treeve
Major Contributor
The cell phone aspect has always bothered me.
What bothers me more is the clear shot of the underside of the second strike. It shows a dark underbelly, with a 'pod'. Domestic flights would not have such a feature.
As far as I am aware one of the main reasons why a black box is in the tail is for the very reason that in the main they survive a crash. So, at the Pentagon, where is the tail? No other aeroplane parts were seen at the site, not even a personal bag. The Pentgon only release a video of the attack after legal pressures and then after the passage of 5 years. Security reasons? After an attack, they are worried about security? They should have worried before and prevented it from happening in the first place.
I have tried to visualise the impact of the first and second strikes in terms which does not include some kind of 'battering ram' missile, because of assertions the buildings were designed to withstand aeroplane impact. Having seen the structural assessment, I can see that the verticals of box steel were designed as a cage, the plane was travelling at 550 mph. Would that be sufficient to penetrate the external cage with enough retained velocity to project the portions of the plane (engines etc) through the other external cage. I suspect that something would have to have been cut first. Otherwise the plane would be shredded like a boiled egg in a slicer. The plane was of 'aluminum' (aluminium). Impact force or no, what went through the outer 'wall' was shredded, and passed through the space as pieces. The aerofuel burned up in around ten minute, lighting the internal finishes and furnishings. The incendiary does not in my view fit with a clean entry and exit. In any event, the 'flash' is seen in front of the nose in the glass cage. To look at this without any 'missile' the 'lash' could be explained as some reflection form the nose of the aircraft. But that would only happen if concentrating the morning sunlight off the parabola of the nose, which would mean that one side of the 'flash' would be dark, being from the shaded side. There is also a reflection on the aircraft fusilage from that flash. For all I know, all the footage that I have seen has been doctored to show this. Did the perpetrators steal military aircraft and transfer the passengers from domestic flights. Is that something the brass would / could admit? Remember that at the time there was another unidentified white aircraft in the sky in the area.
What bothers me more is the clear shot of the underside of the second strike. It shows a dark underbelly, with a 'pod'. Domestic flights would not have such a feature.
As far as I am aware one of the main reasons why a black box is in the tail is for the very reason that in the main they survive a crash. So, at the Pentagon, where is the tail? No other aeroplane parts were seen at the site, not even a personal bag. The Pentgon only release a video of the attack after legal pressures and then after the passage of 5 years. Security reasons? After an attack, they are worried about security? They should have worried before and prevented it from happening in the first place.
I have tried to visualise the impact of the first and second strikes in terms which does not include some kind of 'battering ram' missile, because of assertions the buildings were designed to withstand aeroplane impact. Having seen the structural assessment, I can see that the verticals of box steel were designed as a cage, the plane was travelling at 550 mph. Would that be sufficient to penetrate the external cage with enough retained velocity to project the portions of the plane (engines etc) through the other external cage. I suspect that something would have to have been cut first. Otherwise the plane would be shredded like a boiled egg in a slicer. The plane was of 'aluminum' (aluminium). Impact force or no, what went through the outer 'wall' was shredded, and passed through the space as pieces. The aerofuel burned up in around ten minute, lighting the internal finishes and furnishings. The incendiary does not in my view fit with a clean entry and exit. In any event, the 'flash' is seen in front of the nose in the glass cage. To look at this without any 'missile' the 'lash' could be explained as some reflection form the nose of the aircraft. But that would only happen if concentrating the morning sunlight off the parabola of the nose, which would mean that one side of the 'flash' would be dark, being from the shaded side. There is also a reflection on the aircraft fusilage from that flash. For all I know, all the footage that I have seen has been doctored to show this. Did the perpetrators steal military aircraft and transfer the passengers from domestic flights. Is that something the brass would / could admit? Remember that at the time there was another unidentified white aircraft in the sky in the area.