Pentagon strike.

[Serb]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
They broke off of the plane and momentum swung them around and carried them inside the building. Sinmple physics anyone but a conspiracy theorist could understand.

You must be kidding.
What FORCE suked the entire plane inside the building?
It's not possible and denies simple physics.

Actually, they do.

Actually, they don't. Type 'plane crash' in Google and examine some pics before making such statements. Planes do not dissapear as result of crush. They left visible remains such as tail, engines and parts of fuselage and wings.

Normally, however, the planes are not contained with a falling building

The situation when a plane hits the building IS NOT UNIQE. This crap happens pretty often, but Pentagon was the only case when plane completely dissapeared after the impact.

nor consumed in an inferno.

An inferno caused by what? What make this plane crash is so unique? Was is some kind of uniqe fuel inside the Boeing or perhaps napalm tanks inside the Pentagon?
Just face it other planes which hit the buildings didn't incinerate completely, 'cause it's simple not possible.

The Penagon's Boeing, on the other hand is just dissapeared.

They are not industructable.

Sure they don't, but they are designed to sustain pressures and temperatures typical for a plane craush.

If you drop a building on them and incinerate them...

As for pressures and temperatures, read above.

Incineration, my ass. WHAT caused this inceneration? If we assume that black boxes have been destroyed by inferno, then we have to find a reason why this particular inferno was much more devastating than "normal" infernos,which those black boxes were designed to survive.

...in a long lasting fire of several thousand degrees...

Oh, really? Where did you get your info about 'several thousand degrees'?
Once again:
1) Planes do not dissapear.
2) Metals do not burn.
3) Before the Pentagon strike all plane crushes left visible remains such as engines, tail and parts of fuselage. They left traces on the ground. This is not what happened at Pentagon.
4) If in this particular case the plane was incinerated then you have to explain what makes this case so different in comparison with others? The melting point of materials used in Boeing, I belive is high enough to sustain the explosion of fuel tanks caused by the crash. I think so, because other Boeings didn't incenirate previously, they left a visible, LARGE, DIE HARD PIECES OF EQUIPMENT SUCH AS ENGINES FOE EXAMPLE.

, they will not survive.

They have to, because they were designed to survive such circumstances and becuase to completely incenerate the plane you need something more than just a fuel tanks explosion.

Just because the Russian government blew up its own apartment buildings in order to blame the Chechens and reinvade doesn't mean all governments are as wacky.

Nice troll.
Should I explaine the diference? Probably I don't have to, but I'll it do anyway.
The difference is that:
1) NOBODY EVERY DENIED that apartment buildings collapsed as result of explosion caused by detonation of the explosives placed at the basement level of those buildings.
2) There were no versions that building collapsed because of something else.
3) The only person who blame Russian government for this is Boris Berezovsky (I have my reasons to belive it was him who orchestred those explosions)
4) The suspects of this crime who placed the explosives have been traced, found, captured, and already meet the court. Now they are in prison.
5) Russia didn't need this act of war to invade Chechnya, because the Chechens already commited an act of war, which was more than enough for a legal reatiliation - they have invaded Dagestan. AND this innvasion was a clear act of WAR, we didn't any more. Since this attack has been repeled and Chechnya was surunded by Russian forces it was pretty clear we will invade as long as we'll be ready. Explosions of apartment buildings in Russian cities were a retaliation of terrorists to the failure of their attack on Dagestan. Simple as that.

You still haven't provided a plausible reason as to why the military would hit its own building when it's been perfectly capable of covering up its crimes before hand without blowing itself.

Excuse me? When did I claim that your military/CIA/government/ is behind this?
In my first post, I've said that it's shoking. And it was shoking for me, because I've never put my interest on this issue before. When I saw the pictures I get that official story is no more than a pile of bullsh!t and NOTHING MORE, 'cause plane do not crush like that.
If you want to see what happens when heavy planes like Boeing hit the building, look at this.
This is picture of Russian Ruslan plane (a bit bigger than Boeing-757) which hit apartment building in Irkutsk in 1997.

[Serb]

The building it hit to, just dissapeared, but not the plane's tail, engines and parts of the fuselage/wings.

It's a typical picture for such incidents.

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by Serb
You must be kidding.
What FORCE suked the entire plane inside the building?
It's not possible and denies simple physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_engine

[Ecthy]

also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum

as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/inertia

[Serb]

Originally posted by Ecthy




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_engine

And what is so funny?

According to YOUR link:

"An approximate equation for calculating the net thrust of a jet engine is:

F= m(Vx-Va)
where:
m= intake mass flow (in our case it's 122 tons)
Vx= fully expanded jet velocity (in the exhaust plume)
Va= aircraft flight velocity (500 mph according to FBI)

All you have to do now is to find a proper numbers for "fully expanded jet velocity (in the exhaust plume)" and and prove that thrust of Boeing engines was enough to suck entire plane into the building.

WHICH IS NOT F*CKING POSSIBLE.

[Capt Dizle]

So, what do you think made that hole in the Pentegon and where do you think the plane is?

[Patroklos]

Metals do not burn.

Yes, they do. In fact, the metals in aircraft construction are some of the most easily burable.

[techumseh]

Leaving aside the typical ridicule tactics of those who are unable to develop a logical and evidence based argument, there is very little in the way of clear evidence to refute Serb's theory. I've looked at all the links, and I must say I'm unimpressed with the rebuttals presented.

That's not to say that Serb is right. He has also not proven his theory. But he raises an interesting question which deserves more than the usual tinfoil hat putdowns.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Ecthy
also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum

as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/inertia

Thank you very much, but according to your link:

"Galileo's Principle of Inertia stated:

"A body moving on a level surface will continue in the same direction at constant speed unless disturbed ."

Newton restated this in his First Law of Motion:

"A body remains at rest or, if already in motion, remains in uniform motion with constant speed in a straight line, unless it is acted on by an unbalanced external force."


So, according to this, please explaine to me, how the hell wings of the plane could be sucked inside the hole, if diametr of this hole is lesser than the wingspan?

hint: What happens when wings hit the walls, when the nose of the plane is already inside of the building, and the kinetic energy of the wings is not enough to destroy those walls?

[Ecthy]

You die.

[RGBVideo]

What happens when wings hit the walls, when the nose of the plane is already inside of the building, and the kinetic energy of the wings is not enough to destroy those walls?

Well, according to 'poly experts, the material first explodes due to high force directed at it during the impact, turning into tiny dust. Then it ceases it's existence, since obviously no invididual particle which you can't see with a bare eye exists.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Yes, they do. In fact, the metals in aircraft construction are some of the most easily burable.

Oh, really?
Aluminium DOESN'T BURN at atmospheric conditions.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by VJ

Well, according to 'poly experts: The material first explodes due to high force directed at it during the impact, turning into tiny dust. Then it ceases it's existence, since obviously no invididual particle which you can't see with a bare eye exist.

Ah, so the plane has ceased to exist? That must be it!

[Serb]

Originally posted by Ecthy
You die.

Let's assume I'm not on this plane.
Answer the question - what happens then?

[Ecthy]

Who ever said it flew in horizontally? Why shouldn't the wings follow into the buildings, after not completely being ripped off the plane? All this is thinkable. Then, maybe the hole IS wide enough fro a whole plane, and your images are totally useless. Maybe VJ and you are just polar circle nerds.