from the video from the near by ATM it looked like missile painted in American Airline corporate colors to me...and the walls of the Pentagon are missing the impact markers where a couple 3 ton plus engines should be. Should be 3 holes in the wall not one.
It was the 757 in AA livery. A cruise missile would have been much smaller. The recovered engine turbine disk was much larger than that in a cruise missile. People on the scene identified the aircraft as a plane. A cruise missile would have been hard to see.
You are plugging in your expectation bias instead of objective analysis.
It was smaller then the plane claimed to be involved...damage on the pentagon suggests missile. The ATM video maybe low grade and only about 20-30 frames max...but what is there is no passenger jet. Newton's law of motion being the guide....kind of impossible that there is no engine nacelle damage on the wall. Just the facts as I know them. 3.5 tons x 2 traveling at high speed comes to a sudden stop, not so much as nick on the wall where engines should have impacted which is about 10 to 12 foot away from the main passenger fuselage itself, the claim that the wings folded is bullshit as the leading edge of a modern wing is the strongest part of the airframe followed by the landing gear but that's a subsystem of the aircraft. I don't expect anything.
Given your multiple objections and statements to the nature of our collective findings you of course are free to think otherwise but in the meantime here is a link to a good read:
Your problem is that you don't know what you are talking about. The ATM video that I saw had maybe one frame available of the full airplane, but what there was had the American Airlines livery...and it was the right size compared to the height of the Pentagon. The final hole was much larger than the fuselage diameter. Since they found components of the engines, the facts are more important than your imagination. The wings folding is quite reasonable, as they were designed to withstand the drag force of air, not the drag force of concrete, which is over a thousand times denser. The leading edge of the wing is NOT the strongest part of the airframe. The strong parts are the wing box beam that is in the fuselage, and the wing beams themselves, which are all designed to support lift and gravity loads---not crashing into concrete. This is consistent with the mid-air crash of a B-25 into the Empire State Building in 1945.
The objections are: the video captured an American Airlines airplane; multiple ground and aloft witnesses saw the airplane, the airplane wing clipped off a streetlamp (which would have fatally damaged a cruise missile); there was no explosion, just a fireball from ignited jet fuel; the AA flight was tracked by radar from takeoff to collision; the passengers are dead and gone; there was aircraft wreckage found in the debris. All of these are facts.
Your "findings" are all imaginary. You misconstrue an airplane to be some unspecified "cruise missile" on the strength of a blurry image. You ignore the fact that had a cruise missile clipped a streetlight, it would have been fatally deflected from its path (cruise missile wings are strong for their size, but not much bigger than a surfboard). You ignore the fact that even terrain-following cruise missiles do not fly so low---because they would encounter fatal obstacles. You ignore the fact that precision attack cruise missiles dive at their target (in order to minimize the effect of height error on miss distance). So, your "findings" are a mixture of wishful thinking and ignorance.
from the video from the near by ATM it looked like missile painted in American Airline corporate colors to me...and the walls of the Pentagon are missing the impact markers where a couple 3 ton plus engines should be. Should be 3 holes in the wall not one.
This is a very good point.
and then there's the question: wtf did they do with the passengers of the original, 'disappeared' planes
Well, nothing. Because they weren't real flights. There were no passengers.
on these flights, yeah, but some planes with real passengers got to pass for the crashed ones, and these passengers actually disappeared.
It was the 757 in AA livery. A cruise missile would have been much smaller. The recovered engine turbine disk was much larger than that in a cruise missile. People on the scene identified the aircraft as a plane. A cruise missile would have been hard to see.
You are plugging in your expectation bias instead of objective analysis.
It was smaller then the plane claimed to be involved...damage on the pentagon suggests missile. The ATM video maybe low grade and only about 20-30 frames max...but what is there is no passenger jet. Newton's law of motion being the guide....kind of impossible that there is no engine nacelle damage on the wall. Just the facts as I know them. 3.5 tons x 2 traveling at high speed comes to a sudden stop, not so much as nick on the wall where engines should have impacted which is about 10 to 12 foot away from the main passenger fuselage itself, the claim that the wings folded is bullshit as the leading edge of a modern wing is the strongest part of the airframe followed by the landing gear but that's a subsystem of the aircraft. I don't expect anything.
Given your multiple objections and statements to the nature of our collective findings you of course are free to think otherwise but in the meantime here is a link to a good read:
https://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Class/intro_physics_1/intro_physics_1.pdf
Your problem is that you don't know what you are talking about. The ATM video that I saw had maybe one frame available of the full airplane, but what there was had the American Airlines livery...and it was the right size compared to the height of the Pentagon. The final hole was much larger than the fuselage diameter. Since they found components of the engines, the facts are more important than your imagination. The wings folding is quite reasonable, as they were designed to withstand the drag force of air, not the drag force of concrete, which is over a thousand times denser. The leading edge of the wing is NOT the strongest part of the airframe. The strong parts are the wing box beam that is in the fuselage, and the wing beams themselves, which are all designed to support lift and gravity loads---not crashing into concrete. This is consistent with the mid-air crash of a B-25 into the Empire State Building in 1945.
The objections are: the video captured an American Airlines airplane; multiple ground and aloft witnesses saw the airplane, the airplane wing clipped off a streetlamp (which would have fatally damaged a cruise missile); there was no explosion, just a fireball from ignited jet fuel; the AA flight was tracked by radar from takeoff to collision; the passengers are dead and gone; there was aircraft wreckage found in the debris. All of these are facts.
Your "findings" are all imaginary. You misconstrue an airplane to be some unspecified "cruise missile" on the strength of a blurry image. You ignore the fact that had a cruise missile clipped a streetlight, it would have been fatally deflected from its path (cruise missile wings are strong for their size, but not much bigger than a surfboard). You ignore the fact that even terrain-following cruise missiles do not fly so low---because they would encounter fatal obstacles. You ignore the fact that precision attack cruise missiles dive at their target (in order to minimize the effect of height error on miss distance). So, your "findings" are a mixture of wishful thinking and ignorance.