Better yet, let's run it smack into a limestone-faced steel-structured building and watch the 120ft. [?] span of wings not clip neatly back and tuck themselves through a 20ft hole.

I have always fantasized about running this experiment. I've wondered if you could put the plane on some sort of track with a catapulting device to get it up to some sort of comparable speed; but this seem impossible to carry out.

Is it?

why can't we just buy an old 757, recreate the conditions at the pentagon (light poles, pentagon building wall itself), and fly the plane via remote control using the "official" flight trajectory relative to the light poles/pentagon?

seems possible to me

might not be able to get away with it in the US, but that's probably where it would be the most expensive anyway, including all the fees, fines, and BS you'd have to deal with. I bet somewhere like Russia would work, though.

if we couldn't work out the details of remote control, we could probably figure out some kind of catapult track device.. but i'd really prefer to make the experiment as similar to the (supposed) actual events as possible, so that there is as little room for people to doubt or dismiss the results as possible

Theoretically, if you managed to do this, and in doing so recreated quite accurately what happened at the pentagon in the 'official' version, would you be satisfied with that conclusion?

yes

I think the first thing the experiment would show is that flying a boeing 757 in that orbital flight-path 3/4's way around the pentagram is technically impossible.

Here is an option

edit: vvv Thank you sir. Probably the eighth time I've done it today :( never do it usually.

[display text here](URL here)

like this

Are you serious?

yep

Really?

What seems to be the problem?

alot is the problem

alot = ಠ_ಠ

He wants to test something out without harming anybody. I mean, big deal?

You're supposed to say "a lot". Had the same problem, no-one bothered to explain my error.

A 757 has quite alot of momentum.

True. We're talking about an aircraft with an empty weight of around 60 metric tonnes.

If it was travelling at 400mph, it would cover the 150M between the light poles and the pentagon in a bit less than a second. Travelling at 400mph and no faster, I calculated it covers 177M in the following second.

When people say that it 'kept flying' and 'maintained control', I wonder if they are mistaking the distances. With this sort of timeframe, there's very little you could do to change the flightpath even if you wanted to. I don't know why people think the aircraft required precise control, or what it could have done in the way of rolling in that fraction of a second before impact.

even if the poles wouldn't change the direction of the airframe.. there should be a ton of debris.. yet there is basically none

Why do you think there would be tons of debris? It would have continued traveling at 500 mph with the plane.

check out this thread http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9737

Video didn't work for me and there seems to be a lot of skepticism to other claims in that thread. As for the light posts i think people overestimate how strong they are. All that hold them up is some bolts at the bottom of the pole.

I've seen very similar light poles completely wiped out by a sedan.

the video isn't really what's important. see, e.g.:

It has been my contention that the damage to the poles is completely inconsistent with the damage that should have happened as a result of a large aircraft striking them at 400+ mph, the final point of rest of the downed poles is also completely inconsistent, the damage done to the wings would have been severe, so sever as to significantly disrupt the lift of the wings and very nearly 100% certain that the lift would be disrupted significantly unequally between the left and right wings. This would cause the plane to start rolling, and as the plane was so close to the ground one of the wings would have struck the ground causing a very dramatic crash somewhat before it even reached the outer wall of the Pentagon.

I disagree. The damage in my opinion would have been moderate at most and not have affected its next few moments of flight. It already had so much momentum it would have hit the pentagon if there had been twice the poles. These poles were close to the pentagon so i believe that there wouldn't have been enough time for rolling to occure due to damage on hte wings.

What about debris? The lamp poles were bent pretty badly, yet the plane leaves little or no debris trail. Seems impossible.

see also http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/110408/1/ which is linked to in that thread

e.g.:

the main point that you make that blows the official story out of the water, (as if it wasn't already blown out of the water) is that the poles should have been crushed on one side of the base.

Or they could just, you know, release the videos.

slow motion plane crash http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4rYj9UmmE4&feature=endscreen&NR=1

Interesting how the two telephone poles sliced that wing into pieces. I wonder why there were no large chunks of wings found at the pentagon.

vaporized like magic

not only that, but the plane on video entering the world trade center building slices through like a knife through butter. no deformation, no wings or engines come off.. .clean through, as if it was a plane painted over a video of a missile strike. but there was an E4B in the air at the time at new york and later at pentagon? why? how did they know to be there? why was E4B needed?

this is another experiment that should be performed. rebuild the WTC floors that were impacted by the plane and fly a 767 into it at the same location/speed and see what happens

isn't a thought experiment enough? really, can a plane slice through steel framed building at any speed without deformation?

is the collision expected to be partially elastic, or is it completely inelastic? (as appears on the videos)

at least some of the momentum from the collision should be seen to deform the plane. it doesn't, therefore it can not be a passenger plane, but more likely a missile designed for that purpose. It's easy enough to paint over live video in real-time - I've seen it used commonly in sports broadcasts.

'missile painted over' could be true. the thing is, relying on "thought experiments" doesn't work when there is so much noise in the mix. Plane? No plane? Cruise missile? Controlled demolition?

i'm tired of relying on peoples' "thoughts"

i want actual experiments that show actual results. that way no one can question your algorithms, simulation programs, thought processes, or ideologies

once (if) we show, without doubt, that it couldn't have been commercial airliners at WTC and/or pentagon.. then we can start figuring out what it could have been. but as long as the public thinks it's ridiculous to think that the damage at WTC/pentagon was NOT caused by a commercial airliner.. and you have no hard evidence to show that it could not have been caused by a commercial airliner... you probably won't get very far with "missiles painted over" theories

without making any assumptions or conclusions, we can run experiments that show what would have really happened if commercial airliners flew into the pentagon/WTC. if the results don't match the "official story," the fallout could be damning for the government and whoever else was involved. but as long as people are just running 'thought experiments,' and not producing any hard evidence, the media can label you a conspiracy theorist and push you aside

once (if) we show, without doubt, that it couldn't have been commercial airliners at WTC and/or pentagon

good luck getting your hands on the evidence and subpoena power. the best we have is the video and eyewitness testimony. the videos especially show many things that don't jibe with reality.

when you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains however improbable must be the truth. I can list 75 reasons why the hijack theory is full of holes. That's 75 assumptions.. too many for me.

this could be what's going on:

"The wooden telephone or electric poles would likely be buried pretty deep while the cast aluminum light pole bases at the Pentagon were made to break away."

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9737

Well the flight path black box on flight 77 does not match the NIST path of the light poles, but it does match the northern route that all the witnesses testified to.

Taxi driver who had the light pole go through his windshield admitting to a conspiracy

What is the significance of the "North of Citgo flight path"?

basically the 'south of citgo' flight path had to have been taken by flight 77 in order for the plane to have knocked down the light poles, but witnesses say the plane's flight path went north of the citgo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcMkIcdBzEk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b9kbiN8SfE

I don't put much faith in eyewitness testimony. I also don't believe for an instant that those poles wouldn't have sheared the fucking wings right off of that plane.

that's what i don't understand. how can people believe that a 757 can knock down light poles and continue to fly? in a straight line? and not leave a huge trail of debris?

if we flew a remote-controlled 757 through some light poles and recorded what happened.. and then compared that to the light poles and "debris" from flight 77.. and posted the video to youtube.. no one of sound mind would be able to believe the 'official story'

maybe we can make the 757 that knocked down light poles go down in history with JFK's magic bullet

It's not like it continued? to fly? and went soaring about safely. Try and stop 60+ tonnes of aircraft moving at over 400mph from travelling in a straight line for the second or so between impacting the light poles and hitting the building. The kinetic energy involved was massive, and remember that a car can take down one of those poles if moving fast enough.

but the poles are bent and there is almost no debris field.

i would expect that the wings, after being used to bend telephone poles, would not remain intact. yet i see zero evidence of any debris field or pieces of wing. there should be pieces of airplane at the same location as the poles.. yet there is nothing.

see also this link http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/110408/1/ which i posted above but was mysteriously downvoted for .. shows more evidence that the light poles were most likely planted

I would think that an experiment could be setup simply using a wing on a dolly moving at the alleged speed would be sufficient.

possibly.. good idea. might have to do that if we can't simulate the real thing.

i think recreating the (supposed) actual conditions would be the best, though. if you put a wing on a dolly and move it through a light pole, it might mean something, but people could easily say it's "just an experiment" and "doesn't really prove anything".. for example, if the wing is not attached to a plane, it will not act exactly as it would if it were.. meanwhile, if you actually fly a 757 through light poles that are designed to be very similar to the ones that got knocked down at the pentagon and try to get the plane to keep going straight into and through concrete walls ... and then show the world the results of the experiment.. i think that would send a very clear and powerful message, whatever the results

how about just a wing on a swing arm powered by a air canon? if the force is less and causes any major damage then the increased speed would not make it more durable...?

i don't want to make any assumptions. i want to recreate the conditions as precisely as possible so that there is no question that the experiment is legitimate

Has no-one tried to put together a highly accurate computer modelled simulation? Wouldn't that achieve the same answers?

after seeing all the NIST models of WTC, I'm tired of "highly accurate computer modeled simulations".. i think recreating the actual conditions, and showing what would actually happen, would be much more effective

the wings shearing off because of impact with the lamposts could explain the small size of the hole in the building.

maybe. but then where did the wings go, and how come the light poles aren't surrounded by chunks of airplane?

The wings still would have gone into the Pentagon, but they would have been folded towards the airplane by the impact with the lightpoles. Objects in Motion tend to stay in motion, and the plane would have enough velocity that the plane and any parts would have gone straight into the Pentagon despite the Loss in velocity from the impact with the lampposts This is all assuming the plane was flying at or near the 757's top Speed of 609 mph.

wings don't "fold." i've never seen wings fold. have you?

if a plane hit multiple lamp posts, and those lamp posts bent, i bet that there would be significant debris starting from around where you found the lamp pole to wherever the plane went next.

i see no significant debris.

anyway, i don't care what anyone thinks.. not even myself.

that's the whole point of the experiment

[deleted]

One can dream of MythBusters covering 9/11.

It would be just another propaganda piece.

Thats the thing about conspiracy theories no matter what evidence to the contrary is presented "its all part of the cover up"

no, it actually is a cover up when dis-info, red herrings and strawmen arguments are posited to deflect from scientific logical arguments.

That's the problem with corporate media, they are rarely telling you the truth...

Ha! Nowadays they mostly 'bust myths' over stunts and scenes from movies...

how about just where is the airplane that hit the pentagon? it vaporized. disappeared. same with the one in pennsylvania. if you look at other airplane crashes it looks like a plane crashed. with those two the plane is completely gone. there is no plane.

For around 30 million or more, maybe.

i can spare about 6 million but that's my limit

Dear USMC please contact me (I am Nigeriian Prince) and I happen to have the air-plane you are looking for. Please ignore the fact I cannot spell Nigeria. :)

Jesus holy fuck.

I'm seriously hoping you aren't serious.

1. Commercial airliners, old or new. Cost ALOT of fucking money
2. Throughout this thread you keep saying, "you don't think" or "i don't believe" with regards to the plane continuing to move.

Do you have ANY idea on the physics of a 250,000 pound aircraft going through some fucking street lamps?

Dude this plane has to travel to 36,000 feet, daily for about 30 years.

And you think that some lamp shades are going to end its days?

Seriously, for the sake of fucking humanity, please do some research before even thinking of making another post like this.

This isn't fucking Just Cause 2.

u mad bro?

you're trying to tell me how ridiculous an experiment to test the official story of 9/11 would be.. while using words like "ALOT" ?

crawl back into your sewer.

haha you're just a stupid conspiracy nut,

the crux of your argument being haha you're using "alot" in your argument so let me dis regard everything else you've said and single out that one point.

Truth hurts huh?

I recall watching a video of a computer simulation of the crash on the WTC, showing the damage to structure and subsequent raging fire. Don't remember if it was more of a visual simulation rather than an actual stress/solid materials one.

Guess with current super-computers a real simulation taking into account structural materials and the office equipment could be churned out? I'm talking about Watson-level mainframes.

i'd rather leave the simulations to NIST..