My recollection of that fateful day revolves around the Pentagon Building.

My questions as I was watching the Pentagon attack and the aftermath were: Why are there gravel trucks dumping load after load of gravel all over the lawn around the building and the crash site and bulldozers pushing a one-two foot layer over top of a crime scene? Don't you want it as undisturbed as possible so you can get as much evidence from the area as possible?

I have asked that question many times and I get the same response each time to that question. Blinking eyes and drool running down the corner of the mouth from every body who is asked.

Any criminologists or government officials out there who can stab an answer back at this question?

Uh two problems: 1, the planes on 911 didn't hit a solid concrete wall (at least 10 feet thick like in the video, and probably reinforced too), and 2, the video doesn't show what wreckage resulted from the crash?

HAHAHA!! An F4, that at most weighs 40,000 lbs hitting a reinforced concrete wall that is at least 5 feet thick at 500 mph is not the same as a Boeing 757 (which weighs around 250,000 lbs) hitting a building at a much slower speed.

glacierman

I may be able to at least partially answer your question.

I was 30 years in the RCMP, and about 7 years working homicide.

In an unsatisfactory number of cases, the forensic pathologists were simply unable to provide me with a cause of death. So according to science, the victims were not dead...although I was well aware that they were.

Accordingly, although I knew I was dealing with a murder in those cases, my hands were tied, without a cause of death, I had no case...no-one was more unhappy with the outcome than me.

My point is this...there are some things in life that are simply unexplainable.

The pentagon case is just one of those cases. Put it this way...the building did just not explode on its own. The fact that not many pieces of the aircraft were found (although several pieces were found) does not support the theory that this was some nefarious plot of the US government.

Nuff said

Obviously watching this one can only come to ONE conclusion.

Kate & SDA are part of a Zionist/ George Bush conspiracy to cover up 9/11 and help kill little brown babies in the deserts of the Middle East.

Where is Kate now, one would ask? Hanging out on GWB ranch, taking pot shots at pregnant Mexican refugees desperately crossing the property. Prove me wrong, I dare you.

Knight...I assume you are being sarcastic.

If that is not the case, then you are just being an a$$hole...

If you are just being playful, I apologize for my earlier remarks.

Thank you, Knight, and my apologies to Kate for knocking the lid off the septic tank.

Wowee.

Glacierman et al: the post referred to the Pentagon, which was a, erm, highly reinforced building to put it mildly. Here's my question to you: What, specifically, could they have gleaned by collecting, analyzing, and erm, "not disturbing" atomized dust, in light of the fact that "they" were fully, comprehensively aware of a) what happened b) who the perps were, c) what the motive was, and d) what type of aircraft hit the building?

Do you think they were going to reassemble the plane, or someone's tooth? Do you think they were dumping gravel over a notebook mission-statement from one of the hijackers, or...

Watch the video. Then look up "atomized." Then ask again why they weren't looking for "evidence."

COAB.

I knew a girl that was hotter than the sun. But then she said 9/11 was an inside job.

THE END.

Sad, really.

There are a lot of fools out there, trust me.

Physics is beyond the intellectual capacity of most of those who want the state to wipe their noses when they sneeze.
Go to snopes dot com, type in Pentagon

Highway tractors, (I hate calling them 'semis') like aircraft, also use aluminum as a construction material in an effort to reduce weight. When a highway tractor burns all that is left is the steel frame and engine. No expensive tests needed, just a trip to the local SGI salvage yard.

500 MPH = 733 feet per second. Most parts would be disintegrated.

I saw that video about the pentagon. All BS!!

It is kinda sad, Erik.

EBD, you have no idea how sad it was - but even *I* have principles. Sigh !! Must be those conservativistic roots. D*mn!!!

Glacierman et al: the post referred to the Pentagon, which was a, erm, highly reinforced building to put it mildly.

Absolutely. It was deliberately built that way...exactly the opposite of the WTC buildings. It had also been recently upgraded seismically, which made it even stronger.

My favorite 'Truther' moment on this is a picture of the crash scene with a caption saying "where's the plane?". Some wag then took the same photo and circled in red two or three pieces of the plane that were *right there* in front of everyone (he even showed before/after comparisons of the pieces). Classic...

PS - I never had a clue about how expensive planes were . . . . .

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/prices/

Erik (2:09), some principles are so deeply embedded that they're just laws of nature or...limbic directives. I wouldn't even consider dating a woman who was a truther, or a leftist, or who chews gum, or who has 'tats', or who wears high-heels and makeup, or...

Oh, man...

tats = tramp stamp.

high heels, make up, Japanese school girl uniforms? Uh, never mind.

Funny how we have our preconceptions - I expected you to be 55+

Erik, I'm a fair bit younger than 55. And I like unadorned, reasonably sturdy women in natural form.

TMI, but there you have it. It's your fault.

Thanks for pleasantly diverting the unanticipated 'Truther' deba....er, discussion.

/:>˚>

Black Mamba - where are you :-(

OK, back to topic - I remember the first time I saw a movie and the "good guy" (government) - actually turned out to be the bad guy - ie government gone bad.

A nice plot twist - but really - it was a plot twist - and real life isn't that way.

Bad people do bad things.

Bruce>

Oh dear, would never have thought that comment would need an explanation.

Try sarcastic, playfull & bored.

Knight...then please accept my heartfelt apology

;)

I've been in the pentagon (as a tourist) and it is a very solid building (and this is pre-911).

One of the best interviews I've heard about 911 was from a former NHL hockey player, and now an administrator for either the Panthers or the Lightning (and people who follow hockey will know who he is - although I've forgotten his name right now). The interview was on the FAN590 (sports radio) and is usually repeated every 911.

He had just finished his career in Florida and was sent on a management course at the WTC. They were on around the 90th floor. The first building got hit by the plane and they heard a sound and then their building started for vibrate seriously. All the fire alarms started to go off and they were told to evacuate down the stairwells. Most of the people did leave because the vibrations in the building were scary and so they knew something was wrong (skyscrapers sway anyway from wind, etc. and are designed to sway back and forth a bit - but this was different). The descent was very orderly and cordial and people were helping people in wheelchairs and with disabilities. When they got to about the 30th floor, the fire alarms stopped and an announcement came on saying that things were okay and that they could return to their offices. He turned around, as did everybody, and started to head back. Within a minute of turning around though there was a huge shudder. Their building had been hit. The stairwell literally moved 5 feet to one side and 5 feet to the other side and kept moving and shuddering. Everyone was knocked down and holding on like crazy. The alarms went back on and they all turned around and started heading down (they were still about 30 stories up). When he got to around the 15th floor suddenly firemen started flying up the stairs and so they had to give way. The stairwell was still shaking and vibrating pretty violently. When they reached ground level they were told to go through the mall (a couple of floors lower) and were directed by firemen and cops on the way out. This guy who had a wife and kids was pretty scared. They were directed out an exit and told to scram down a street as fast as possible. When he reached street level the first thing he saw was a huge semi-intact jet engine in the middle of the street. That's when people started to speculate that a plane hit their building. As they scrammed down the street the buildings started to collapse.

I hear about these 'truthers'. I think that if they physically were there or in a building next and saw what happened, they would get off of this angle. Their time is better spent focusing on sector 51.

Substitute 'Truther' for 'defense attorney' in the following and the joke still works.

In a particularly gruesome murder case that had the town buzzing, the defence was in a pickle. The defense attorney's only hope was to discredit the medical examiner's credibility.

Defense Attorney: When you arrived on the alleged crime scene, did you assess the victim's condition?
Med. Examiner: No
DA: Did you provide CPR or check for a pulse?
ME: No
DA: Did you provide any sort of life saving procedure?
ME. No
DA: Then I submit that it is possible, that the victim was alive when you arrived on the scene and through your own negligence the victim died some time later.
ME. Given that the victim's brain was in a jar on the shelf, I suppose it's possible that he was out practicing law at the time of the murder.

This "truther" "where did the airplanes go" stuff is getting really tiresome.

High-speed impact
Intense burn
Rapid compaction resulting in pulverization

All the truthers have to do is take a Physics 101 (Force) course and the blinders will drop off.

Some of the responses here neatly highlight how pointless it is to argue with the tinfoil hat brigade.

They always find a way to rationalize their pet theories against every fact offered in a bizarre, delusional form of one-upmanship.

And when that fails, they simply say you're part of the conspiracy.

The best tactic for dealing with them?

Ignore them. Never give 'em the time of day.

What happens when you strap a truther to a rocket sled and slam them into a wall? Sounds like a good theme for a Mythbusters episode.

For those with a physics background: can you describe what's actually happening to the F4 when it hits the wall? Are the aircraft components shattering? Melting? Sublimating directly from a solid into a gas? Just wondering.

Agreed,JJM. Truthers will ,and do, cite hundreds of studies that support their theories. However,they cannot find anyone that actually does demolition work to agree with their controlled demolition hogwash. However,that doesn't faze them at all,because the demo people are part of the gov't cover-up also. It's kind of sad.Luckily they have little chance of breeding.

Mass x Velocity Squared . . . that's whats happening

The Pentagon IS a reinforced concrete building.

Furthermore it is built in multiple layers and this is exactly how the armor of a modern tank is built; multiple layers disspate the energy more efficiently than one thick layer.

But those are facts, so leftists reject them and substitute their own "reality"

"One thick layer" coincidentally also accurately describes a troofer's skull.

My favourites in the "truther" brigade are those who believe it was a controlled explosion from inside.

When I try to explain the workings of a controlled demolition for the purpose of taking down a building,ie months of work by dozens of explosives experts placing charges in plain sight at strategic spots, their eyes glaze over and they tune me out.

And I, suffering acute exasperation, do the same to them.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/building-implosion1.htm

This is a good site that explains the logistics of imploding a building in layman's terms. All 9-11 truthers should visit it once in a while, just to get a bit of grounding in reality.

9/11 truthers are merely a subset of that sad, sad group of conspirists and UFOers that will basically believe anything but the truth.

Im sure there is a name for it in the field of psychiatry.

Great Post, and you won't hear me say that here too often. Given that a not insignificant minority of the crowd here are likely truthers, this rates as a genuine public service announcement.

Now back to the regularly scheduled global warming skepticism while Russia burns and Pakistan submerges.

Gray, pretty impressive statement. Now, would you like to actually provide some evidence for your contention that "a not insignificant minority of the crowd here are likely truthers."?

Yeah didn't think so.

Erik, congratulations...you are a strong man of principles. Know what you mean though, it can be tough.

JJM, you are right. Arguing with "truthers" can lead to a rise in blood pressure.

EBD @1:43 - there may have been a note in the atomized fuselage the CSI lab guys could have deciphered as they rocked out to The Who:

Psych! You guys are so gullible! Ha ha!
Sincerely,
Darth Cheney and some Mossad Bigshot!

But we'll never know now, will we?

(p.s. what's "COAB"? I googled it and all I found was Cable Operator's Asssociation of Bangladesh.)

Bruce - Knight 99 was obviously being sarcastic, much as I was @4:21 on the Gone To A Better Place thread.

...while Russia burns and Pakistan submerges.

What you say? Forests are burning? Never heard of that happening before. Is this the first time? And what's this thing about excess water in Pakistan? I thought all water stayed where it belongs, in the form of ice at the polar caps.

gray @9:47 "Given that a not insignificant minority of the crowd here are likely truthers, this rates as a genuine public service announcement."

Everyone here is a brainwashed teabagger who worships W. as the Second Coming, gray. Get with the program. This isn't the Daily Kos.

Gray; havent you heard of the East Anglia scandal? Or read the water temps in Lake Michigan in the hundreds of degrees.The temps were posted here on Aug 15 courtesy of the NOAA and the U of Michigan.I have found one thing over the years,liberals have NO morals or ethics and they think that everyone else is the same.If in power THEY WOULD demolish buildings with people in them and blame it on someone else.I have NO doubt about that.They have done it before,Pearl Harbour comes to mind.

You can't talk to 911-Troofers. They are impervious to science, logic, physical evidence, pictures, and probably even an iron pipe to the head.

I looked into building an airplane a few years ago. Airplanes are mostly empty space. The parts are -thin-. Modern airliners additionally are in large part made of carbon composite, which allows for parts to be even thinner. A very large percentage of the mass in an aircraft is the cargo and the fuel, OBVIOUSLY, because the less airplane there is to haul around the farther it can go. Duh.

One of the interesting things about aluminum and composites is that they will burn to ash at the right temperature. Yes, metal -will- burn away just like paper given the right amount of heat. The heat generated in the WTC and Pentagon crashes was around 1800F, that's way more than enough to burn away thin aluminum sheets and carbon fiber. Oh, and its an -exothermic- reaction, it gets hotter when it burns. Aluminum is quite reactive. Carbon fiber of course will burn like coal once it gets going. Its carbon, right?

Aluminum melts at 1220F anyway, so even large pieces like landing gear would have disappeared.

Aircraft that only hit the ground and burn don't leave much wreckage. Aircraft that hit buildings pretty much get consumed in the fire.

But you can't tell that to a Troofer. Their ignorance is invincible. They aren't just naturally stupid, they work at it.

Kinda like gun control freaks, eco-freaks, jihad-freaks, liberals and snake handling toothless hillbillies. Same shlitz, different pile.

First time in history concrete has melted aluminum.

Erik Larsen, I feel your pain.

Or I used to anyway, my dating years were spent in Toronto. There were one HELL of a lot of really, really dumb girls in Toronto back in the '80s. Its so sad when you start in chatting up some babe and you realize she's got the mental acuity of a house plant. Just fine for a lost weekend, but for dating? Nonono!

Eventually I turned to the import models, they had much better educations and moral standards. Sikh girls from India, Buddhist girls from China, Muslim girls from Ethiopia, smokin' hot and without the unpleasant stupidity. Like, they could actually balance a checkbook! Even better, they could grasp the fact that the money you spend on beer tonight is money you don't have for gas to go to work tomorrow.

Unfortunately these days the second generation from those mega-hot immigrants all graduated from the same stupid-factories that wrecked my generation, so import is no longer necessarily an indication of higher quality.

Truly, liberalism can wreck anything.

So this isn't a good time to bring up the moon landings is it?

Ever burnt an aluminum beer can in the campfire? What's left? Even truthers should be able to figure this out even as they get inebriated from their sorrows.

Phantom - my third cousin (or second twice removed, or something) from Ukraine, Yrena, is under 40, very pretty, working as a "consultant"(?), childless, planning on going to law school, and a little unsure about her immigrant status. Her mother's a maths prof, but she's very practical. Three divorces, so those guys won't be a bother.

Interested?

langmann - et tu? Tell me you're kidding.

Nobody has answered my question as to why gravel was spread all over the crime scene.

This has nothing to do with whether or not Flight 77 hit the building. There is a ton of evidence.

But why cover a crime scene with gravel?

glacierman, are you sure it was gravel? Could it have been an absorbant to suck up jet fuel, fire fighting foams, biologics from the remains etc.

Not really a concern wrt the whole crime scene thing. That evidence would mostly have been in the remains of the building. Protecting those working there would take precidence over any evidence, especially in a crime scene left with little doubt as to the who, when, where, why and how.

Glacierman, go to snopes dot com

re the "but why cover a crime scene with gravel.?
to preserve it more completely from damage during rescue and recovery efforts . they are making it an archeological type of investigation. preserving volatiles and preventing further burning and degradation of evidence and material from the plane.

I'd still like to know how in the hell Hani Hanjour managed to pull of a radical 270 degree descending turn, level off AT ground level without pancaking into said ground and find the one side of the building that was previously reinforced. If it were me I'd have done a "lawn dart" into the middle of the rings. Just sayin...

(Actually no I would never do anything so foolish as intentionally fly a perfectly good airplane into a perfectly good building)

I'm sure there is a whole lot more to the story, though not necessarily what the "Loose Change" brigade thinks it is.

Forget the F-4 in the demonstration just look at the Air-France jet liner that crash at the end of the runway in Toronto a few years back. It slid off the runway and started to burn, the Pearson Airport fire crews arrived on site and still couldn't prevent most of the plane from disappearing. Ask a truther about that and they claim it was a salvage crew from nearby Molson's brewery that came to get the aluminium to keep making beer cans.

While I would not call myself a "truther", I do think there are some puzzling aspects to the whole Sept. 11th thing. Anyone have a good explanation for the collapse of Building 7? Some background here: http://www.wtc7.net/collapsecause.html .

Erik Larsen @3:36 - "Black Mamba - where are you :-( "

Dude, Halifax. I'm not proud of it, but there you go.

EBD @2:39 - I wouldn't even consider dating a woman who was a truther, or a leftist, or who chews gum...

Now look, I'm as beligerant as the next high-heel wearing, make-up sporting neo-con, but: Not all of life is politics. I mean, do you think Mark Steyn only talks to conservatives?

Linda, when that noted engineering specialist Rosie O'Donnell spouts her idiocy to the assembled blathering simpletons on the View (their combined talents does not add up to the ability to lead a cow to grass), turn to some people who do get engineering. Very accessible lay teminology is used in e.g.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/4213805?click=main_sr

For me, the two most puzzling aspects of 9-11 would be the apparent dysfunction of air defense in the DC region, combined with scheduled war game scenarios, and as per the above, the collapse of WTC-7. I have also felt since the day itself that Flight 93 was probably shot down.

I don't consider myself a "truther" but these are plausible points for speculation and discussion, whereas I think it goes without saying that hijackers crashed airplanes into three buildings as per the generally accepted version of events, and for reasons consistent with Al Qaeda objectives rather than to assist in any nefarious plot.

The late collapse of WTC-7 and the fact that it housed sensitive documents related to the Enron scandal seem very suspicious to me. I've read the discussions from various perspectives about this building collapse, but the question remains in any case, who stands to gain from it?

As to the general unreadiness of air defense around DC on the morning of Sept 11, 2001, that should be open to further inquiry. One could speculate that elements of the U.S. government knew the attacks were coming, considered the results to be acceptable for long-term goals and objectives, and planned to intercept the two planes heading for DC but somehow messed up on the Pentagon hit.

If this were the case, of course, it would amount to high-level treason in the U.S. government at that time and I think anyone with half a brain would know where to look for that (who looked surprised, who didn't?) ... so to some extent, the truth may indeed be a blend of conventional and "truther" theories.

I mean, why not? The world has always been a complicated stage. And you really have to wonder, how has Osama bin Laden evaded capture or even precise location by the world's most sophisticated intelligence operations for nine years and especially in Nov-Dec 2001? Does it not really look like he is being played as a straw man figure? Does that not bring into possibility a scenario where he is either a dupe or a paid agent? Once again, who stands to gain?

In this, I would assess the Madrid and London bombings as separate actions by militants inspired by what they thought happened on 9-11 and not deliberate black ops.

I would really like to know how many conservatives really believe the whole 9-11 scenario and how many have at least partial reservations about it. And since I don't have access to all the hidden facts, I am in no position to judge whether a deception in this case would be justifiable or not. For all we know, the CIA had information in early 2001 that Saddam Hussein had a network of agents busily assembling suitcase nukes with help from Uzbeks or the like -- we don't know. Somebody does.

At the time, I was working in Alexandria, VA and commuted down the George Washington parkway. I was late to work on 9/11 but know at least half a dozen co-workers who saw the plane slam into the Pentagon.

You could see them stacking up plane parts after the incident from the streets around the pentagon. Again, many friends and co-workers commented on this. There weren't many but there was enough to fill a roll-off dumpster.

As for air defenses? Who the hell thought they were needed. There have NEVER been air defenses (anti aircraft artillery) around DC. There was a Nike site in Waldorf but that was a different animal. AFTER the attack, I know there was at least one triple A battery right of Channel Drive.

Now, as a materials scientist, I can tell you that once aluminum starts to burn, it is virtually impossible to put out. The Al-O bond is stronger than the H-O bond, so water won't do it and it is stronger than the Si-O bond, so pouring sand on the fire won't work either. The hot aluminum will pull oxygen off of most anything around and continue burning. The only thing left would be parts that some how bounced away from the fire.

"For those with a physics background: can you describe what's actually happening to the F4 when it hits the wall? Are the aircraft components shattering? Melting? Sublimating directly from a solid into a gas? Just wondering."

It has to do with instantaneous de-acceleration of mass tearing a hole in the space-time continuum; a worm hole in other words;-) /joke

This site, http://www.implosionworld.com/ ,is run by those who do controlled demolitions. They have looked into the 9/11 attacks and have written their opinion. I highly reccommend it for anyone who is interested in the possibility of those three buildings being brought down by explosives. It should also be sent to any truthers that you may encounter.

As for the late collapse of WTC-7, pretty hard to stop a fire from burning without the equipment to fight it and with all the hydrants in the area out of commission the fire department had no other option but to evacuate personnel and let the building go. And to all the truthers out there I don't think the NYFD knew about the Enron files that were in the building.

My comments about air defense are based on the slow response time in the DC airspace following events in NYC which I would agree would probably have come as a complete surprise -- available jets were out of position and slow to respond, or were they?

There are many non-complimentary responses possible to the above (another O'Donnell 2:08PM)delusions, but when reading the opening sentence it occurred to me why these people just dont get it.

They start from the false premise that government is an efficient power of limitless positive ability, and wander off into the tulies from there.

Air defences?! Oh yeah, it was like September '44 over Berlin, waiting for the next wave of bombers...

Government can't do anything right, get over it. It is at best an inefficient, counterproductive brake on society, and usually produces unintended consequences requiring more stifling layers of the same solution to fix the next problem it helped create or perpetuate.

And it ultimately leads to what we have now; a government of the elite, by the elite, for the elite.

And you simple troofers, are to tehm just future pothole filler, whether you realise it or not.

Troofers! *eye roll*

Here's a real jen-U-ine marvy experiment brought to you from the Dhimmi Underground.

"Can A Jet Fuel/Hydrocarbon Fire Collapse a Steel Structure? Hysterical!

The pics say it ALL. :D

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=56836&mesg_id=56836

*snicker* snort*

HAHA! HAHAHA!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!

Oh my sides! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Nice place ya got here, BTW! :D

Since glacierman apparently can't use the internet to look on snopes I'll do it for him. And we see this.....

"The claim that the 'defence secretary' ordered the lawn sanded over is false. A base of sand an gravel was laid on the Petagon lawn because the trucks and other heavy equipment used to haul away the debris (as shown in the photograph below) would have been slipping and sliding on the grass and become mired in the Pentagon lawn otherwise."

So they graveled it to provide a solid surface to drive those huge massive trucks in and out to remove the damage.

Some questions, maybe simple to some, but nevertheless my question.

1. Where was the Air Force in all this?

2. After the initial plane hit, at 8:45am, was there an alert scramble? Especially around Washington, DC? All those personnel manning anti-aircraft batteries around DC and the planes on standby are doing what?

Like, after hearing about the first WTC hit did they think: "oh, darn", and went back to their coffee?

Ok, so maybe it was good java. So when the second plane hit at 9:03am - a good 20 minutes later - they were they still drinking?

Must be really good coffee. Then at 9:43, almost an hour after the first crash, was everyone still doing coffee?

I mean they (the powers that be) did practice this a scenario like this, right?

From all the coffee drinkers and union workers in the atc towers, there must be a lot of people standing around with their fingers up their bums.

3. Where ARE the jet engine parts? I mean there is at least 2 of them to look for at the Pentagon and the ones in the field.

4. Ok, the black boxes, videos around DC, why not publish them? Sure the WTC ones were pulverized, but the Pentagon and Pensiveness? The tail would be the first thing severed off beside the wings of course so it should be recoverable.

5. Pennsylvania field crash. Confirmed plane hijacked at 9:27, where's the Air Force again?

So basically all those expensive F-15 and F-16 fighters were useless?

An airplane in the vicinity disappears, there is video of an airplane crashing against the pentagon and a wing of the pentagon is destroyed. Is it really necessary to analyze the mechanics of whether any part of the airplane would survive the impact?

People who want to believe will believe ALMOST anything, but you´d have to be insane to believe that it was not hit by the airplane. These guys are muckrackers, they just want to seed suspicion to idiots who can´t be bothered to put 2 + 2 together. They are beyond contempt.

EBD
That Utube video has been on the web for at least 4 years. It was done in 1988 by U.S. Sandia National Laboratories for Muto Institute of Structural Mechanics, Inc., of Tokyo.

Their disclaimer: The purpose of the test was to determine the impact force, versus time, due to the impact, of a complete F-4 Phantom — including both engines — onto a massive, essentially rigid reinforced concrete target (3.66 meters thick). The test was not intended to demonstrate the performance (survivability) of any particular type of concrete structure to aircraft impact. The impact occurred at the nominal velocity of 215 meters per second (about 480 mph). The mass of the jet fuel was simulated by water; the effects of fire following such a collision was not a part of the test.

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/pentagon/official/sandia_VideoGallery.html#rocketsled

If you watch their F4 test videostream you can see many parts coming off the plane. That Stormbringer is wrong because it was not an Air Force engineering test of a concrete barrier designed to surround a nuclear reactor dome and the F4 did not evaporate.

See also:
Page 138 – www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/contract/cr6906/cr6906.pdf
And www.nci.org/02NCI/01/back-27.htm

@ Black Mamba:

"First time in history concrete has melted aluminum" is a play on what that idiot Rosie said...

All these truthers are is amusing at best... at worse they are a sick joke.

Peter O'Donnell: It's clear from your comments that you don't know anything about air defense. I suggest that you google the subject and then ask any current/retired military people you may know.

Just one very fast point: Look at the timing of the attacks: WTC impacts at 8:46 and 9:03 AM, Pentagon at 9:37. Not much time for the military to recognize that an attack is underway, analyze its nature, identify attackers/threats, and take countermeasures.

"You could see them stacking up plane parts after the incident from the streets around the pentagon."

John Brooks, Peter O'Donnell, et al, please note.

"There have NEVER been air defenses (anti aircraft artillery) around DC"

Right. The United States has for some time relied on defense-in-depth: We have a navy and air force deployed to intercept attacks before they reach United States territory.

There were Nike anti-aircraft missiles in numerous cities, back in the 50's and 60's (I remember them well) but they were a last-line-of-defense. The primary defense was air force interceptor jets which were supposed to begin attacking Russian bombers hundreds of miles before they reached us.

"An F4, that at most weighs 40,000 lbs hitting a reinforced concrete wall that is at least 5 feet thick at 500 mph is not the same as a Boeing 757 (which weighs around 250,000 lbs) hitting a building at a much slower speed."

A combat plane like the F4 is built more ruggedly than a commercial jetliner like the 757. The 757 weighs more, but its lighter construction means that it will shred more readily than a fighter.

And neither is built any more ruggedly than necessary because every extra pound of weight decreases speed, range, maneuverability, etc. As aircraft engineers like to joke, a plane is designed by taking each of the parts and reducing their weight until they stick when you throw them at the ceiling.

"All the truthers have to do is take a Physics 101 (Force) course and the blinders will drop off."

Not even that, maybe. I knew a Moon Landing truther who was a skilled software engineer.

john brooks at 6:08 PM

you are joking rite?????

Thank Jeebuz, langmann, I was worried you were one of them.

(EBD - if you really want to have fun you could do a birther thread.)

"If 9/11 was really an inside job, you wouldn't be driving around with a bumper sticker bragging that you were on to it." Mark Steyn, Oct 27, 2007

"Truthers" still have to explain away the disappearance of the Airliner and the passengers. On the other hand, if the Government truly is as effective as to be able to do all that "Truthers" claim, the only conclusion I am left with, is that the "truthers" themselves are really agents of the conspiracy, and the cover story for what really happened.

"if the Government truly is as effective as to be able to do all that "Truthers" claim"

if they had the power and immorality to make hundreds of innocent airline passengers disappear, they wouldn´t let some lefties make a documentary to expose them

In re "Air Defense over DC?" - on Sept 11, 2001, there were 14 aircraft tasked with interception of unidentified aircraft into the North American Defense Zone; 0 aircraft tasked with intercepting lost or hijacked airliners inside American Territorial limits. Secondly, hijacked aircraft were not a "threat" except in the most wild eyed "this is completely nuts" plots for pulp action novels.
Air Defense over DC is a "joke". There are no batteries of SAM, AAA or dudes with Stingers, ready to fire at a moments notice. That was not the threat post ICBM/SLBM. SO why bother? (Can you imagine the screaming from the lefties if the any Administration, post Eisenhower had attempted such a thing?)

That WTC7 held "sensitive Enron documents" - so what? Every cloud has a silver lining, sometimes "feces occur". There were all manner of "sensitive documents" in the North and South Tower, too. The expectation that WTC7 was allowed to burn out in order to protect Enron is as silly as the claim that Iraq was invaded "for the oil".

"If 9/11 was really an inside job, you wouldn't be driving around with a bumper sticker bragging that you were on to it." Mark Steyn, Oct 27, 2007

If they wanted oil they'd just invade Alberta.

Much like AGW, 9/11 has become one of those issues where people are attacked for not supporting "consensus". Especially conservatives, because of the whole Bush did it meme that the leftists were pushing. It doesn't help that, much like AGW, there are the scientists and engineers on one side that contradict the scientists and engineers on the other side. Try as I might, I just don't support the official story. That doesn't mean that I think Bush did it, or that it was the joooos.(In other words, I don't think that the government was behind 9/11, though infiltration is a possibility.) If anything, I think it's a socialist driven agenda, and that the attacks were allowed to be carried out.

That doesn't mean that I think that bush was plotting the destruction of the United States.(That's above his pay grade.) I think that there are more than enough people in government jobs and agencies who have been indoctrined in universities, and have joined the right clubs, charities, and globalist think tanks to get into the jobs they have. I just wonder if they are compromised willingly or even unwillingly. As some bloggers have seen, just with the HRC's the mindsets can be quite different than the average person on the street. (Cuz we all know that people with radical views could never be mainstreamed....like obama's ghost writer.) Or that they'd have islamist sympathies.

Where money, power, and ideologies are concerned, nothing much suprises me anymore. I don't doubt that there are people in positions of power that would like to see the States weakened, bankrupt, and the people stripped of their freedoms. And call me a conspiracy theorist,(you will anyways) but I can see how that would work very nicely into the plans of a globalist movement.

"If they wanted oil they'd just invade Alberta."

Alberta oil and Middle East oil are not comparable...oil sands are the worst source of petroleum...it takes a huge amount of energy and resources to extract it, leaving the EROI at around 2:1-3:1. Middle East oil is easy to extract, easy to process...it's EROI is 35:1 and higher.

Oil sands also have a relatively low maximum daily production rate.

The US want to secure middle east oil so that US companies can sell it...not just so the US can use it. And also so that Asia and the ME itself cannot get a hold of it either.