Flight 77, the supposed plane that hit the Pentagon on 9/11 was a Boeing 757. It is the same plane that President Trump flies in.
A Boeing 757 uses one of 2 different engines: Either a Rolls-Royce RB211 or a Pratt & Whitney PW2000
Here is a diagram of a Rolls-Royce RB211. It says the opening of the turbine of a RB211 is 84.8 inches in diameter. (7 feet)
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/3-s2.0-B0122274105003562-gr7.jpg
Here is a photo of President Trumps plane (757), look at the size of the opening of the plane turbine and the person standing next to the plane. Look at the center hub of the turbine, compare its size to the person standing next to the plane.
Here is a photo from the Pentagon on 9/11. Look at the round object behind the person on the left. That is the center hub of a turbine from the object that hit the Pentagon. Notice anything wrong?
A missile would leave a hole about the size of a telephone pole. Far too small to account for the damage seen. The fuselage deck would be the structure that would penetrate, and it was 11.5 feet wide. Moreover, the airplane was WITNESSED to be an airplane by multiple witnesses, including one airborne witness. It's wing also clipped off a streetlight, which would have fatally crashed a missile. The photographed engine component is already larger in diameter than a cruise missile. The roof collapsed because a plane hit the building---you don't have roofs collapsing because an airplane DIDN'T hit the building.
OK, but this is also the result of a missile strike.
Then there is the issue with the engines. I suspect the engines would have weighed about 4 tons each. They would have been travelling at at least 200mph. If we assume that 4 tons is about 2 cars and 200mph is four times the typical speed of a car - which translates into 16 times the energy then the energy of each engine is equivalent to around 32 large cars hitting the building all at once.
Strangely, they seem to have bounced off while the relatively soft fuselage went straight through.
Then there is the issue with the rotational energy of the engines. A bladed turbine disc can saw its way through steel girders if it breaks loose.
Well, the "missile strike" reference wouldn't open; my antivirus software flagged it as suspect.
Ever seen racing cars flip, tumble, and come apart? Engines can do that, too, and any excess energy can easily be diverted into self-destruction. (The internal aerodynamic forces within an engine want to pull it apart axially in tension.) Since when is an airplane fuselage "relatively soft"? Relative to what? A tank? These are pretty tough cookies, and the main deck is perhaps the strongest structure in the airplane, excepting maybe the wing beams. They both come together at the wing box, THE strongest structure of the airplane. The main deck would have high momentum density, since it would be like a knife blade penetrating the building.
But everyone SAW it was an airplane, including an airborne observer. You're like the guy who contends that someone was trampled by a dinosaur, when the crowd says, "He was trampled by a zebra. We saw it. It had stripes." And he had hoof prints on his body.
Since they hit the occasional bird ...
It is quite difficult to take you seriously.
People saw a plane and people saw the hole. They were TOLD that one caused the other.
Ask yourself, The Pentagon probably has more CCTV cameras per square foot than anywhere outside Las Vegas. How come we were not regaled with miles of video footage showing what really happened? Why was it all collected and hidden? That is the action of someone with something to hide.
Another issue, the alleged pilots could hardly fly a Cessna yet they managed to cope with a twin-engined jet-liner very easily. So easily, in fact that instead of flying straight into the top of The Pentagon, they flew round in a 300 degree circle while losing exactly enough height to land the plane. Then they flew at zero feet into the side of it.
I worked where they build these airliners. The structures are tough, and you fail to substantiate your groundless claim that an aircraft fuselage is "relatively soft."
The video shows the plane colliding into the Pentagon. Recognizable by the American Airlines livery.
The rest of your nonsense presumes that all the actual evidence does not exist, which is denialism of the first order. You complain that the DoD has video footage that they are not showing---but this is all imaginary, in your head!
Another aspect of denialism is to claim the event was somehow impossible, notwithstanding that it happened. To a large extent, airplanes are designed for stable flight, which means they are intended to fly that way even when the pilots are hands-off. You are omitting the fact that the terrorists flew the plane from where it was when they commandeered it, to the Pentagon. Flying in a circle to lower altitude is not a surprising feat. And their final approach was a shallow dive, not "at zero feet" (presumably plowing the ground), though it looks like they were aiming at the foot of the building. They were at least 10-15 feet altitude at the start of the dive, when the wing clipped off the street light. Ground effect was working against early contact with the ground (and if you don't know what ground effect is, you have no knowledge of airplane aerodynamics).
And another thing. You must have no experience of high speeds. When you get lined up, and there are only seconds to go, not much is going to disturb you from your path. There won't be enough time.
I saw a ground view video from a cctv at a checkpoint that shows it's clearly not an aircraft given the height and speed of the object. That was a few days after 911. Can't find it now
Dude. Have you ever seen an actual cruise missile? I know for a fact you have not given your first sentence. As a former Javelin Missile System TRAINER!!! I can tell you a JAVELIN, which is 1/10 the diameter of a cruise missile would leave a 5 foot hole on impact WITHOUT A DETONATION (yep … seen it). So … no, a telephone pole is by regulation 12-18 inches in diameter depending on if it is supports distribution lines or transmission lines.
I worked next to the factory that made the ALCM and was familiar with its size and shape from inert rounds that were stored in hallway locations in another building. Can you say as much? The body diameter was 24 inches, which is clearly in the ballpark of my remark---and smaller than the hole made by the 757 (which, again, was seen and identified as an airliner).
Look, you have no argument. You are sweeping aside all the positive evidence that it was exactly as described, which cannot be refuted.
now do a remote controlled Falcon jet.
Whatever it was, it came in level a few feet off the ground going reeeeally fast.
100% correct. The passenger jet narrative is laughable.
No, it was in a shallow dive. A wing clipped off the upper part of a street light pole (the kind that's about 20 feet tall). Ground effect undoubtedly played a part in prolonging the final phase, as the wing lift essentially doubles when the plane gets within about half a wingspan's height above the ground. (Ground effect prevented the first attempt of the U-2 to land on its first test flight. Very awkward and quite unanticipated. The pilot had to invent a way of reducing lift in order to touch down. They later had to add spoilers to the wings in order to dump the lift in order to touch down for a landing.)
The ground radar traced the flight path of that airplane from departure to pentagon impact. You are dreaming up things that are refuted by the facts.
What was it that you dreamed that I dreamed up? You appear to be addressing the wrong person.
"Remote control Falcon jet" (i.e., something other than American Airlines flight 77). Whatever it was, "it came in level a few feet off the ground".
My apology if you were not on board the train. Bad company.
Lmaoooo. You full of shit.
This is getting so predictable, it is almost sleep-inducing. No ability to refute => turn on the name-calling machine and fling.
We all know you are full of shit. Your arguments hold no water. Everything you say is making the excuse as to why it wasn’t a missile. Can you disprove it was a missile? Because we can prove it wasn’t a Fuckjgn airliner.. hey do the feds still pay time and a half for overtime? You gonna get a fat check this week !!
Simple: (1) Multiple witnesses on the ground and in the air saw the airplane. (2) The airplane was tracked on radar from the departing airport to the Pentagon. (3) Video image was consistent with an American Airlines airliner. (4) Airplane wreckage was present. (5) Damage was consistent with an airplane crash. (6) Passengers were killed and destroyed, never to be seen again. This is all POSITIVE evidence for what happened.
There is NO positive evidence for a missile. (1) No missile was seen. Had a missile clipped the streetlight, it would have torn its wing off and gone out of control. (2) No radar signature of a missile. (3) No video image of a missile. It would have been too small to for the image that was taken. (4) No missile wreckage was found. (5) Damage excessive for a missile crash. No explosion, only a fire. (6) What happened to the passengers?
All you have is bullshit and bravado. You are trying to gaslight the whole scenario---ignore the witnesses, ignore the radar tracking, ignore the video image, ignore the wreckage, ignore the massive damage, and ignore the passenger deaths. Talk about denialism. The missile hypothesis stands on the same ground as an attack by a vampire bat: purely imaginary, no evidence.
Since you don't have any evidence or reason to think there was a missile, your belief must be in response to some psychological need. This is what is called a paranoid delusion, which is the leading edge of psychosis. It involves the complete abandonment of rational discourse, devolving into castigation and baseless insult. As a result, you fail to see how you appear in public: mental slobber.