WTF? Pakistan Jetliner Crashes Into Mountain But Does Not Vaporize.

[Mons Venus]

Because of the size of the 757 and the claimed impact speed (500 mph). The amount of energy released and the ensuing explosion would have created a much larger hole compared to the cross section of the cockpit.


Unbroken windows beside primary hole:



No, it is because the plane has vertical and horizontal dimension to it with the rolls royce engines below the wings. To fly a 757 five-ten feet above the ground would be impossible without basically crashing into the ground. Therefore during its approach it would have crashed and skidded on the lawn and then slid into the side of the building. The lawn would have been a mess. Do you really think a novice hijack pilot could do something which professional pilots have claimed is impossible to do? You can't have a neat hole on the first level of the Pentagon and not have damage on the lawn. That would not be possible because of the vertical dimension of the 757. The 757 would certainly have dragged the ground.

The bulding is part of the 420x320 pixel video and you can scale the building relative to the object. And the blurred object is not the size a 757 would have been relative to the building.


How large the object that was released was:


How large the object should have been:

NeoScums won't touch THIS post tarzan.

Great job !!! 

[thelamefalsehood]

I'm not a pilot. I took this picture before riding shotgun with a buddy @ MacDill AFB.



   

How did you get an incentive flight and what was/is your AFSC?

[240 is Back]

for my first 28 years, I laughed at CTers.  I was just naive, and I believed everything the news told me.  I believed the US did the right thing 100% of the time, morally.

Then, I realized there were some real holes in the 911 story (which even the 911 commission authors admit), and I swung too far to the other end.  I believed every CT.

Today, I realize some are true, and some are not.  Yes, there were very detailed warnings about 911 which were given to people like Mayor Brown and pentagon brass, and not the folks on those planes.  This is fact, not CT.  From Brown's own mouth. 

The world isn't run by a bunch of evil men at a giant boardroom desk plotting microchipped enslavement.  But at the same time, it's also not the plain vanilla version you read in your 6th grade social studies book.  yes, we sold WMD to saddam in the 80s and gave him permission to invade kuwait.  yes, we ignored some real intel on 911.  Yes, we invaded iraq even after the UN proved there were no WMD.  There's lots of shit that happens because yeah, our govt wants to make gains.  It's fact.  We do some cold hearted shit.  Deal with it.

But "the sky is falling" isn't true either.  in 40 years, we'll have a continually weakening economy, we'll be in another war caused by an attack which might have been shady (gulf tonken, lucitania, you name it), and CTers will still be saying it's the end of the world.  And in 40 years, the squeaky clean version of history some of you numbskulls subscribe to (cause ignorance is bliss) still won't have come true.

[tonymctones]

OUCHHHHHH CT'ERS WATCH THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

adressess the lawn tarzan...

[Fury]

OUCHHHHHH CT'ERS WATCH THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

adressess the lawn tarzan...

Onto the next one for them.

[tarzan]

OUCHHHHHH CT'ERS WATCH THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

adressess the lawn tarzan...

Thanks for link tony. I am going to watch it right now.

Here is a video for you. This is the best and most professional video yet bar none! They have eye witness testimony, animation flights paths the works. It is long though so be prepared.

[tarzan]

How do you know?  Prove that it would have created a larger hole.

Don't cut and paste some jack ass crack pot vid, prove to me, using your own research, facts, etc.. in simple words that that plane should have with full certainty created a larger hole.  

The proof is the fact that the footprint of the plane (including wings, engines, cockpit) is larger than the initial impact hole. How can that be? Yes the Pentagon is a solid structure but there was still a hole so it was not strong enough to resist penetration. The speed and mass of the airplane would have obliterated a much larger section. In the same way that a 1 mile asteroid would cause a much larger explosion and destruction than it's initial size.

Here is a picture of a 3 pound bird that flew into a plane's wing and actually cutting into the aluminum. It can do that because of the velocity x mass.


The same laws would apply if a lighter yet massive airplane slammed into a solid building like the Pentagon.

[tonymctones]

The proof is the fact that the footprint of the plane (including wings, engines, cockpit) is larger than the initial impact hole. How can that be? Yes the Pentagon is a solid structure but there was still a hole so it was not strong enough to resist penetration. The speed and mass of the airplane would have obliterated a much larger section. In the same way that a 1 mile asteroid would cause a much larger explosion and destruction than it's initial size.

Here is a picture of a 3 pound bird that flew into a plane's wing and actually cutting into the metal / wood. It can do that because of the velocity x mass.


The same laws would apply if a lighter yet massive airplane slammed into a solid building like the Pentagon.

LOL according to who?

LMAO those pics do nothing but bolster the argument for a small whole...a bird did that, A BIRD DID THAT...the plane that hit the pentagon ran into a building...a building that was built to withstand BOMBS!!!!!!!!

lol if a bird does that much damage to a plane what do you think a plane will do to a bomb resistant building?

[tarzan]

adressess the lawn tarzan...

Watched the video. In his animation he is actually showing the left engine dragging the ground to make it work. It is but a mere inches above the ground. The turbulence would have caused damage to the lawn as well as the dragging of the engine. He also admits at the end that the reports are that it supposedly banks to the left and he is working on it to make it work.

His theory on the fishey lens is interesting however the building is also subject to lens distortion. The airplane size is questioned RELATIVE to the building.

[tarzan]

lol if a bird does that much damage to a plane what do you think a plane will do to a bomb resistant building?

A lot more which is the whole point! The original point was the hole is too small. The bird weighs a lot less than the plane but because of the speed of impact it penetrates the much stronger material. Do you really want to argue that a bird's body is stronger than an aluminum airplane??! If you do then next time think twice before getting on one with 300 passengers.

In the same way that the weaker bird can penetrate the aluminum wing of a plane can a weaker aluminum airplane penetrate and create a hole equal or larger than it's footprint in a reinforced concrete structure - because it is supposedly flying at a high velocity which amplifies the force of impact.

[tonymctones]

A lot more which is the whole point! The original point was the hole is too small. The bird weighs a lot less than the plane but because of the speed of impact it penetrates the much stronger material. Do you really want to argue that a bird's body is stronger than an aluminum airplane??! If you do then next time think twice before getting on one with 300 passengers.

In the same way that the weaker bird can penetrate the aluminum wing of a plane can a weaker aluminum airplane penetrate and create a hole equal or larger than it's footprint in a reinforced concrete structure - because it is supposedly flying at a high velocity which amplifies the force of impact.

LOL youre leaving out density...the birds body is much more dense than that section of HOLLOW wing...the building is alot more dense than the airplane with is HOLLOW...

that is why the bird does that amount of damage to the plane and the plane didnt do that much damage to the reinforced bomb resistant building...

[240 is Back]

the plane didnt do that much damage to the reinforced bomb resistant building...

Weird.  I recall the plane - complete with its composite nose - punching competely through THREE OF THE FIVE reinforced rings (buildings) of the pentagon.

That is the problem with the official story.  It claims the plane both disintegrated AND drilled a very clean hole thru the buildings.  See the pic yourself of the THIRD building with a nice clean hole through it.  (Remember, the plane hit at the TOP of the image)



So to be clear- the plane and its hollow body, hollow wings, and composite nose managed to drill through THREE reinforced buildings, and deliver this very clean hole (after going thru three buildings).  Do you see why so many people believed it was a nice missile slicing that hole?

[tarzan]

LOL youre leaving out density...the birds body is much more dense than that section of HOLLOW wing...the building is alot more dense than the airplane with is HOLLOW...

that is why the bird does that amount of damage to the plane and the plane didnt do that much damage to the reinforced bomb resistant building...

The building is also hollow in that regard - relative to it's volume the walls are thin.

Nice try though.

[Eyeball Chambers]

Weird.  I recall the plane - complete with its composite nose - punching competely through THREE OF THE FIVE reinforced rings (buildings) of the pentagon.

That is the problem with the official story.  It claims the plane both disintegrated AND drilled a very clean hole thru the buildings.  See the pic yourself of the THIRD building with a nice clean hole through it.  (Remember, the plane hit at the TOP of the image)



So to be clear- the plane and its hollow body, hollow wings, and composite nose managed to drill through THREE reinforced buildings, and deliver this very clean hole (after going thru three buildings).  Do you see why so many people believed it was a nice missile slicing that hole?

It's such a joke it's not even funny.

 

[240 is Back]

The holes in the wall are what always made the pentagon thing now make sense to me.  I mean, the video frames, whatever.  Not that hard for anyone to alter them and see whatever they'd like.

But those holes... it makes no sense.  The plane SHOULD HAVE disintegrated.  We've ALL seen the video of the fighter jet turning to dust hitting only a brick wall, right?  youtube it.  Makes sense.  And we're supposed to believe a MUCH SOFTER plane managed to disintegrate hitting SIX very solid brick/steel reinforced walls - and it managed to punch a hole TOO? 

i dunno... I'm not gonna argue CTs all night... there's no point... but really guys... you can't have it both ways.  Plane disintegrates AND it retains the mass and energy to drill through six steel/brick walls - NEATLY AND CLEANLY?   

[240 is Back]

tony, i'll assume you didn't know about those clean holes thru the outer rings.

See what google can find for you.  For me, they never have made sense.  I think an airliner would be dust, hitting the strongest part of one of the strongest buildings in america.  They're soft. 

Anyway, i'm not trying to pwn/own in this argument.  I'd really like your take on how such events happen - the plane vaporizing AND the clean identical holes thru all 6 walls (2 on each ring). 

[Eyeball Chambers]

Picture an empty aluminum can being shot through a piece of 3/4 inch drywall.

Ain't happening.

[240 is Back]

Picture an empty aluminum can being shot through a piece of 3/4 inch drywall.

Ain't happening.

yeah...
F4 Phantom Jet Hits Concrete Wall at 500 MPH

This wall is concrete.  The plane is traveling about as fast as the Boeing.  It turns to powder dude.  Just dust.  Gone.  The wall doesn't budge. 

So how does a commercial airliner - softer and wider (think displaced energy delivering LESS concentrated energy) - slice so cleanly thru those walls?

I'm baffled by it, to be honest.  That plane should have been dust.

[Eyeball Chambers]

yeah...
F4 Phantom Jet Hits Concrete Wall at 500 MPH

This wall is concrete.  The plane is traveling about as fast as the Boeing.  It turns to powder dude.  Just dust.  Gone.  The wall doesn't budge. 

So how does a commercial airliner - softer and wider (think displaced energy delivering LESS concentrated energy) - slice so cleanly thru those walls?

I'm baffled by it, to be honest.  That plane should have been dust.

Oh yeah, I've seen that.  It is baffling, I can't even stand to talk about this stuff anymore. 

One wall would have been an incredible stretch, let alone three... 

[240 is Back]

Oh yeah, I've seen that.  It is baffling, I can't even stand to talk about this stuff anymore. 

One wall would have been an incredible stretch, let alone three... 

We argued this stuff 5 years ago.  Accepted our own truths and moved on.

You gotta admit... it's kinda cute to see people arguing about it, when it's so new to them.  Tony spends all this time telling us the plane vaporized - and he was probably unaware of the clean hole sliced thru 6 walls of three buildings. 

[tarzan]

Picture an empty aluminum can being shot through a piece of 3/4 inch drywall.

Ain't happening.

Add a little bit of water and saw dust to the can and try again. I would bet it would go through if the speed is fast enough. The plane was not empty according to the government. It had humans in it, fuel, seats, luggage. All these things ALSO have mass.

64 people at 140 pounds average = 4000 kg = 4 tons alone.

The point being the plane would have made a bigger hole. However I also doubt there would have been a neat hole in the inner ring.

[Eyeball Chambers]

We argued this stuff 5 years ago.  Accepted our own truths and moved on.

You gotta admit... it's kinda cute to see people arguing about it, when it's so new to them.  Tony spends all this time telling us the plane vaporized - and he was probably unaware of the clean hole sliced thru 6 walls of three buildings. 

Yes, I remember you schooling me on this stuff years ago. Memories... 

[tarzan]

yeah...
F4 Phantom Jet Hits Concrete Wall at 500 MPH

This wall is concrete.  The plane is traveling about as fast as the Boeing.  It turns to powder dude.  Just dust.  Gone.  The wall doesn't budge.  

So how does a commercial airliner - softer and wider (think displaced energy delivering LESS concentrated energy) - slice so cleanly thru those walls?

I'm baffled by it, to be honest.  That plane should have been dust.

This concrete is a lot thicker than the Pentagon walls. About 6-8 times I would guess. And it is a solid block whereas the Pentagon wall had window opening to weaken the wall. But I agree with you it (plane) could not have gone all the way through to the inner ring.

[tonymctones]

Ill go back and watch your videos 240, I actually did know about the holes and if you watch the pop mechanics guys debate the loose change guys they explain the reasoning for that...

I assume youve watched that and can give reasoning to disbelieve them?

This is the problem with the ct's you have 2 different ct's citing the same evidence as reasoning for their ct but on different sides of the evidence...

tarzan thinks that it should have created more damage, 240 says less LOL

at any rate I would like to see evidence real or physical evidence...not circumstantial evidence that a missle or at the very least not a plane hit the pentagon...

we have physical evidence to say that one did, where is the physical evidence to say a missile did?

[240 is Back]

I dont have any videos to present to you, tony.

I dont have any evidence for you.  You can go out and find your own.