken off they wouldn't follow the body of the plane into the building. There is no mechanical scenario I can imagine that allow for the wings folding tight to the body like that. If an analysis has been done that says it's possible, please point me to it.

Nope, IMO the dynamics are all wrong for the scenario that's been painted.

[RH]

40. "the spar would snap"?

Do you have something to prove that?

The wings were not subject to any lateral force. The wings were the lateral force. Kinetic energy.

Here's one anlaysis:

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/

[MercutioATC]

41. ...and here's another analysis (by civil engineers who examined the site)

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

[GliderGuider]

59. OK, I read this one

Frankly, their conclusions do little to calm my misgivings about the official story. Here's why:

First off, the a priori assumption is made that the stated aircraft struck the building. As a result, all evidence is fitted to the expected results of that event.

Second, much of the damage estimate is inferred - the team was apparently not not given full access to the building,and not until well after much of the the debris had been moved: "Since all debris was removed prior to the detailed inspection, the team was unable to determine specifically the level and extent of impact damage in this region of the building. None of the facade in the collapse area was accessible for inspection..."

Third, the team concludes that much of the wings could not have entered the building. The relevant paragraphs are quoted:

The width of the severe damage to the west facade of the Pentagon was approximately 120 ft (from column lines 8 to 20). The projected width, perpendicular to the path of the aircraft, was approximately 90 ft, which is substantially less than the 125 ft wingspan of the aircraft. An examination of the area encompassed by extending the line of travel of the aircraft to the face of the building shows that there are no discrete marks on the building corresponding to the positions of the outer third of the right wing. The size and position of the actual opening in the facade of the building (from column line 8 to column line 18) indicate that no portion of the outer two-thirds of the right wing and no portion of the outer one-third of the left wing actually entered the building.

It is possible that less of the right wing than the left wing entered the building because the right wing struck the facade crossing the level of the second-floor slab. The strength of the second-floor slab in its own plane would have severed the right wing approximately at the location of the right engine. The left wing did not encounter a slab, so it penetrated more easily.

In any event, the evidence suggests that the tips of both wings did not make direct contact with the facade of the building and that portions of the wings might have been separated from the fuselage before the aircraft struck the building.

If the speculation in the last paragraph is correct, there should have been substantial wing debris outside the building. None has ever been cited.

In addition: The height of the damage to the facade of the building was much less than the height of the aircraft’s tail. At approximately 45 ft, the tail height was nearly as tall as the first four floors of the building. Obvious visible damage extended only over the lowest two floors, to approximately 25 ft above grade.

And: Most likely, the wings of the aircraft were severed as the aircraft penetrated the facade of the building. Even if portions of the wings remained intact after passing through the plane of the facade, the structural damage pattern indicates that the wings were severed before the aircraft penetrated more than a few dozen feet into the building.

While I don't dispute that an aircraft of some sort may have hit the Pentagon, this analysis does nothing to dispel my doubt that it was a Boeing 757. The notion that the whole thing burned up inside the building, including steel and titanium engine parts and 100,000 pounds of structural aluminum just doesn't pass my sniff test. Here's why:

The following is excerpted from the analysis on Physics911.org:

Could such a fire have destroyed both wings to the point of near invisibility? ... Suppose one held a one-meter square of aluminum facing the fire until its internal temperature reached a maximum. The temperature reached would be proportional to the net amount of heat energy being delivered to the sheet per unit time. Under the inverse linear law, if the temperature of the sheet three meters from the fire were T, the temperature at six meters would be T/2 + 293 K.

At three meters from the fire, we give the fire the benefit of the doubt and assume that the temperature in the sheet reaches 1,133 K (860 C)(previously identified as the temperature of a kerosene fire - GG). At a distance of six meters from the fire, the temperature reached in the sheet would be no more than 1,133/2 + 293 = 860 K

The corresponding Celsius temperature at six meters from the fire would be 587 C, which is well below the melting point (not to mention the ignition temperature) of aluminum, namely 660 C. (NASA 2003) Indeed, we can readily calculate that the critical (melting) temperature would have been reached less than four meters from the fire...

In other words, it would have been a physical impossibility for any portion of either wing beyond about four meters from the fire to be melted, vaporized or in any way destroyed by it. Thus, at least 16 m (52' 6") of wing ought to have remained (and to have been clearly visible) on either side of the entrance hole. In fact, no such debris appears in any of the pictures taken of the Pentagon that morning. (end quote)

Keep in mind that the fire occurred inside the building, which would have been an oxygen-poor environment. This would necessarily have lowered the temperature of the fire, with a resulting decrease in its destructive potential.

I'm afraid that the observations detailed by by the BPS team in your reference only reinforce my suspicions about the official story.

[RH]

60. substantial wing debris?

According to what should there be "substantial" debris?

What exactly would you hope to see?

According to Sandia's test you're going to have nothing but aluminum confetti to see. Strangely enough then that is exactly what eye witnesses reported. It came down from the exploded mushroom cloud like snow. The confetti was seen even from National Airport three miles away. Must have been a lot of confetti!

What did the wing tips weigh? With only one ounce of metal scattered per square yard over one square mile you'd have a combined total of about 90 tons.

And if aluminum wont burn how then do you explain this:



Wheredy go?

http://aviation-safety.net/database/1973/730531-0.htm

[GliderGuider]

61. I'd have expected...

...to see some evidence of wing skin panels (or large fragments of them) on the ground outside the building. After all, the report above speculates that the wingtips broke off outside the building, given that there was no facade damage evident from the outer third of each wingspan.

The Sandia experiment isn't on point here, IMO. The reason is that the test involved an impact into a solid block of concrete with virtually zero elasticity. In the case of the Pentagon, there was evidence of progressive fragmentation of the aircraft due to the essentially porous nature of the building. Yes, there was fragmentation, but much of the building is empty space which did in fact reduce the impact stress. The estimated deceleration of the aircraft inside the Pentagon was on the order of 30g, compared to the Sandia test which yielded a measured deceleration of about 100g. I don't think a 30g deceleration is conducive to the kind of explosive fragmentation seen in the Sandia test.

On the subject of fire, I never said that aluminum wouldn't burn, or that a large portion of an aircraft couldn't be destroyed by fire. What I'm saying is that it doesn't seem reasonable for the oxygen-poor environment inside the Pentagon to have supported the total destruction of the aircraft (including steel and titanium pieces) by fire. The official legend is that virtually the entire aircraft was thus consumed. You'll note that in the photo you posted, even with the ideal conditions present (i.e. full oxygenation) the aircraft wasn't entirely destroyed - large amaounts of material remained unburned.

One other item that caught my eye in the BPS report above was the claim that much of the fuel load would have rebounded from the facade and burned outside the building. This doesn't seem consistent with the firefighting pictures from early in the event. These show very little evidence of fire or its aftereffects outside the building. Later pictures show a lot of fire damage apparently generated from the building fire, but I don't see evidence of the burning of rebound fuel outside the building.

We both have your opinions about what is and isn't unreasonable to expect. They obviously differ dramatically. What neither of us have is direct evidence that says "a B757 hit the Pentagon". It's all interpolation and post-facto analysis. What we do have is evidence that "something" probably hit the Pentagon, causing a fire and some structural collapse. There is nothing that I'm aware of in the public record that points unequivocally to what that something was.

In the absence of definitive proof, all we have is analysis. Mine, so far, tells me that the official story has holes in it bigger than the C-ring punchout.

[RH]

62. virtually zero elasticity?

Did you not yet read Sandia's Sugano report?

Their concrete block was not rigidly fixed. In order to measure the impact force it was mounted on inflated air bearings.

The Flight 77 wing tips may have severed by lamp poles but their kinetic energy would hardly be affected.

I have never seen any official legend to the effect that virtually the entire aircraft was consumed. Where did you find that?

What sort of "direct" evidence do you want?

58 of the passengers were positively identified from DNA and dental records. The black box flight recorder was recovered.

What more by way of definitive proof do you expect? Hundreds of people saw the aircraft fly in and hit the building. Hundreds of people were involved with the clear up. Not one of them has since subscribed to this 'no Boeing' nonsense.

[seatnineb]

63. How many times did your darling fl77 hit the pentagon on 9/11/01?

Was it at:

1)9:30am(give or take)

2)9:37am

3)9:43am

3)9:45am

The evidence for a hit around the 9:30am time are pretty compelling........


Instead, she told me what had happened. Two hijacked jetliners had crashed into the World Trade Center, and something was burning over by the Pentagon. We didn't know what had happened there yet. It was only AROUND 9:30.
http://www.xanga.com/item.asp?user=Fuego_de_Noche&tab=w...


Quigley said he had no information on the allegedly
hijacked commercial aircraft that crashed into an outside
wall of the Pentagon AROUND 9:30 a.m. Eastern time today.
http://www.usmcvta.org/release/attackonamericachron3.ht...


Falldine's meeting was to take place near the building's newly renovated portion, but it had yet to begin. He said he was sitting with a group of people watching the events in New York unfold on television when, at ABOUT 9:30 a.m., EDT, the airliner hit the Pentagon
http://www.af.mil/news/Nov2001/n20011023_1505.asp .


But as they watched, the plane began turning to the right away from the White House, circling a full 270 degrees to the right and approaching the Pentagon from the southwest. It then dropped below radar level, disappearing from the controllers’ screens, shortly before hitting the Pentagon ABOUT 9:30 am, less than an hour after two other aircraft hit the World Trade Center towers in New York City.
http://poly.union.rpi.edu/article_view.php3?view=793&pa... .

Meanwhile, ABOUT 8:30 a.m.(9:30am EST) CDT,an airliner hit the Pentagon
http://www.tulsaworld.com/assault/A_3_9_12.pdf

As the time NEARED 9:30 a.m., Braman had put away his purchases and left his receipt with an accountant. He'd poured himself a bowl of Shredded Wheat, made a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and carried his breakfast to his desk, which was wedged in a narrow room lined with fridges and food lockers.
As he hung up, the building jerked under his feet. Braman was pitched forward into a wooden liquor cabinet, and a moment later the lights went out and a sergeant burst from another office into the hall. ``There's a bomb!'' she screamed. ``A bomb! Oh my God!'' The floor rolled. To Braman, who grew up outside Los Angeles, it felt just like an earthquake.
http://www.pilotonline.com/special/911/pentagon2.html .

I watched the World Trade Center news coverage in our on-site trailers but had to LEAVE FOR A 9:30 meeting in the Pentagon.
Suddenly we all heard a faint boom and a shake of the building. We all went silent and stared at each other waiting to see if anything else was going to happen. Nothing did,we weren't sure what had just happened.
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/DavidRubando.htm

At ABOUT 9:30 or so, I stepped out of the office to use the men's restroom, telling Cheryl and Sandy that I'd be back in a moment. And those would be the last words I'd say to them
So I had taken maybe six or seven steps out of the men's restroom doorway when I heard something quite loud. I just had a nanosecond to think, "Bomb!" It was just instantaneous. One second, everything is normal. Then, a second later, everything is just black. Instantaneous. Then I'm burning, the building around me is burning. It's pitch black other then the ambient glow of all the fire. It was just a pretty ghastly experience to go through.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/980181/posts


I was sitting on my balcony watching and waiting for the moving company truck that was to deliver my baggage to arrive AT 9:32 A.M WHEN I THOUGHT I HEARD WHAT WAS A SONIC BOOM. Then I heard fire trucks and ambulances rushing through the streets. I turned on the TV and was appalled to see that an American Airlines jet had crashed into the Pentagon.
http://www.aspecialplace.net/America/wtc.htm

Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Møller was also an eyewitness to the event and he said:
"I saw FIRE and Smoke rising up from Pentagon at ca. 9:32AM"
PSM: "I think a BOMB just blew up at the Pentagon - but nobody believed me"
http://www.bombsinsidewtc.dk/index_news.htm


And before you pathetically try to dismiss the above evidence.......
Bear in mind that they are backed up by this clock.....found at the Pentagon.......



So rh wads it to be......

Pick your time.

[RH]

64. 9:37am

n/t

[RH]

70. Ask the pilots.

These aircraft landed at National Aiport on 9/11 at the given times

American 0684 N3ATAA from Miami; wheels on 9:26 arrived 9:29

Continental 0803 N936AS from Newark; wheels on 9:28 arrived 9:33

United 0338, N908UA from Miami; wheels on 9:33 arrived 9:37

American West 09/11/2001 0098 N644AW from Columbus OH; wheels on 9:35 arrived 9:39

http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/airline_ontime_statistics/

As they flew in from the south, Flight 77 must have circled directly over the Pentagon in front of them.

Flight 0098 appears to have been the last plane to land that day. I guess the traffic was diverted because of the smoke.

[seatnineb]

73. How can one plane hit the same building at 2 different times?

Hey........

On 9/11/01.......

Everything was possible.........

Including a Saudi Arabian who managed to reverse his receding hairline just before he was caught on the Dulles candid camera.

Well I would have really liked to ask the formidable pilot of Flight 77 ,Hani Hanjour...........

As to what time he arrived with his hijacked plane at the pentagon........

Maybe this Hani Hanjour piloted the plane that crashed into the Pentagon at 9:30am,9/11/01


And this Hani Hanjour piloted the Plane that crashed into the pentagon at 9:37am,9/11/01


;)

[RH]

75. Every one

of your '9.30' accounts was an approximation.

So maybe Hanjour wore a toupee.

Big deal.

[seatnineb]

76. Are you dismissing material evidence?

I love backing you guys into isolated little corners where you spout indefensible stuff like this....

In the words of His Royal Highness.....
Every one of your '9.30' accounts was an approximation.

Does this look like an approximation to you?



Case over.

[RH]

78. There would hardly be any any doubt

about the time.

The primary ATC radar tapes are presumably time tracked.
The B757 black box was discovered.
The plane was watched live from the control tower at National Airport.

I studied a tape of the emergency emergency service radio channels. It was recorded by amateur radio buffs and put online. If you look around it may still be available. The recording covered about half an hour back from the collapse of damaged the section of the building to the initial police radio report from 'Motor 14'. It seemed to me to be consistent with 9:37, no extra five minutes.

Against that then you prefer a photo of a broken electric clock which was, btw, discussed here at some length here recently? Use the DU archive.

Maybe there is, potentially, proof that clocks stopped a few minutes before the crash, which may be relevant, but you'd need to establish the chain of evidence, the physical state of the clock and the background context, especially for instance the state of the electricity supply during electrical renovations at the Pentagon. Do you know anything about that or are you ignoring material evidence?

And does this have anything at all to do with recent events in Russia?

[seatnineb]

81. 9:30 is the time.

Dont count on the Black boxes for support rh......

As the great DulceDecorum has already proved

Mon Jul-12-04 12:23 PM

NOTHING was EVER extracted from the Penta-black-boxes.

Both black boxes from the hijacked aircraft which crashed into the Pentagon have also been recovered and turned over to the Federal Aviation Administration.
However, according to a report in the Washington Times, investigators have so far failed to extract information from the Pentagon attack voice recorder because it was so badly damaged.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1543564.stm

In a setback to the investigation, the FBI confirmed that the black box cockpit voice recorder from the Pentagon attack is too badly damaged to be of any use.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1553754.stm

Flight recorders that survived the Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C., crashes hold telltale data. Here's how they work.
http://www.business2.com/b2/web/articles/1,17863,514001...

As for the radar tapes

What is this rh.......

But as they watched, the plane began turning to the right away from the White House, circling a full 270 degrees to the right and approaching the Pentagon from the southwest. It then dropped below radar level, disappearing from the controllers’ screens, shortly before hitting the Pentagon ABOUT 9:30 am, less than an hour after two other aircraft hit the World Trade Center towers in New York City.
Posted 09-12-2001 at 2:02PM
http://poly.union.rpi.edu/article_view.php3?view=793&pa... .

And these are in the hands of the all-trustworthy F.B.I anyways.....

But I concede......
I have not heard the radio transmissions......
I am gonna try and check em' out ASAP

[RH]

84. Do you check that your links work before posting them?

n/t

Information was extracted from the black box.

[seatnineb]

93. Read the links rh!

rh........
You really are getting desperate......

You obviously DID NOT READ THE LINKS........

As far as data recorder and the black box of flight 77 were concerned.

However, according to a report in the Washington Times, investigators have so far failed to extract information from the Pentagon attack voice recorder because it was so badly damaged.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1543564.stm

In a setback to the investigation, the FBI confirmed that the black box cockpit voice recorder from the Pentagon attack is too badly damaged to be of any use.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1553754.stm

[RH]

94. Isn't it odd

that people so desperately keen to doubt official versions, especially from the FBI, are suddenly so keen to believe them if it suits their purpose?

Read the dates on the BBC pages: 15th September, the day after the black box was found and 21st September, 2001.

According to later reports, after the boxes had actually gone back to the maker, information was extracted.

Do you check that your links work before posting them?

[seatnineb]

98. Information from the black box of fl77

O.K rh .........

Let me quote you once more......
Thu Aug-19-04 11:16 PM
My sources are of course checked, and checkable.

Every report I rely upon has a name attached.
They are known, responsible people with verifiable names, addresses and profession.

So lets see you put this in to practise with regards to this statement......

In the words of rh..
According to later reports, after the boxes had actually gone back to the maker, information was extracted.

In the case of flight 93......you are correct.....

But what about flight 77.

Which is what I was refering to.

You have proved me wrong once.

See if you can do it again.

[RH]

100. Feb. 23, 2002

"FBI Director Robert Mueller said Flight 77's data recorder provided altitude, speed, headings and other information, but the voice recorder contained nothing useful."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/02/25/attack/main501989.shtml

Nothing "useful"?

[seatnineb]

101. I stand corrected again.

Looks like the data recorder worked.
Looks like the voice recorder did not work.

As it turns out...

Mueller made that statement as early as 14th September ,2001
FBI Director Robert Mueller said Friday the agency has gotten information from Flight 77's flight data recorder, which tracks an airplane's flight movements, such as altitude, heading, speed and the operations of other airplane systems for the last 25 hours. He declined to say what the FBI has learned.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2001/09/14/national1825EDT0877.DTL.

So is this where the 9:37am crash time was deduced?

[MercutioATC]

82. No, that looks like a Skilcraft clock.

They're only as accurate as the people who set them, and they do tend to gain or lose time. I know, Skilcraft has a federal contract and I work in a federal facility. To have one off by a few minutes is pretty much par for the course.

[RH]

85. Here is the previous thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=13460&mesg_id=13460

[seatnineb]

92. HaHaHa!

:D

[MercutioATC]

96. Well, SOMEBODY'S easily amused...

:eyes:

[seatnineb]

77. Know your official story.

Are you saying that our Hani,by wearing a wig, actually broke the carefully scripted "Manual of a raid" rules that Abdulaziz Alomari had written for all the 9/11 brothers before their martydom operation.

" You must believe in the destiny of death,remove extra body hair and apply perfume........

The "manual of a raid" rules that were discovered in that luggage which did not make the transfer from that phantom Colgan 5390 Beach 1900 to the American Airlines flight 11..subsequently discovered by the revered Boston F.B.I........

Gee........
Fancy that.

[RH]

79. The official story is

that this thread is about the plane crashes in Russia.

If you think you've got something new to say about it here is the Hijackers On Airport Surveillance Tape thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=15198&mesg_id=15198

[GliderGuider]

65. Yep

Relative to the Pentagon structure, there was next to no elasticity. In mechanical engineering terms, elasticity means that collision energy is dissipated through material deformation. There was a lot of that at the Pentagon, and, relatively speaking, almost none at Sandia. That's one of the reasons the deceleration was over three times as high in the F4 experiment.

I agree the kinetic energy of the impact wouldn't be affected by the loss of wingtips. However, if they had been severed, I'd have expected to see them (or their remnants) around somewhere. They wouldn't have burned up. The few pieces of debris in front of the Pentagon - that I've seen pictures of - don't appear to be from wingtips.

I don't think "hundreds of people" saw a 757 hit the Pentagon. Most of the eyewitness accounts don't identify the aircraft, some are contradictory, some were given well after the fact and are therefore subject to subliminal self-editing on the part of the witness etc. I think "hundreds" is part if your belief set. It's certainly part of the official story.

As far as "direct evidence" goes, one thing that would convince me is the release of the sequestered security camera videotapes (there are several), and to have them show Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

The main problem is that the administration has refused to release evidence or sponsor a transparent, non-partisan investigation into everything that happened that day. We've had the equivalent of the Warren Commission, with political allegiances reining in the scope of the inquiry. In the absence of believable evidence presented by disinterested third parties, beliefs like mine are going to remain stubbornly entrenched. And yes, I think your current administration is capable of MIHOP.

[RH]

66. There is no doubt

that hundreds of witnesses saw the aircraft. I know becuse I did the work. You don't know because you have not yet bothered. In March 2002 I compiled "They saw the aircraft", the first compendium of Pentagon witness accounts to appear. Eventually I collected the names of nearly two hundred witnesses known to have seen the aircraft, and that was just those specifically reported on the Internet. I posted the list on a democraticunderground thread some time ago.

Hearsay has it that many more saw it. It was seen by students at the Hoffman Boston Elementary School. It was seen from apartment blocks in Pentagon City, from the Arlington Heights and from Rosslyn.
It flew directly over Columbia Pike, busy with traffic. It was seen by shoppers in car parks off the Pike. It was seen by dozens of motorists driving on the Beltway. It was seen by dozens of motorists stuck in a traffic jam on Washington Boulevard, directly opposite to the impact. It was seen from the Sheraton Hotel and from the Navy Annex and by people within the Pentagon. It was seen from Arlington Cemetery where a burial was in progress. It was seen from the subway station, the car park and the control tower at National Airport. It was seen from another airliner en route.

It happened in broad daylight on a busy morning, not on another planet. Not one person of the thousands who there at the scene to see for themselves has yet subscribed to the 'no Boeing' fiction, not one of the investigators, not one of the photographers.

I doubt that the sequestered security camera videotapes show anything of any interest. Security cameras are not usually directed towards the sky just in case a very low flying aircraft happens to pass by at 400 mph.

[GliderGuider]

67. Well, I did some of the work

While I didn't collect up all the available raw eyewitness accounts on the net and analyze them myself, I went looking for people who claim to have done just that. There are a lot of them.

One of the most interesting to me is Gerard Holmgren's . His work seems very thorough, especially his analysis of Tim Timmerman's and Steve Riskus' accounts. He seems to have been quite dedicated in tracking down all the sources available relating to each eyewitness account. His conclusion is:

When I began this research, I was genuinely open minded. I wanted to solve the problem of the contradiction between the witness evidence and the photographic evidence. I was determined that if the eyewitness evidence was there, to find it and authenticate it. If it was fraudulent, to discover it and expose it. My search led me convincingly to the latter path. I am now convinced that F77 did not hit the Pentagon wall. If it was hit by a flying object, which seems to be the case, it was hit by a missile or a small plane, perhaps a drone military jet.

bedoper.com Not as strong as Holmgren, but still a good compendium of accounts. They demonstrate the expected contradictory nature of eyewitness accounts.

Ratical.org has 87 eyewitness accounts. Of these, most are dealt with in Holmgren's analysis. One that does not, that seems at first blush to be convincing, is Albert Hemphill's story. There is no interview I could find with him, though - just his email account.

So from everything I looked at, there are three accounts that seem authoritative - Hemphill, Sucherman and Timmerman. Holmgren analyzed the last two, and casts quite a jaundiced eye on them. That leaves one report.

I'd be very interested in reading your compilation, especially as it seems key to your conclusion that the official story is correct. I searched DU, but couldn't find it. Would it be possible for you to post it to this thread?

And I'd be quite willing to see videotapes that showed little of interest. The fact that they have never been released, and that there has apparently been no official comment on their contents, leaves the whole question open, and is one of the factors that feed stubborn lingering doubts such as mine.

[RH]

68. Holmgren's "work"?

Ignorant sophistry.

He sat there tapping at his keyboard as if to know better than the journalists who actually spoke to witnesses, those who he attacked so viciously, but did he ever bother to actually contact any one of them, or any witness? No he did not.

He claimed that people don't even exist when they plainly do. You'll probably find more about that in the DU archive.

He comes up with stuff like
"In the case of Liebner, it was shown quite conclusively that Leibner never actually made the statement which you see in press reports and on websites, and in fact was never even interviewed."

:eyes:

Hear and see for yourself what Liebner (a.k.a. Leibner) had to say:

http://www.help-for-you.com/news/Oct2001/Oct13/PRT13-56Article.html

http://www.voanews.com/mediastore/video_weaver_first_rescuer_13oct01.ram

[GliderGuider]

83. Yes, "work"

Holmgren actually collected the reports, followed them up, and verified them to the best of his ability. Sounds like "work" to me. You characterized what you did as "work", so I assumed Holmgren's qualified as well. I didn't construe anything he said in his analysis as a vicious attack - it looked to me more like skeptical inquiry.

I listened to Leibner's interview with Carolyn Weaver. He sounds sincere, but he only makes one indirect reference to the aircraft actually hitting the building, "The seconds of the aircraft going into the building...". There seems to be no doubt he saw an aircraft with windows in it flying towards the building. I'd be more sanguine if he had spent a few words describing his recollection of the actual impact, or if Ms. Weaver had directly asked him about it, but at the time the focus was on his rescue efforts, which were obviously laudable. He doesn't even provide a description of the aircraft, beyond the fact that it had windows and a retracted undercarriage. He simply calls it "the aircraft". Not exactly definitive stuff.

BTW, can you post your work that you previously alluded to to this thread? As I said, I can't find it and I'd like to see it.

[RH]

87. actually collected the reports?

No

Holmgren did not actually collect the reports.

I collected the reports. "They saw the aircraft" was firstly to be seen on the Steve Riskus site in March 2002. Use google to find it. Later on I put up a longer list on dragonslair.pwp Then when others had caught up with similar lists online I removed the pages because it was taking up all of my time to respond to the heckling of malicious idiots, and to keep it all up to date, with links going defunct and more reports continually turning up from day to day. I never got a penny back, btw, for any of it.

Holmgren did nothing but attempt to negate the work that others had already done. He never came up with anything positive by way of information. In two instances he wrongly accused me of fabricating evidence and he makes out that others do the same, but with nothing but the extraordinarily narrow limit of his own view to justify the attack. He supposed that journalists invented the identites of witnesses and when their existence was nevertheless eventually demonstrated he posted no sort of retraction.

[GliderGuider]

88. Ah, the internecine warfare of the 9/11 theorists

I had no idea you were so personally invested in this issue. Good luck reclaiming your point of view.

As for myself, I think I'm done with this discussion. I've read and thought about every piece of countervailing information that's been presented. What it all comes back to, for me, is the simple observation that started this thread: there does not seem (to me) to have been enough damage or debris at the Pentagon to account for a 757 strike. Until that basic situation is either explained satisfactorily or additional conclusive evidence is presented, I remain MIHOP. For me, it's the only position that puts all the discrepancies and unanswered questions of that day into a coherent pattern.

I'm not unconvincable (my response to the pictures of Flight 93 debris should demonstrate that), but nothing I've seen so far changes my opinion about the Flight 77 legend.

As for the Russian planes that started this whole thread, it's tragic that apparently terrorism (probably Chechnyan) was responsible for their crashes. I'm just glad that there was enough debris left from those flights to be investigated, and that the investigation was in fact done. RIP.

[RH]

89. There was enough debris left.

The remains of 58 of the Flight 77 passengers were positively identified. The black box was identified. The FAA was involved. A good number of different agencies were involved. On the afternoon of 9/11 teams of volunteers gathered smithereens into paper bags. Were they all so corrupt? Were they all so stupid?

I have yet to hear of as much as one person there to see for themselves who has since subcribed to the possibility that Flight 77 did not hit the building. I have yet even to hear from anybody in the Arlington vicinity with any doubt. If they didn't see the plane they know someone who did and given that 1083 days have since gone by with nothing yet to prove to a different effect one must surely agree:
RIP.
Amen.

[seatnineb]

69. I saw the wings(of flight 77) fold back.

Yo GliderGuider.......

I did the same research and found the testimony of U.S.A Today journalist, Mike Walter, to be most interesting.......

From the CBS interview between Bryant Gumbel and eyewitness extraordinaire Mike Walter.

On Sept 12,2001,6.00am ET

GUMBEL: Tell me, if you could, about the manner in which the--the
plane(flight 77) struck the building(pentagon). I ask that because, in the pictures we have seen, it appears to be a gash in the side of the Pentagon as if the plane went in vertically as opposed to horizontally. Can you tell me anything about that?

Mr. WALTER: Well, as I said, you know, there were trees obstructing my view, so I saw it as it went--and then the--then the trees, and then I saw the--the fireball and the smoke. Some people have said that the plane actually went on its side and in that way. BUT I CAN'T TELL YOU, Bryant. I just know that what I saw was this massive fireball, a huge explosion and--and a--the thick column of smoke and then an absolute bedlam

Backed up by another interview that Mike Walter gave to NBC on the same day...........

NBC 7:00 ET September 12, 2001
In the words of Mike Walter.
It kind of disappeared over this embankment here for a moment and then a huge explosion, flames flying into the air, and--and just chaos on the road.
http://www.sweden.indymedia.org/newswire/display/23772

But to mark the anniversary in 2002 (and to nullify the then embrionic Meyssan theory)
Mike Walter changed his testimony quite drastically......

In a T.V documentary shown on Rai Due(Italian T.V).......
I am pretty sure this was an American Documentary that was shown in the U.S(but this particular edit , for obviouse reasons ,was narrated in Italian)

In the words of Mike Walter:
Boom! right into the Pentagon!
I saw the wings fold back and crumple..sorta like an accordion and pierce the wall (of the Pentagon).

He actually gestures with his hands to show how the wings folded!

It is this kind of perpetually evolving testimony which justifies the reason why these eyewitnesses cannot be trusted.........

I have this all important segment recorded on video.......but I did not record this programme from the beginning so I do not know what the name of the programme was called....

I was wondering if you or anyone else has seen this documentary?

[RH]

71. I provided a link

to an interview with Walter, conducted by a French journalist:

http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/poles_.htm

but unfortunately the link now appears to be defunct.

Walter stood by the Boulevard where he had been on the day:



There would thus be no tree nor any embankment between Walter and the Pentagon. The tree was on the other side, to the west, where he points. To make some sense of it then "went on its side" would refer to the plane banking around as it descended toward the Navy Annex.

At any rate I see absolutely no way that anybody, let alone everybody, would mistake an airliner for a missile or a fighter jet. No chance.

[seatnineb]

72. Ciao-Ciao Signore Walter

Seeing as you are literally only 50 miles down the road from where I live, rh......

I would even so much as send you a copy of the tape (for free) that I recorded with this testimony by Mike Walter.

"I saw the WINGS FOLD BACK AND CRUMPLE....like an accordion and pierce the wall"
Mike Walter,2002

This completely contradicts his own earlier testimony....

As the Italians would say....

Che bugiardo!

I know it is hard for you to accept.

But Mike Walter has deserted you.
:cry:

I am afraid that....
You are going to have to kiss-good bye to the credibility of Mike Walter as an eye-witness at the Pentagon on 9/11/01.

Ciao-Ciao.

[RH]

74. How does it contradict?

Earlier Walter said "CAN'T TELL".

Later on he did tell.

So what? "Can't tell" is not "did not see".

Is it really so incredible that somebody suffering from shock, in a state of terror, is immediately unable to cope with an experience?

[seatnineb]

80. Mike Walter is a poor liar.

Not nice being let down by a source that you have such an affinity for........ is it rh!

Mike Walters says on 9/12/01

You know, the--the--the--there were trees there that
kind of obstructed it, so I kind of--I saw it go in. I'm not sure if it turned at an angle. I've heard some people say that's what it did.
All I know is it--it created a huge explosion and massive fireball

And again from the very same interview.........

Well, as I said, you know, there were trees obstructing my
view, so I saw it as it went--and then the--then the trees, and then I saw the--the fireball and the smoke. Some people have said that the plane actually went on its side and in that way.But I can't tell you Bryant.

In fact .....he cant seem to make up his mind if he had seen the IMPACT at all.

From the NBC interview alo on 9/12/01:
It kind of disappeared over this embankment here for a moment and then a huge explosion, flames flying into the air, and--and just chaos on the road.


But look what Mike Walters says in the T.V documentary in September 2002.....
I saw the wings FOLD BACK AND CRUMPLE...sorta like an accordian and then just pierce the wall

And as he says "pierce the wall" he gestures with his right hand....with one finger pointing directly FORWARD.
He then does a quick right jab.....to accentuate the "pierce".


Contrast "I kinda saw it go in with"I saw the wings fold back and crumple"

So he could not tell if Fl77 "went in at an angle" but could still had enough time to see the wings fold back and crumple.

This guy is lying.

He may have fooled you, your royal highness.
But not me.

[RH]

86. Please read post #71

before fooling youself. I explained the circumstance. There was no tree nor any embankment between Walter and the Pentagon. The tree and an embankment were on the other side of the Boulevard, to the west.

"went on its side" would thus refer to the plane banking around as it descended toward the Navy Annex. Walter is obviously talking about whether or not it "turned at an angle", the way the plane approached. Between Walter and the Pentagon there was no question of the plane turning. He could not tell if Fl77 "went in at an angle" because the terrain was in the way. He did have enough time to see the wings fold back and crumple because that was on the other side of the boulevard after the plane had passed overhead. As such it makes sense to me.

So instead of blindly repating yourself do you have anything at all to say about the local geography?

If at some time Walter was keeping some of the story to himself I am not enormously surprised. I'd do the same if there were half a chance that somebody else would pay a lot more for the story. An accusation to the effect that he lied is another matter. If you want to say that he lied then it falls to be you to prove that he did. The usual laws of libel apply.

[seatnineb]

90. Where was Walters.

Wrong again rh.
Walters was not on Washington Boulevard.
He was on highway 27 (which ,in front of the W-side of the Pentagon, runs parrallel with Washington Boulevard.)

If he told that french journalist that he was on Washington Boulevard then it would only be yet another example of how he has changed his story since 9/11/01.

Hardly a suprise,eh?

In the words of Mike Walters(CBS-9/12/01)
"Well, as--as we pointed out earlier, Bryant, I was on an
elevated area of Highway 27 and I had a very good view"


And rh....you really are getting yourself in a twist here....

In the words of rh.....
"There was no tree nor any embankment between Walter and the Pentagon. The tree and an embankment were on the other side of the Boulevard, to the west."

But your beloved Walters claims there were trees....(CBS-9/12/01)
"You know, the--the--the--there were trees there that
kind of obstructed it....."

And from the NBC interview....also on 9/12/01....
"It kind of DISSAPEARED over this embankment here for a moment and then a huge explosion"

So....on 2 occasions......Walters says that his view was partially if not completely obstructed.........

And yet he claims nearly one year later to have seen........
"The WINGS fold backward and crumple"

Given the speed that the plane was travelling at when it impacted the wall.......
You would be talking in milliseconds......for Walters to have made this wing folding observation.......from a view obstructed by trees and an embankment?


Try again rh.....
Give it your best shot.
I guarantee...it wont be good enough.

[RH]

95. Try again.

Highway 27 is Washington Boulevard

[seatnineb]

97. I stand corrected!

rh....

You are right.

I was wrong.

:cry:

My apologies.

:nopity:

I shall duly retract my statement that Mike Walters was lying regarding his location on 9/11/01..............


But that's all I am retracting!

:evilgrin:

[RH]

99. Check the trees and embankments.

If, as he said, Walter was in a northbound lane on 27, and in the immediate vicinity, there was no tree or embankment to obscure his view of the Pentagon. Perhaps he was actually further down the road, to the north or the the south. You'd have to ask.

[seatnineb]

102. The only trees I could find so far...

In the words of Mike Walters(CBS-9/12/01)

"You know, the--the--the--there were trees there that
kind of obstructed it....."

Well, as I said, you know, there were trees obstructing my view, so I saw it as it went--and then the--then the trees, and then I saw the--the fireball and the smoke.







Also in the words of Mike Walters....
I saw the wings fold back and crumple

[impe]

103. Great Shots

Maybe Mr. Walters was thinking of the tree next to the crash site that survived the inferno...

General observations, if a plane full of passengers just crashed, why aren't people
rushing towards the scene. Secondly, consider
the air florida crash over key bridge into the potomac, that plane took out people sitting in their cars,
everyone here is in one piece, even the cars.

[RH]

104. why aren't people rushing towards the scene?

Maybe because they did not want to be roasted?

"I left shortly after the picture were taken in fear of further attacks."

http://criticalthrash.com/terror/crashthumbnails.html

[RH]

105. But that's not where he said he was.

he said he was here, on the overpass:

[RH]

106. and where is the "embankment"?

:shrug:

You should ask Walter. He's a professional TV journalist, not on another Planet.

[k-robjoe]

107. So

So RH is saying that Walter lied when he said that he couldn´t really see it hit, because he wanted to get a better deal for his real story?

And Seat9B is saying he lied about seeing it hit? To get a better deal than he would have gotten for what he really saw?

And therefor Seat9B is living in another world?

( Just kidding RH, I know you´re speeking about other things. )

[seatnineb]

108. Keep belivin in Walters rh.........one day you will regret it...

Rh..........

Did you watch the Meyssan Conspiracy on channel 4 here in the U.K in September 2002?

(Not sure if this program was ever shown outside of the U.K)

Mike Walters was one of the those who gave an interview.......

In the words of Signore Walter.....
"I was stuck in traffic...it wasn't moving.....I was frustrated because I was listening to what was going on in New York on the Radio......I wanted to get into work and ....uh....and I'm sitting there and I roll down the window....

And that is where I first heard the jet.......and I looked up and I saw it as it was banking....and then it came right before me....I mean it started its decline and slammed right into the Pentagon....


But the real capper was Walters analysis of Thierry Meyssan's work.....

"He(Meyssan) has managed to take my words and twist them...not just on one occasion but two...I just read the excerpts here(A copy of Meyssans book-Pentagate,is lying on a table in front of Walters) ....and uh ..and if it wasn't so sad and so sick..it would all be laughable.....you know it is so absurd......but it is sick........

Now this is what I find so sad and sick.........

And laughable....

Walters says in September 2002 in another T.V documentary to mark the one year anniversary........
"I saw the wings fold back and crumple"

Despite the fact that exactly a year before ,he claimed that his view was (depending on the report you read) partially if not completely obstructed.......

CBS-9/12/01
"Well, as I said, you know, there were trees obstructing my view, so I saw it as it went--and then the--then the trees, and then I saw the--the fireball and the smoke."

NBC-9/12/01
"It kind of disappeared over this embankment here for a moment and then a huge explosion"

CBS-9/12/01
"You know, the--the--the--there were trees there that
kind of obstructed it, so I kind of--I saw it go in"


The Baltimore Sun(9/12/01) summed it up in another interview with Walters...
He watched the plane pass over a hill separating him from the Pentagon and disappear. Then the boom and the flames climbing into the air.

The Milwakee Sentinal Journal(9/12/01) also quoted Walters.....
"It was typical morning rush hour, and no one was moving. I said
to myself, that plane is really low. Then it disappeared and I heard the explosion and saw the fireball."

I should actually thank Walters......
His perpetually mutating testimony is undermining BushCo's crusade to mask what really happened at the Pentagon on 9/11/01.

What really happened at the Pentagon on 9/11/01....

I dunno........

But unlike you...rh

I sure as hell aint gonna believe Mr Walters.

[RH]

109. Believe what?

What is there to have to believe or regret? The fact of the airliner swooping low overhead was corroborated by an abundance of witnesses.

I don't know what exactly Walters was on about with his trees, his embankment and his folding wings, nor does anything in particular appear to depend upon him, so I'd never lost any sleep over it. For a professional presenter his accounts were remarkably confused but I am willing to make allowances for that. When all said and done we are talking here about a seriously traumatic event. Several witnesses wandered around in a state of severe shock for some time afterwards. Many preferred not to talk about it at all and that I can also understand.

I remember seeing a version of the Mall security carcam on TV in 2002. Was that on Channel Four? It seemed to be a higher resolution version, better than anything I'd seen on the www. Nothing else struck me as being much more than a rehash of stuff already seen months before.

[Blue Member]

50. Like a bullet? OK then....

A 757's engines are about 7 feet tall and they contain many hardened steel parts, they are much more robust and hardened then aluminum. The engines would also be considered two such "bullets" sinking themselves into the building.....but they left no bullet holes in the building...nothing...nada...and don't give me any of that "wings folded behind plane" crap because the laws of physics and motion preclude from occurring...unless of course the evil Muslims used their trusty Starfleet issued temporal causality transducing boxcutters to alter those steadfast laws of physics, which is likely, in that apparently they almost wore out those special issue pieces of equipment on 911 they used them so much that day.

http://www.scothew.com/~fastred/pentagon<1>.swf

[AZCat]

51. Did you happen to check out the links given above?

Posts #40 and 41 both have links to studies done by people who might know a bit about that "laws of physics and motion" stuff. You might want to investigate those before commenting again.

[RH]

57. We've been over all this before.

with regard to a photo of an engine part found within the building.

The nacelle containing the by pass tubofan may be about 7 ft. tall but most of that is empty space, not hardened metal. The engine per se is a much smaller part.

You also need to consider that before it got to the building the starboard engine hit a 30 ton electricity generator. If you prefer not to believe that the damage to that was caused by Flight 77, then please explain how else it was shifted towards the building with one end of it completely destroyed.

You also need to explain how otherwise the five lamp poles fell.

http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/poles_.htm

And please don't bother to try to tell us that they fell because of turbulence, because of hidden explosive charges, or somebody who planted severed poles from the back of a lorry. The imaginative fiction we've heard before.

[Wright Patman]

2. Yon Glider Guider

has a lean and hungry look. He thinks too much. Such men are dangerous. *

* With apologies to Shakespeare

[GliderGuider]

7. Hungry indeed...

:wtf:

[parasim]

3. Not only that...

They also found the Flight Data Recorders for each of the planes.

[Worst Username Ever]

4. It's not hte impact that vaporizes them

it's the fire afterwords. These happened very soon after takeoff, so I would assume fire engines were there pretty quick...

Take a look at pan am 103 pics, there are big chunks everywhere, except where there was fire.


http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5260/crashpic.html

[RH]

11. Impact does "vaporize"

if the object moves fast enough.

This was demonstrated by Sandia:

http://www.sandia.gov/media/NRgallery00-03.htm

[Worst Username Ever]

15. That looks a bit like and extreme situation

and it was going 480 miles an hour, directly into concrete. Hardly a passenger jet falling into a dirt field soon after takeoff. I'm just saying I don't think there is anything strange about a passenger jet crash with a lot of large pieces laying around if they are able to put out the fire.

[MercutioATC]

18. "480 miles an hour, directly into concrete"..like AAL77 into the Pentagon?

...not arguing with your statement, just drawing a parallel.

[Worst Username Ever]

20. That was vaporized by the ensuing fire.

Not the impact (it was not going 480 miles an hour). The jet-into-concrete was. Which is the reason the Russian jets have debris: Slow crash, and the fire was likely put out quickly.

[MercutioATC]

21. Sort of...most of the debris entered the building and subsequently burned.

Some was blown back onto the lawn in the form of little pieces. I'm essentially agreeing with you, but I believe that an impact into a concrete wall wil generally tend to make smaller pieces.

[demodewd]

23. comparatively

The Pentagon limestone/cement would have a threshold point of "give" due to its limitation of length whereas a crash into the ground would not.

[GliderGuider]

17. Not totally convinced

The footage on the Sandia site stops at the moment of impact, when possible debris is still obsured by the cloud of concrete dust. There are no after-crash images that would allow one to determine the state of the debris - especially the engine components.

And, even granted that a crash into a solid concrete barrier like that can reduce an aircraft to small fragments, I'm still at a loss as to why there are apparently no identifiable fragments from Flight 93.

Oh, and the Pentagon isn't a solid concrete block...

[RH]

31. That's not concrete dust.

That's F16 dust.
Look further into it.
The concete block was hardly damaged.

Here is a report:

http://911-strike.com/f4crash.pdf

[MrSammo1]

42. That's F16 dust

Better look again!
http://www.sandia.gov/media/mov_mpg/f_4crash_test_slow.mpg

[RH]

45. F4 Phantom dust.

Sorry about the slip.

[Ameridansk]

47. You figure we might be talking about vastly different fuel and propulsion?

The pictures you show are of a rocket. I can't recall ever seeing flames shooting out the back of a 757, on take-off, on landing or any time in between.

Far more volatile stuff, that rocket fuel.

And yet another HUGE difference is the angle of contact. This rocket hits head on, while the 757 is supposed to have struck the wall at closer to a 45 degree angle.

Notice also the pointy nose of the rocket and the wings that are not foils.

[RH]

48. Different.

I provided a link to comprehesive report in message #31.
Did anybody bother to read it?

The F4's fuel tanks were filled with water. The general effect with aviation fuel would presumably be more spectacular! And somewhat more destructive.

:toast:

[MrSammo1]

53. Clean slice!

You can see clearly just how the wing slice through cleanly. just as the jets that hit the WTC did!

http://www.sandia.gov/media/mov_mpg/f_4crash_test_slow.mpg

[RH]

56. There was no "clean slice".

You can see this clearly from the information that Sugano's report provides.

"Damage to the target was relatively minor, as shown in Fig. 7, indicating that the major portion of the impact energy was absorbed in moving the target and not in producing structural damage. The face of the target was scarred where the aircraft fuselage struck, but only superficial damage was influicted over this region."

I had already supplied the link in posting #31:

http://911-strike.com/f4crash.pdf

If you think you know better, take it up with Sandia.

[mn9driver]

5. BIg jets with no engines running

will most likely be flown under control to the ground in an attempt to make a "crash landing". Once in a while, an airport is available before the altitude runs out. That would be good. Other times, there is nothing really suitable. Big jets don't like this much, and usually come apart in protest of such poor treatment.

Very different from an out-of control/high speed impact.

[DemWitch]

8. take a look at the difference between

the USAir crash in Pittsburgh and the Delta crash in Dallas. USAir was a 737 and the biggest piece was about the size of a pie plate. Delta was a L-1011 and the pieces were large, the entire tail section intact. It all depends on the plane, the crash, the speed, as mentioned before the fuel on board. All variables come into play.

The Pentagon crash, the plane slammed into reinforced concrete at a very high rate of speed loaded with fuel. Flight 93 did a nose down at a high rate of speed, much like USAir 427.

My only question about the crashes, is what was their destination going to be if the hijacking was sucessful?

[GliderGuider]

12. Not quite

Although it was badly fragmented, even USAir 427 left a large piece of intact fuselage, as shown in this photo.

Have you deen any debris photos of Flight 93?

[Robb]

25. Quite a bit of debris in Stahl's photos

...I'll host them on a freebie site if no one else has a link.

[Robb]

28. here's a link to them

...at this old page at my site.

Dialup beware, around 460K each, two photos.

[GliderGuider]

30. Thanks

It sure does look like there's a lot of small debris in those pics. I also read a report on the net that said the crash site was loose loamy soil that had recently been filled in. Apparently a lot of the plane wound up below ground, and a large piece of an engine was found nearby (~200 meters IIRC). I'll pull my horns in a bit on this aspect of the crash.

Still think the Pentagon's awful fishy, though.

[MrSammo1]

43. If you check out the one piece of debris

You will see that it was planted and didn't come from a 757. The rivet holes weren't torn.

[RH]

44. I did, long ago.

Do you have something to show to prove that the rivet holes would have been "torn"? Nothing I've yet seen presented anything at all to that effect.

It was already done to death around here in 2002. I read it all.

And what the photographer himself had to say about it:

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/faram1.txt

I also looked into the timing and the circumstance, the number of people on the lawn, in the building and on Washington Boulevard. With no doubt about it the notion that the debris was planted is absurd, and every single person who was at the scene to see for themselves will tell you so. The notion is not confirmed by the slightest trace of first hand testimony to the same effect.

[MrSammo1]

52. Nothing mentioned in your link about the rivets holes not being torn?

The rivets are stronger than the sheet metal. That's a physical fact.

[AZCat]

54. A physical fact?

Actually, that's a gross simplification of material properties.

But go ahead - you were saying something about rivet holes being torn. Why would they do that?

[Bolo Boffin]

29. Flight 93's hijacked destination was apparently the Capitol building.

Don't have a link, but I've read a story about some code words being used by al-Qaeda for the various targets that they had, and Flight 93 was to hit the "College of Law," the code word for the Capitol building. That's what the passengers of Flight 93 stopped from happening.

[RH]

35. Excuse me, but ....

"apparently"?

:shrug:

to my mind not quite the right word.

[Bolo Boffin]

37. Okay.

:shrug:

I can't think of a better term.

[RH]

39. How about

:think:

"rumered to be..."

[tngledwebb]

46. Have you read The New Pearl Harbor by Griffiths...

The destination of Flt 93 is covered there with some attributions. Sorry can't quote the page right now but ANYONE curious about 9/11 Conspiracies 'Official' or otherwise should read that book ASAP.

[Sweet Freedom]

9. They didn't vaporize because these airliners were made from

the same material as Mohamed Atta's passport.

[RH]

14. Atta's passport?

Check your facts.

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/passport.html

[Sweet Freedom]

24. Okay...

They didn't vaporize because these airliners were made from the same material as Satam Al Suqami's passport.:)

[DulceDecorum]

91. UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

It started the day after the attacks on the twin towers, with the discovery of a flight manual in Arabic and a copy of the Koran in a car hired by Mohammed Atta and abandoned at Boston airport. In the immediate shocked aftermath of the attacks, these findings were somehow reassuring: American intelligence was on the case, the perpetrators were no longer faceless.
In less than a week came another find, two blocks away from the twin towers, in the shape of Atta's passport. We had all seen the blizzard of paper rain down from the towers, but the idea that Atta's passport had escaped from that inferno unsinged would have tested the credulity of the staunchest supporter of the FBI's crackdown on terrorism.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,669961,00.html

Al-Hayat, an Arabic newspaper based in London, reported yesterday that Atta was an Egyptian. While Atta has had an Egyptian driver's license, and has lived in the United Arab Emirates, investigators found a Saudi passport in his luggage, which was left behind at Logan Airport when he boarded Flight 11 after taking a flight from Portland, Maine, Tuesday.
http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/globe_stories/0915/Hijackers_may_have_taken_Saudi_identities+.shtml

Atta maintained that the evidence against the accused hijackers–including an Arabic flight manual in a car in the Logan airport parking lot and his son’s United Arab Emirates passport, had been faked and planted in order to create a rush to judgement against the Muslim world.
"They found a flight manual in the car," he said. "Is he going to be studying on the way?"
http://www.cairotimes.com/news/atta.html

Well, isn't that special.
Who else would have had a passport?
Could it possibly be .....
SATAM??

Investigators discovered the passport of Satam al Suqami, one of the terrorists aboard American Airlines Flight 11, the first plane to hit the World Trade Center.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/WTC_recovery_010916.html

CBS News reported, meanwhile, that a passport belonging to one of the hijackers, Satam al-Sugami, was found on the street minutes after the plane he was aboard crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center and before the New York landmark collapsed.
http://www.11alive.com/news/usnews_article.aspx?storyid=42069

Questions for Director Mueller Regarding the Hijackers Please explain how the passports of Mohammed Atta and Satam al-Sugam, both on Flight 11, survived the inferno to be found on the street near the World Trade Center.
•Who found the passports and what time where they found?
•Please describe the condition of each passport.

[impe]

26. Odd, Yes

Highly unusual that one of the pilots was able to hit the "high jack" alert button. We were 0 for 4 on 9/11, what are those
odds.

Good point about the Florida crash, not only did it go down in a swamp but a swamp with quick sand.

[MercutioATC]

27. It's unclear whether he dialed in 7500 or 7700.

One is for emergency (appropriate). The other is for hijack (not necessarily appropriate).

[RH]

32. Is every pilot absolutely

familiar with all the numbers, even those not used too often, without having to look them up?

One would of course hope so but if sat in the pilot seat I wouldn't want to bet my life on it.

[MercutioATC]

34. Yeah, I'd think so.

Those are pretty important numbers ;)

[seatnineb]

49. Debris.........

The kind of debris evidence that the official story believers crave for ........
But will never be able to provide.

This American Airlines 757 crashed into a mountain in Cali,Columbia in 1995........

Still sizable chunks of fuselage......


Or this Air China 767 in 2002,which ,while making an approach to land,"impacted wooded terrain" broke apart ,and caught fire....

This photo gives an idea of the runway that it was probably attempting to land on........


With the tragic consequences........