World trade center video

[Rat Faced]

I dont know.

I dont say they were american pilots either.

I do know that i dont believe the official version of events. This is supported by physical evidence and that there are an extremly suspicious set of co-incidents.


Does this mean that Bush, or anyone else in the administration/security services were involved? Not necessarily, although it does raise the odds from "Impossible" to say "unlikely". They certainly took advantage of the situation though.

The most damning thing for me is the fact that they are encouraging the most unlikely sets of conspiracy theories delibratly.. that lumps all theories in the same boat. People are misdirected to the wildly improbable, such as "It wasnt a 757 that hit the Pentagon". They then dont look too closely at the ones that cant/wont be answered; such as:

Why say the Black Boxes of the ones at WTC werent found, when the people on the ground say they loaded them into an FBI vehicle?

Why refuse to release the video footage that was taken from business' all around the Pentagon?

Why put a gag order on the Firemen?

Why play delaying tactics in the courts with the suit against GW for Treason, and not even allow the media to report there is one? Why not just go to court and get it over with?

Same for the suit under the RICO(?) laws..

Why refuse to answer questions under Oath?

Why were some of the answers given by Rice under oath, different to those she told the world in the Media?

The list goes on and on...

Some, such as the Rice thing, i can understand.... She could have been playing the propaganda card in the media, and couldnt under oath for example.

Others, there is no reason... except they would reveal a trail of lies that politics in general in the USA would never recover from. NOTE: I didnt say "Republicans" i said politics.

If you follow the money; Oil is selling at over $64 a barrel at the moment.. who, in the current administration, gains from selling Oil at high prices?

Weapons and Ordinance were and still are, being bought at hugely increased rates. Who in the administration gains by an upsurge in the weapons trade?


Just about every week, something is uncovered that shows that we were lied to re: Iraq.

Afganistan is now ran by the Warlords that grow the white poppies again..result, a certain pipeline is now being built through Afganistan and Heroin prices are at an altime low on the streets. What happened to "This time we will not forget them"?

Iraq is a quagmire that is, lets face it, a Civil war in the making.

The Kurds are now bombing Turkey, as they were before they were the "allies" in the invasion... when do they get classed as terrorists supporting Al Queda again?



The whole situation from 911 onwards stinks... hell forget 911, from the election in 2000.

Something very suspicious is happening in US Government the last few years.. and it didnt start with Bush Jnr. He's just the daft sod that's been the most blatent

[lynx]

@whypikonleo

Thanks for the links, in particular the Pentagon Building Performance Report. It wasn't exactly the sort of title I would have searched for. Very interesting though, it gives some very useful information regarding the position of the generator.

I refer you to figure 3.2 on page 15 of the report (page 12 of the pdf file). This shows the aircraft line of flight to be such that, assuming the generator to be where indicated, the right engine of a 757 would be in line with the generator.

I now refer you to page 36 of that report (page 23 of the pdf file). Look at the supposed path of the plane through the building - straight at the hole in the inner wall of ring c. Yet if you look at the line of damage inside the building it does not proceed in the same direction, and the hole in the wall of ring c is at the very edge of the main damage area.

There is the aircraft wheel just outside the hold in ring c. If that is what has been claimed, it can not be the nose wheel since the nose wheel is different. Ie, it is a main landing gear wheel. This also implies that the nose did not end up in this area.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, it is logical to assume that the main line of damage inside the building would follow the original line of flight. Ok, that's probably only a few degrees. But the diagram in figure 3.2 shows the pre-impact aircraft following the same line which ends up at the hole in ring c.

If you adjust the line of flight in this diagram to match the line of damage, then the right engine would completely miss the generator in it's supposed position.

This neither confirms nor denies whether it was a 757 which hit the Pentagon, but it removes yet another piece of "evidence".

Actually, I'm also a little puzzled by an omission from the report. Reports such as these usually try to give as much information as possible, and to that end they include before and after photographs for comparison. Yet there is not one single photograph of how things were before the crash. Was there a shortage? That hardly seems likely, a major reconstruction was about to be completed, it is inconceivable that hundreds of pictures weren't taken.

I notice that Mete Sozen was also one of the authors of the report. There are no references to his liquidized aeroplane theory. Was it perhaps just a little too bizarre for an official document, I wonder.

[whypikonme]

The actual, exact, path of the plane cannot possibly be known except to a tolerence of maybe +\- a metre or two. The video animation l saw months ago, from some university, (Purdoe? (sp.)), suggested also that the plane, because the left wing ploughed into the ground, may have entered the building with a slight speed bias towards the right (?). l guess the makeup of the building's structure would also hamper any attempt to determine the exact path. They also said that it took the plane only one tenth of a second to travel through the building, and, presumably, come to a complete stop from (x)00kms per hour. When you look at some of the pics in that report they really had a mess to sort out, and not a lot of prior experience of planes crashing into buildings to call on.

[lynx]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but if one side digs in, doesn't that side slow down and therefore cause a turn in that direction? I suppose it could simply cause a rotation of the aircraft to the left, but there's no way it could alter the flight path to the right.

A snippet from the co-producers of the video.
Source

A major challenge has been learning how to combine commercially available software with the special models needed to simulate an airliner hitting a building, Kilic said.

The Purdue team used commercial software that is normally used by auto manufacturers to simulate car crashes. But adapting the software to simulate the plane crash and then combining the realistic-looking graphics with scientific simulation has been especially difficult, Kilic said.

"Integrating these two animations is uncommon," he said. "We are discovering a new territory. We had some interaction with aeronautical engineers, and they had never heard of this kind of a simulation, with an aircraft hitting a building.

I think that interprets as:
Perdue: look what we done
aeronautical engineers: wtf?

[whypikonme]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but if one side digs in, doesn't that side slow down and therefore cause a turn in that direction? I suppose it could simply cause a rotation of the aircraft to the left, but there's no way it could alter the flight path to the right.

That's what l meant, the right side was going faster, it's this grass, l haven't had a smoke for a few days.

Just out of interest, did you look at these >> Pentagon Animations << have a look at number two, 'Fluid'.

[lynx]

I've tried a couple of times to download the main simulation video, but gave up after 30 mins. I assume their server was overloaded.

I haven't had chance to see the one's you've linked to yet, I'll try to look at them tomorrow. One thing though, did you notice the title of number 2 - wing w/o ribs.

I thought this was supposed to be a meaningful representation. AFAIK there is no such thing as a (operational) wing w/o ribs. Jeez, no wonder they made the assumption it liquefied, I shouldn't think a wing made like that would even have to hit anything to fall apart.

Update, I had time to have a quick look at the ones under heading 2.

Did you notice something?

They are animating a full right hand wing.

The same wing that could not possibly have fitted through the hole in the outside of the building.

Unless of course it was a lot smaller.

In which case it wasn't from a 757

Comments?

[whypikonme]

Did YOU notice that it wasn't the wing that cut through the columns, it was the fuel?

Fluid

This was the wing .. Wing

[lynx]

Did YOU notice that it wasn't the wing that cut through the columns, it was the fuel?

Fluid

This was the wing .. Wing

I noticed their supposition.

But which would you have me believe?
1) the aircraft was a 757.
2) their supposition is correct and it wasn't a 757.

Or are you suggesting that it was a 757 but the fuel pulled itself in so that it could get through the hole, then stretched itself back to its original shape in order to perform the pillar cutting act.

[whypikonme]

Did YOU notice that it wasn't the wing that cut through the columns, it was the fuel?

Fluid

This was the wing .. Wing

I noticed their supposition.

But which would you have me believe?
1) the aircraft was a 757.
2) their supposition is correct and it wasn't a 757.

Or are you suggesting that it was a 757 but the fuel pulled itself in so that it could get through the hole, then stretched itself back to its original shape in order to perform the pillar cutting act.

l'm not making any claims at all, just looking at animations that the authors claim should not be taken as gospel.

[whypikonme]