I’m thinking I’m just going to do one post about the physics and mathematics of 9/11…I’m still trying to figure out a formula for ground resistance. If anyone can help with that, it’d be appreciated. 😉
For now, I’m going to move on to theories about the Pentagon. The most popular is that a cruise missile, not a Boeing 757, hit the pentagon. The arguments may seem plausible. However, deductive reasoning can quickly and easily prove them false. Here’s one vid I found espousing the theory of the cruise missile:
One of the first people they quote is Steve Patterson, who lived in a condo not far from the Pentagon. He said he saw what looked like a “silver commuter jet” fly past his window on the 14th floor. What this guy doesn’t tell you is that Patterson himself admitted that the plane was moving so fast he couldn’t describe the markings on the plane later. Patterson also stated that it looked like the plane could hold about 8 to 12 people. The website he gets the quote from contains several other quotes, none of which add up.
Sgt. Maurice L. Bease said he saw a white commercial airliner from where he was in the Pentagon. It came in so fast he didn’t have time to duck. Mike Dobbs thought he saw a two-engine 737 from the upper level of the E-ring. Levi Stephens reported what looked like a 747, heard two explosions and said later it sounded like it bounced off a heliport before it hit the building. Alan Wallace described a white plane with orange and blue trim. David Marra didn’t describe the craft, but said it clipped light poles and a wing skidded across the ground before impact. Scott Cook said he didn’t understand how he and his roommate, a former Air Force serviceman, could have missed a 757 flying past their window.
So many different descriptions were given that it’s not hard to take just one and use it to say, “hey, we’ve got proof! Nobody really saw it!” One guy described a turbo prop plane. Several, however, swear up and down that they saw the silver Boeing 757 and that they’ll never be able to forget how it looked. Those were the people on the freeway who saw the plane coming and had time to wonder, “what the hell…?”
He then quotes witness Steve DeChiaro, who said, “my brain could not resolve the fact that it was a plane because it only seemed like a small hole in the building. No tail, no wings no nothing.” This is the crux of their argument, that because there were no wing holes and no immediate parts of the plane lying around, it is, to them, solid evidence that it wasn’t a plane.
The ground doesn’t give nearly as much resistance as a reinforced concrete building. Hani Hanjour had that plane going as fast as he could–more than 530 miles per hour–and it was carrying a full payload of nearly 5500 gallons of fuel. When he hit that building, the wings broke and the plane continued forward even as it was disintegrating and burning. The Laws of Physics explain that quite easily; the force of such a large, heavy object moving at that speed will continue forward in whichever form it is able to take. In this case, it was in pieces.
What about the desks and books pointed out that didn’t appear to be so much as scorched? I’ve said before, you would be amazed at what can survive an intense fire. Flames will skip around and eat whatever they can, sometimes leaving objects practically untouched. But it’s worth pointing out that the pictures given in the video don’t have a resolution that is nearly high enough to determine whether those objects really are scorched.
These twoofers just can’t win.