Check out this video. The copyright is 1993 made by United Airlines. There's no better way to debunk the official Pentagon story than this.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=37...hl=en&auto=true

Blows me away!

[wavetowel]

And to think, I just stumbled upon that by accident. Let's see how the government and supporters of the official story answer this one.

Can I get any JREF's to answer this??

>crickets<

Maybe Mark Roberts would step to the plate??

>crickets<

DOWN GOES FRAZIER!! DOWN GOES FRAZIER!! [box]

What is this proof of exactly? I actually stumbled across this one 3 hours ago on google video going thru the top 100... i thought it was cool, but i don;t recall any part of the official story involving a plane on the ground jet blasting things.

This has been discussed before with both sides. The problem that comes up is the pentagon plane was traveling at a high rate of speed and this plane is stationary. The momentum of a plane moving forward cuts down on the engine force exerted to objetcs when in motion. So, there is a problem when trying to prove that when the pentagon plane came through the area, it should have blown cars off the road. There is a good video of a plane in motion going by close objects (i'll have to find it, maybe on Russell's site?) and you can see how this momentum plays a roll in the power.

Good find though, and just to let you know, this isn't a real accident, it was filmed for a Eurpoean TV series showing the force of jet engines. What would have been a crazy experience if it were a poor cabie though ! ha. Even all this info above, it is still something to wonder about when thinking about the Pentagon crash.

At the angle the plane was descending that blast would be pointed up and away from everything. Also, with a plane in motion it is 100% different than stationary.

How about this video?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...4&q=757+landing

Shouldn't a little kid be blown away?

This is a graphic demonstration of the difference between a plane in motion and one that is stationary. This is at the exact same airport as the video above.

http://www.compfused.com/directlink/3706/

The "official story" of 9/11 is already debunked. Now if you want to debunk a plane at the Pentagon - then you should do what nobody else has done. Explain the physical damage and evidence in detail with a logical analysis and how it was faked.

This thread has more video: http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...?showtopic=8403

It totally debunks the offical story of the altitude of AA77 in it's final seconds before it "hit the Pentagon". The height of the plane in the video is about the height AA77 was said to be flying at as it hit the lightpoles and all on it's way to the Pentagon. If the offical story is true, why didn't this happen to any cars on Route 395??? I would say a plane moving at 500+ and at full throttle would have done that to the cars on the road.

Russ a video on your own site has the plane flying level to the ground at a height that would cause that effect. The frist link you showed not only was the plane to high but you don't see the little kid as the plane passes or after it passes. I couldn't get the second link to work.

I know it wasn't a real accident. Still I don't see how a plane that low moving at 500+ with engines wide open wouldn't cause that but I am open minded and will listen or watch the explanation. Like I've always said, when it comes to the tech end of this I'm clueless but looking at the video..... the logic seems to fit.

That would make sense but then why give this video the time of day on your site??

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lamps.html

Hani Hanjour 30 years later. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4998436556422029232

Well no one said Hani was flying the plane. Then again proving who or what was is something that will more than likely never be proven. Someone will have tp fess up to that.

A plane coming in to land is almost gliding with the engines running at very low throttle which is why the little kid does not get blown away. A plane flying at 400-500 mph however should cause a LOT of problems for motorists near it. Not just the engines at full throttle but the turbulence caused by a massive jet flying so near. Even if they would not get blasted so much that they would go tumbling for a hundred yards they still should get pushed around so that the drivers lose control. Didn't happen!!!

Thank you. [thumbsup]

This piece sums it up.

http://www.venusproject.com/ethics_in_acti...Flying_757.html

Newton's 3rd law of motion:

To every action (force applied) there is an equal but opposite reaction (equal force applied in the opposite direction).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_Third_Law

In motion the opposite reaction is the plane going forward. If the plane is stationary the opposite reaction is exaust gases (including air moved by the fan blades) propelled from the aircraft in one direction. Anything caught in that will also be propelled.

So speculation is sufficient to debunk the impact hypothesis now?

Interesting.

I guess it can be considered debunked then because we have already speculated in this regard per your demand.

Or did I miss it when you proved the speculation that you demanded to be impossible?

If I would shoot a old canon and not secure it to the ground it would shoot backwards.
The gunpowder is ignited and pushes (first action) the cannonball out of the canon and
the canon itself is shot backwards (second opposite action).

What you are saying is that if I would drop an object behind a jetengine going 500mph
that it wouldn't be blown away?

Sorry, but it is not likely to do anything of the sort.

First off, the plane is travelling at over 700 ft/sec, which means it only has a fraction of a second to impart a force onto things like cars and people.

Second, while the air pushed out of the engines may be travelling at high speed relative to the aircraft, its relative velocity to a stationary observer is unsubstantial.

Rustle some leaves? Blow some newspapers around? Sure.

Tip over cars? Not at all likely... and the fact that it didn't happen is not conclusive proof of 9/11 being staged. Perhaps the engines didn't pass directly over any cars.

Anybody who says otherwise either doesn't understand basic newtonian physics or is a someone trying to divert attention away from the more conclusive things like thermite. Anyways... good try, but keep looking, 'cause this stuff simply isn't conclusive (not that there's any shortage of conclusive evidence, mind you, but keep looking anyways).

This video of a low flying F16?. Alot smaller than a 757 and presumable not traveling at 4 or 500mph, what it does show, is the effect on water as the plane flies by. How high it is above sea level at a guess, I would say about 100ft?.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/25757/flying_low/

huh?

Stinger,

If the aircraft was stationary whatever is behind it will be blown away.

Russell

The altitude is hard to guess but it is below the level of the deck.

You notice the air cushion is directly around the plane. It is not making exhaust blast around itself.

The sonic boom indicates the plane is breaking the speed of sound which is faster than 530 mph.

I barf on this thread

And that's a Tomcat (F-14) and there is also a very famous painting commsioned by the airforce of a low flying Blackbird or Tomcat (can't member which one) in which the wall of water behind it is being sucked into the air by the vacuam being created by the super sonic badassness.

Which in itself has absolutely nothing to do with what may or may not have happened on 9`11.

Lets say it was traveling at about 530mph. The smaller the object, the harder it is to see travel by at that speed. So based on someone taking a video recording of this feat, and that cameraless witnesses could see a clear and smooth flight through, how it is then, that any or even all videos of the pentagon event cannot be seen?, least so, by the 5 frame clip of an alleged 757 claimed to have hit?. There is a 5 frame gap in this film alone, surely, that suddenly a nose appears, and then nothing inbetween, and then the explosion.

It would be certainly much easier to see a 757 in a video instead of a F16 travelling at 530mph. So does it not seem unrealistic to entertain the idea of a 757 ever hitting the pentagon?.

If we are to assume the pentagon video is real, it would have to be an object so small that it would beat a video camera and the visual information contained within, could appear as it has done.

Would a missile cause this desired effect on film? it, being nothing more than a blurr?. As it is a much smaller object than a F16?. How about a Global Hawk at 400mph?, which is a little smaller than a 757, but would be easy to recognise. My guess is that 5 frames were removed from the original recording of the pentagon event, to remove the real craft which hit the pentagon, because for certain, if it was a 757, why remove the in between frames?, pass it off as a 757 without showing any proof whatsoever. I think the truth would be, if it was a 757, they would have shown this to be the case, but after 5 years, nothing has been shown to prove this. Putting in the 'waiting game', leaves it open for debate, only when the truth is to be hidden.

Blast damage from a 757 traveling at 400+mph would certainly have caused physical damage to people around its vortex viscinity along with cars being damaged also.
I would like to know if anyone was taken to hospital with hearing damage as a result of a low flying aircraft, heading full power to the pentagon, because the decabel levels would have ruptured or even completely burst the ear drum membranes of at least a fair dozen bystanders surely?.

I have seen a video of a man, dressed up in the correct attire to stand at the side of a runway and positioned behind the touchdown point of landing aircraft, run onto the runway at a specific time, only for the rear draft to lift him clear into the air up to 50ft, and him land in a strategically placed landing mat on the opposite side of the runway. This as a result of slower craft coming in for controlled landing manouver. So I have to ask why, then, a 757 travelling at 400+mph, would not have had any effect on cars below?.

Far too many things with the official story don't add up from where I stand, as the damage is in the wrong areas.

Yes - let's move on.

Thats what I said.

Russtroll, are you an aeronautical engineer now? A physics professor? Looks to me like anything within 50 yards of the engines would be blown away. And if the plane was moving at 500 friggin miles per hour and those engines were operating at massive capacity, what then? I mean lets face it, that footage, if it is legit and not staged, depicts a car getting blown away like a lint ball in a hurricane.

btw, how did your little clock experiment work, you know the one you were going to stage with desired results in mind as you design the experiment so you can marginalize some facts to make reality conform to your absurd theory. [box]

What don't you understand?

You said if someone can explain how the damage was faked (i.e. speculate) that it could debunk the plane impacting the pentagon.

This has already been done per your request but you decided not to accept it anyway.

George,

I am still looking forward to a link to the collection of your own research.

If you actually think I am a troll then that says a lot about your thinking processes. There is no basis in reality for your conclusion. It does not exist. That is simply a manufacturing of your own mind.

Russell

Top Gear had a test to see what would happen to cars caught in jets engine thrust path. I remember watching this, and can confirm it is genuine:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/47116/747_jet_blast/

I'm sorry I must have missed it.

Somebody explained using photos as an example of each pole break and base break how the poles were damaged and laid in the highway in broad daylight in such a way that the witnesses experienced it as an aircraft knocking them down? They also explained why this was done to account for 15 feet of altitude to make the story more "convincing" instead of just saying the plane was at a slightly steeper angle? Even with the risk of adding multiple people and white vans etc. into the formula?

Somebody has found direct evidence that the witnesses who get accused of being a conspiracy to mass murder have some sort of an actual intelligence background or a history of such behavior?

Somebody has explained the movement of a 20 ton generator pinned in on all sides with a demonstration of the exact type of explosives that could do this without blowing anything back onto the lawn? Did they identify the tool used to carve the flap track in the roof for the aerial photos 3 days later?

Somebody has explained the hole in the wall without anything being blown backwards directly behind it but instead have the debris ejected in a deflection angle that corresponds to an impact?

Has the mechanism for debris distribution been described since the security video doesn't show anybody running around but yet clearly displays the debris raining down for 10 seconds. For some reason that video also doesn't show anything flying over either.

Has ANYBODY reported seeing a flyover? One person?

Can you direct me to the post?

What of the questions?

Which ones?

OK everyone forget the video I posted. Let me ask this.

Have you ever been standing close to the road when a semi truck roars by?? You feel that "turbulence" as the truck passes you?? Now that truck is doing 55 to 75 mph maybe a little faster. Now what do you think would happen if that was a 757 passing you at 500+??

Dust and a standing camera man that is able to turn and pan.

Planes are aerodynamic, and not having air turbulence between them and contact with the ground makes it different.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=55...flyby+low&hl=en

The original poles were removed the night before. The pre-damaged poles were placed sometime prior to the "impact" before anyone would have been curious about activity. The only pole that was in a conspicous area was the Lloyd pole which was planted at the point of impact along with Lloyd himself perhaps by the guy that helped him "remove" it from his windshield. This may seem too "complicated" to you but obviously it was sufficient to convince you that it couldn't be faked. This fact alone proves it was worth the risk.

Yeah right. I'm sure they used agents that can be exposed as such by a google search. How many people do you think were involved in the entire 9/11 plan? How many have you found that have a "history" of such behavior? Yeah that's what I thought. Does this mean 9/11 couldn't be an inside job Russell? Father McGraw admitted to us that he merely deduced that the poles were hit after seeing the cab and the poles on the ground. How many more of the mere handful of witnesses that claimed they saw the poles hit would be doing the same thing? Not too many left to stage after ruling those witnesses out.

Ummmm....can you prove it was still "pinned" on 9/11? They had all the time in the world to "unpin" it in their own backyard days or weeks before the operation. In fact you have no clue how much that trailer weighed for real. The orginal one could have been swapped out for a prop generator trailer with some damage pre-fabricated and planted with directional explosives. Are you really suggesting that this would be impossible for the pentagon with all of it's resources and covert high tech weaponry and all the time in the world to stage in their own backyard? Give me a break.

Directional explosives don't exist? Are you really suggesting that this would be impossible for the pentagon with all of it's resources and covert high tech weaponry and all the time in the world to stage in their own backyard? Do you also think it's a coincidence that the newly rebuilt part of the pentagon was hit? Is it really a stretch in logic to suggest that the rebuilding was in fact nothing more than a cover story to slowly stage high tech directional bombs and/or incendiaries?

Right. Got it. More 100% belief from you in horrible quality EASILY faked video evidence that was suppressed for years and only recently released BY THE PERPETRATORS THEMSELVES! Funny how you don't find this the least bit ironic or questionable. How any legitimate investigator would completely accept as fact evidence directly provided by the suspect is beyond me.

That's what the C-130 was for. Perhaps many reported it but it was blown off and not published. Are you suggesting that the published reports represent every witness? Didn't we already persoanlly demonstrate this to not be the case? Are you suggesting that the perpetrators wouldn't have made any attempt to control the flow of information to the media?

The fact that you think they are skilled and bold enough to covertly stage 3 controlled demoltions of high rises in downtown Manhattan but are too meek or illequiped to stage the damage at their own headquaters in DC is beyond irreconcilable.

The speed of this aircraft is still most likely around 100-115 mph. It is flared out with the flaps down to maximize ground effect or the air cushion beneath it. The sand doesn't even stir.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5...flyby+low&hl=en

I used to have the first video you showed in this thread on my site. After NUMEROUS emails from various aeronautical people explaining it to me, I pulled it.

It is not applicable to the Pentagon scenario.

The exhaust is directed upwards because of the angle and the turbulence would not flip cars over.

That plane is also at a higher height than AA77 was reported to be at so using it as an example for this is pretty much moot.

Watch this one because it is very cool and relaxing and will help end this discussion on a happy note!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7...+altitude&hl=en