The Pentagon on 9/11 - MODERATOR WARNING ISSUED

Why? To satisfy your conspiracy suspicions? They knew what planes crashed/impacted where. They knew they were hijacked. What reason would they need to forensically analyze anything.

 

There is no credible evidence about any of those who were alleged to be on those planes nor is there any credible evidence that those planes are the ones claimed in the OCT. Everything you cite is faith based drawn from fake investigations (i.e. coverups).

If you mean the forensic parts identification match that was either never done or for which the results are still classified, REALLY and always. You don't like it? Who the **** cares?

 

Overspeed is an estimate, all planes have an operating window, they can tell you the stall speed. ( actually planes can stall at any speed), however the VMO is an estimate.
They don't crash test planes like they do in cars.

An aircraft will break up, but if it happens at 40 mph over, or 200 mph is not known.

 

For you? None. For you there was never any reason to conduct any legitimate investigation into 9/11, anything they fed you was fine. I'm not you and I could care less about your BS mentality.

 

The question is not that planes IMMEDIATELY start to break up when exceeding VMO or IMMEDIATELY become difficult to control when exceeding VMO. Quit the fake hyperbole you're way too transparent.

 

The subject is not what you think I was "fed" or what my "mentality" is. Further off topic posts from you will be reported.

 

Please do, along with yours. I have no problem having any of my off topic posts deleted as long as others of the same genre are as well.

 

When then Bob? At what speed would you expect the aircraft to start breaking up. You referenced the information.

 

You asked this question right Bobby? You implied that EXCEEDING VMO would cause a plane to break and you questioned why that didn't happen? So if you have a problem with the term "IMMEDIATELY EXCEEDING" as a parameter, then when?

 

I expect you to start reporting others as well, including your brethren truthers.

 

Ok to remain on topic.

"They knew" is never a basis for any legitimate investigation, especially not for an event such as 9/11. "They knew" is a faith based ASSumption, it's not science or has any place in any criminal investigation. If "they knew" was applied to all investigations there would never be the need for any investigation. I've been over that fallacy countless times.

Because it's a universally standard and settled part of EVERY criminal investigation, especially for an event such as 9/11. There are NO exceptions and for 9/11 there shouldn't be ANY exceptions of any kind.

 

At the claimed altitude and velocities of the 9/11 airliners. The question remains and always will until adequately answered by a legitimate investigation.

 

You mean to tell me that they needed to forensically analyze the plane parts to prove that, for the Pentagon attack, flight 77 was indeed that correct flight that impacted, that flight 77 was indeed a 757, and that flight 77 was indeed hijacked?

 

Give me a specific altitude and velocity of flight 77 that you think it should have broken up at and then cite the scientific documentation that shows it should have broken up. You're all about science and forensics right Bob?

 

I don't mean to tell YOU anything because you have no genuine interest. My responses to your posts are only directed to readers who truly care about 9/11 and the "investigations".

It is standard for any major airline crash investigation, it was claimed by the NTSB guy in the video at the Pentagon site that a part would be used to identify the aircraft, it is claimed to have been done, it was absolutely required and absolutely necessary for an event such as 9/11. And besides all that, there is a ton controversy as to whether these claimed airplanes were actually the ones officially designated (or not) because of many other non credible factors. The forensically identified PHYSICAL evidence might have served to try to settle such controversy. There was NO legitimate reason for the FBI to deny 2 FOIA requests for the results of that identification. That only served to increase the controversy and raise the level of suspicion to what was already highly suspicious.

 

The claimed speed prior to impact was 530 MPH/460 knots. VMO at sea level is 350 knots. So it exceeded VMO by 110 knots. I didn't say it should have broken up I asked why it didn't break up and how it's possible that the aircraft was so precisely maneuvered at that velocity. There is a difference. VMO as you well know I'm sure is a manufacturer recommended maximum velocity at altitude which if exceeded adversely affects the maneuverability and jeopardizes the safety of the aircraft.

 

Interesting take, and worth listening to.

 

Watch this from the 20:45 time mark to the 21:48 time mark.

9/11 Painful Deceptions - 2005 (full length)


Look at the fourth and fifth pictures on this page.
https://web.archive.org/web/20111205224534/http://0911.voila.net:80/index4.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20150910171047/http://0911.voila.net:80/BionicAntboy.htm
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------
IF this is legit untampered footage,
then it clearly suggests a plane smaller than a Boeing 757.

There is a website that covers this well...
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index1.htm

Focusing on pages III - IV , which analyze the 5 frames,
the creator of this website as done a spatial analysis
that clearly shows that the plane in question is too small
to be Flight 77.

On page III, he stabilizes and animates the sequence.
On page IV, using 3D spatial imaging techniques, he superimposes a 757 to scale
over the location of the tail of the plane in the image,
taking angle of approach relative to the camera,
and perspective into account.

It's clear that the plane in frame one can NOT be a 757.
It is no more than 1/2 the length of Flight 77, and maybe less.
----------------------------------------------------------------

This will close the whole case. We just have to verify it by analyzing it from above.

 

I've posted this quite a few time on this forum. It's an explanation for what happened to the passengers of flight 77.

9/11 Painful Deceptions - 2005 (full length)

(43:58 time mark)


It sounds plausible to me.

 

so what happened to them.
I'm not going to waste my time watching another BS video.

 

I would think a truther is just a person who cannot, logically accept the official story, and want to know the truth. But sure, you use that term in a derogatory fashion. That can be seen as a ploy by the people wanting the truth, a defense mechanism, that insures the unacceptable truth, is never revealed. Non truthers seldom dig into the facts that dispute their beliefs, because perhaps as humans, we do not want to be shown we were so easily duped?

I don't know the truth of 911 nor of the anthrax attacks shortly thereafter. But I cannot rationally accept the official story either. Far too many incoherencies involved in what took place on 911, as well as the anthrax attacks. I have a huge problem with incoherence, and a prolific series of coincidences. Blame my logic prof, a course taken and offered by the philosophy dept at the university that I attended long ago. Blame my political science prof in that same era and he taught us about power, false flags, and corruption of those who hold great power.

I would have to just desert a decent education in order to buy into the official story, given what I just mentioned.

I discern that secrets are being hidden in regards to this issue. Anyone rational being would do that ,IMO. It is just where this path inevitably leads.

You saw similiar things to happen with the warren commission and that investigation into the murder of JFK. Incoherencies. Coincidences, in too great a number to just ignore and dismiss, unless of course we live in a reality that is inconsistent, based on chaos and inconsistency, instead of a cause effect reality.

 

Me: "Charlie, why didn't you stop beating your wife?"
Charlie: "Why are you accusing me of beating my wife?"
Me: "I'm not accusing you of beating your wife, I just want to know why you didn't stop."

Come on Bob.

You ask a specific question which means you expected it to have broken up at the speed it was at and even referenced a parameter limit that it exceeded. I'll ask you again. What documentation or information leads you to believe that it should have broken up at 460 knots to ask the question "Why didn't it break up?".

 

I'm curious where he got 350 knots.

sounds like something out of "Pilots for truth".

 

(Worthless garbage ignored)

Why are you so concerned about my question that you ask questions about my question and you’re so desperate for an answer? There’s not one thing genuine or honest about you.

I ask thousands of questions about 9/11 and I am not looking for answers from you. This one is just one of those but it’s far from my primary concern. For all I know an airliner could maintain its structural integrity even at 200 knots over VMO but I highly doubt it. I read a few years ago about an Egyptair flight where the pilot dove in a suicide attempt and the theory was that it broke up midair while going at 500+ knots. So thus my question. Why is this such a thorn in your posterior?

You don’t care for my question? Ask another one, do I give a flying ****?