IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
I Think This Old Poster Over At Piper.org Has Some Very Valid Points About The Attack On The Pentagon

Paul
post Jan 10 2011, 11:13 AM
Post #1





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



Hello there i was doing a search on google on some pilots forums to see if i could find something like a topic where they had anything
to say about the aircraft on 911 the speeds the manouverability and all and most suprising not a single word or a whisper but i did come
accross on topic regarding the issue of flight 77 and the attack on the pentagon from a few years back over at a site called www.pirep.org
and i this thread http://www.pirep.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t...p;highlight=911 there is this poster who goes by the name of OldenBold
who i believe in his second last post makes two very valid claims in regards to the generator trailer and AA 77 hitting the pentagon based
upon a topic he read posted by someone on the ATS website claiming to have evidence that supports the notion that AA Flight 77 really did hit the pentagon so here is his quote as it goes.

Keg,

Sorry to disappoint you. Like most magicians, who use smoke and mirrors to divert your attention, this guy is placing a lot of credence in things that are either irrelevant or just plain wrong.

I have only given his report a quick look over, and the hour is very late, but consider the following:

1. Engine part described as APU (debris field outside the building). Most APU's (if not all?) used on aircraft utilise a centrifugal compressor (as size and weight are bigger considerations to peak power output) - so it's not the compressor of an APU. If it is a turbine, the ratio of the disk to blade size suggest it is a HP turbine, but the overall size of the disk is waaaay too big for an APU.

APU on B757 is installed in the tailcone. Fuselage penetrated the building. A heavey chunk of metal attached to the rearmost part of the fuselage, impacting AFTER the building walls have been breached, is going to travel FORWARD into the building, not mystically bounce back out!

So what is the part? If it is outside the building, then it could only come from the wing-mounted engines (and I have serious doubts that an engine wighing a couple of tonnes and travelling at least 330kt would bounce back ourside). A Rolls Royce representative has stated categorically that the part is NOT from an RB211-535 (the type fitted to the 'crashed' aircraft). So what engine is this mystery part from?

2. Wheel rims. Firstly, I should point out this guy is so tecnical, he doesn't even know the difference between wheel rims and tires (tyres). All 10 wheel rims on a B757 are securely in the fuselage when the gear is retracted. By the guys own evidence, the lower, denser and stronger lower fuselage section (where the wheels are) is going to penetrate further than the wings and upper fuselage. Why then have some main-wheel rims been located outside the building?

3. Wreckage. Yes, there is debris outside the building, and some of it even has the primer on it. ALL SMOKE AND MIRRORS. Other photos taken outside the building 5 - 10minutes after (long after any 'debris rainging down' should have landed), and CLEARLY showing the lawn area, DO NOT show any significant debris.

4. The photos showing a blackened hole next to the "No Standing" sign is actually on the INSIDE WALL of C-RING at the BASEMENT level (ie 1 floor BELOW where the aircraft hit!) The floor between the Mezanine level (ground floor) and the Basement, is reputed to be reinforced sufficiently to withstand direct hits from 1000lb bombs.

In getting this far, the aircraft has punched through 6 walls of three rings of the building and through a heavily reinforced floor. Nevertheless, sufficient pieces of fuselage (remember, the wings and engines have allegedly not even penetrated the outer walls) have travelled more than 80m (on an angled path) through the building and punched a hole of approximately 3m diameter (based on the size of the sign).

Bearing in mind that what is left of the aircraft must be in contact with the basement floor (the car-park is below the basement, but does not extend fully below the building), the wreckage still manages to punch a hole that is largely circular in shape (rather than an arch-shaped hole that would be expected). Note how the lower corners of the brickwork are actually still in place back towards the centreline of the hole!

Also note the blackened substantial concrete structure still in place behind the brickwork.

The nature of this hole suggest an object/wreckage of a substantially smaller diameter (1m max) has struck the centre of the hole, baove the floor level. The momentum of the strike has blown the brickwork out in a circular shape.

It is highly unlikely that the pieces of twisted aluminium shown would have sufficient density to penetrate this far into the building, and still carry enough momentum to damage the brickwork like this.

5. The guy uses two video frames to suggest the presence of a B757 in the second frame. Bear in mind that these are actually interlaced screens and have only half the information of a full video frame. The guy has set this up as an "animated gif" with a relatively short delay time - certainly not enough to scrutinise the frames.

Analysing the individual frames in suitable software, shows substantial differences in the two screens. The second and third screens have been digitally enhanced (using sharpening and smoothing filters). Unfortunately, unlike what you see on many police shows on TV, information cannot be created if it is not there in the first place. All this software does is SUGGEST what might be in the intermediate pixels. These suggested pixels are largely defined by the filter's options.

In this case, vivid imagination and selective use of filters has created something that isn't really there. Despite all this, there is still sufficient difference between screens one and two to indicate they are NOT adjacent screens on the original video.

At least the guy has the decency to admit his manipulation of the screens proves nothing!

6. The generator. If the No.2 engine did indeed hit this generator, it would have been AFTER the nose of the aircraft struck the building (look at his first pic with the 7 profiles next to the building). Given that the aircraft is allegedly travelling at least 350kt (180m/sec). At the most likely recording speed (based on image quality and the movement of the craft between screens) of 7.5 frames/sec (1/4 speed), any smoke seen from the engine would be unlikely to show in any of these frames.

However, if the engine DID strike the generator, we should be able to see the instantaneous flash, which would typically last for at least 2 screens, even at 1/4 speed recording.

One might also suspect that an impact sufficient to rotate a 12 tonne generator by 45 would also separate the engine from the wing and send it careening off in an altogether different direction.

7. The hole in the outer wall. This hole starts at ground level and is allegedly 5m diameter (the B757 fuselage is 3.7m). The aircraft, flown at 350kt by a terrorist with only a few hours experience, has been able to stike the building right at ground level, and without making any contact with the ground prior to the building? I DOUBT IT!

Not even allowing for the explosive force of 25 tonnes or so ofexploding fuel, just the explosive force of a B757 hitting at 350kt would be about 19,000Kn. Even if it did hit with the bottom of the fuselage scraping the ground, the hole would have been substantially larger than 1 metre or so more than the fuselage diameter (remeber the hole in the wall on C-Ring was substantially larger than the debris must have been - because the concrete structure was in the way)

8. Eye-witness accounts. Many years ago I attended a basic accident and incident investigation course. Without going into too many details, one of the first things that was done, was to prove to us just how unreliable eye-witnesses are. Despite the fact that everyone on the course was an aviation professional, we all witnessed a staged incident, and all of us got significant details wrong. Some on the course got virtually every detail of the incident wrong. These eye-witnesses are only telling what they think they saw, or what the media told them they saw, or what others may have suggested to them they saw. I would certainly suggest that a non-aviation professional could NOT identify substantial differnces between a passenger jet and say a cruise missile, travelling at 340kt, a few hundred metres away.

9. The engines. If the No,2 engine had hit a 12 tonne generator at 350kt, it should have been dislodged and ended up away from the remainder of the wreckage. It did not!

No. 1 engine (weighing a few tonnes and also travelling at 350kt) should have had sufficient momentum to cause substantial impact damage (even to a reinforced wall) a few metres away from the fuselage hole. It didn't!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, what are the smoke and mirrors this guy uses?
* The wheel rim is actually a B757 wheen rim - so what!
* Some of the aluminium is coated in primer - so what!
* He makes a big deal about the structure of a fuselage, yet the photos of the external damage to the building simply to not support the concept that anything with a diameter of more than a metre or so has struck it
* He makes numerous references to the Global Hawk, yet provides no evidence either way that such a craft was involved
* The use of a graphic which is substantially enhanced and uses a hand-drawn outline to suggest the presence of an aircraft that is not there
* Basing much of his argument on the position of the generator which he alleges has been struck by the r/h engine, yet which has not caused the massive flash which would be expected, nor dislodged the engine
* If a B757 DID hit the Pentagon, this guy has produced no evidence supporting it.

Perhaps more to the point, he has failed to produce any evidence against the idea that it was more likely a CALM or something similar, by explaining how the size of the breach in the outside walls and of Pier C is not consistent with a B757!

He has not explained the absence of substantial damage from the No.1 engine striking the building, that should have been evident a few metres from the hole caused by the fuselage. Instead there are a few assorted bits of engine that are NOT from a RB211 lying around the breach

He has not explained how 25 tonnes of exploding fuel caused such a relatively small fire.

I am reluctant to speculate how the wreckage littering the lawn ended up there, when it had not been there a few minutes after the impact, or on the significance of engine parts that do NOT match the engines of the B757. I am also reluctant to speculate (given the obvious consequences) what did hit the Penatagon if it wasn' a B757.

I do however, still have very serous doubts that a B757 struck the Pentagon, and this guy's efforts have done nothing to dispel those doubts.
[/url]
_________________
My favourite animal - The Wombat - eats roots shoots and leaves

Here are his points which i think are most valid and that people have seriously overlooked these two simple facts which in itself is enough to cause serious damage to the OCT

However, if the engine DID strike the generator, we should be able to see the instantaneous flash, which would typically last for at least 2 screens, even at 1/4 speed recording.

One might also suspect that an impact sufficient to rotate a 12 tonne generator by 45 would also separate the engine from the wing and send it careening off in an altogether different direction.


9. The engines. If the No,2 engine had hit a 12 tonne generator at 350kt, it should have been dislodged and ended up away from the remainder of the wreckage. It did not!

I have only one question how much does a single engine of a boeing type 757-233 weigh how much did each of it two engines weigh?

Does anyone think this guys has a valid point about what he says? And does anyone think that he is correct?

This post has been edited by Paul: Jan 10 2011, 11:21 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 13th November 2019 - 02:47 AM