An Edit to The Pentagon Question
All right guys so for those who have watched this video, I am sure many of you say
BULLSHIT
others of you
DON'T
I sent this video to a man whom I have high regard for. That and he is paid to analyze and find facts. My father, the lawyer, has some interesting information to look at while examining this movie:
"The word of one man is no word at all. Let us bring all together, and examine them for the truth."
Just some things off the top of my head, based on one quick viewing.
1) The film shows other airline crashes. I saw no "exemplar" crashes of an aircraft into a building, showing the type of wreckage which remains. I do know I saw the film of the second of the aircraft flying into the World Trade Centers--I saw no wings or tail shear off, and I don't remember hearing much about a lot of aircraft wreckage remaining to be found.
2) 5300 pounds (or gallons) of fuel. Was that what the craft had when it took off, or what was estimated to be left when the crash occurred? Airplanes typically only take on enough fuel to reach their destination, plus an appropriate amount as a safety factor. This thing had been in the air for a couple of hours, burning fuel the whole way; how much was left on impact? Current fuels are supposedly designed for a reduction of burning capability in case of a crash which spills fuel, though the efficacy of those designs are pretty suspect.
3) How many of the eyewitnesses have seen a 757--or anything else--fly at those speeds into a building? Do any of them have a frame of reference? They don't, so their minds are doing the best they can to analogize to something, including a construct of their own imagination. People who witness rollover crashes will swear the vehicles "flipped" 6 times. Interesting, since the reconstructions routinely confirm at most 1 1/2 rolls, and physics confirms that to roll 6 times a vehicle would have to be travelling something like 300 miles an hour.
4) Amazing. The FBI actually secured film from known video sites shortly after an accident, before some schmuck could sell it to the highest bidder. I suspect that all cameras which might monitor approaches to the Pentagon are well known to the pertinent agencies like the FBI.
5) Putting together a film not grounded in physics is easy--let's have someone work up a complete reconstruction of the accident based on computer models and see what it shows.
6) The film at the Pentagon capturing the image of the object--that supposedly took five seconds? At even 200 miles an hour--which is not all that far above stall speed for a 757--an object travels 1,466 feet--over a quarter of a mile. At-what speed did the film indicate, 530 mph?-the object would cover 3,886 feet--nearly 3/4 of a mile. Does the distance on the film look like the object is travelling anywhere near as far as either of those calculations show? I don't think so, but you can go back and look and see. If not, then the film maker can't even get his facts right on his interpretation of the real footage, which makes him suspect on everything else.
7) The guys who hit the World Trade Center Towers didn't fare any better as pilots than the guys supposedly on the Pentagon Plane--but they pretty much dead-centered their targets, something that most trained pilots don't do all that often on landing. And what might, on a radar, look like really high performance flying might be nothing more than the wobblings that an untrained pilot can't prevent.
BULLSHIT
others of you
DON'T
I sent this video to a man whom I have high regard for. That and he is paid to analyze and find facts. My father, the lawyer, has some interesting information to look at while examining this movie:
"The word of one man is no word at all. Let us bring all together, and examine them for the truth."
Just some things off the top of my head, based on one quick viewing.
1) The film shows other airline crashes. I saw no "exemplar" crashes of an aircraft into a building, showing the type of wreckage which remains. I do know I saw the film of the second of the aircraft flying into the World Trade Centers--I saw no wings or tail shear off, and I don't remember hearing much about a lot of aircraft wreckage remaining to be found.
2) 5300 pounds (or gallons) of fuel. Was that what the craft had when it took off, or what was estimated to be left when the crash occurred? Airplanes typically only take on enough fuel to reach their destination, plus an appropriate amount as a safety factor. This thing had been in the air for a couple of hours, burning fuel the whole way; how much was left on impact? Current fuels are supposedly designed for a reduction of burning capability in case of a crash which spills fuel, though the efficacy of those designs are pretty suspect.
3) How many of the eyewitnesses have seen a 757--or anything else--fly at those speeds into a building? Do any of them have a frame of reference? They don't, so their minds are doing the best they can to analogize to something, including a construct of their own imagination. People who witness rollover crashes will swear the vehicles "flipped" 6 times. Interesting, since the reconstructions routinely confirm at most 1 1/2 rolls, and physics confirms that to roll 6 times a vehicle would have to be travelling something like 300 miles an hour.
4) Amazing. The FBI actually secured film from known video sites shortly after an accident, before some schmuck could sell it to the highest bidder. I suspect that all cameras which might monitor approaches to the Pentagon are well known to the pertinent agencies like the FBI.
5) Putting together a film not grounded in physics is easy--let's have someone work up a complete reconstruction of the accident based on computer models and see what it shows.
6) The film at the Pentagon capturing the image of the object--that supposedly took five seconds? At even 200 miles an hour--which is not all that far above stall speed for a 757--an object travels 1,466 feet--over a quarter of a mile. At-what speed did the film indicate, 530 mph?-the object would cover 3,886 feet--nearly 3/4 of a mile. Does the distance on the film look like the object is travelling anywhere near as far as either of those calculations show? I don't think so, but you can go back and look and see. If not, then the film maker can't even get his facts right on his interpretation of the real footage, which makes him suspect on everything else.
7) The guys who hit the World Trade Center Towers didn't fare any better as pilots than the guys supposedly on the Pentagon Plane--but they pretty much dead-centered their targets, something that most trained pilots don't do all that often on landing. And what might, on a radar, look like really high performance flying might be nothing more than the wobblings that an untrained pilot can't prevent.
posted by drewish at 4:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home