Inside the Destruction @ the Pentagon
While at a Gun Show in St. Petersburg, Florida, We are Change-Tampa had the opportunity to speak with an Army Ranger who was at the Pentagon removing bodies and residual remains. This Ranger states that he was perplexed at the lack of damage at the entry point where the wings should have been, he then surmised that due to the mass damage to the floors below grade that the plane must have came in at a great angle. When asked, He could not account for the damage to the outer part of the third ring due to downward pattern of damage.
The video begins several minutes into the interview after understanding the gravity of his statements. For the record, He stated before recording began that he witnessed windows from a jetliner amongst the debris inside the pentagon and that he could not understand why there was debris found in the center courtyard, based on his idea of impact.
CitizenRising at We are Change is currently doing follow-up interviews, and obtaining his credentials. I don't know how to load video here, so you can see this impromptu interview at http://www.youtube.com/wearechangetampa#p/u/2/VF1bh1eMKEo and the remaining here http://www.youtube.com/wearechangetampa#p/u/1/l6uH8W3KLDE
- trutheronboard's blog
- Login to post comments
The Video:
Quiter location
I wish the interview had been conducted in a more quiet location. I had great difficulty hearing most of what was spoken.
Pentagon Physics
In order to avoid the massive air pressure that would build up under the wings if Flight 77 approached the Pentagon level or even in a shallow dive at reported speeds, the aircraft would have to have been in a steep dive. However, a steep dive would leave half of the aircraft sticking out of the small hole in the wall, which would explain why the Ranger saw no wing damage (or tail damage, for that matter) that was consistent with a 757 strike. As we all know, half of Flight 77 was NOT sticking out of the small hole.
The official narrative has Flight 77 level with the ground just before the strike, which is also impossible. The massive air pressure building up under the wings as the aircraft approached cruise speed (530 mph) would prevent Flight 77 from getting a wing's length from the ground, while at the same time actually having the aircraft LIFTING off the ground automatically. No matter how one tries to put a 757 through the Pentagon impact hole, it won't fit.
It must be understood that if a heavy body commercial aircraft attained speeds approaching cruise speeds on the tarmac, flaps, slats and elevators wouldn't be necessary for takeoff to occur. The aircraft would takeoff automatically.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
"Air Pressure"
That's called "ground effect." I suppose that enough "nose down" pitch could counter it and allow the aircraft to continue at the same height even that close to the ground. But of course that would present an even larger profile to the face of the building. And we don't see damage consistent with that...
We Still Have A Problem
If you mean a shallow nose down pitch, then the 757 still encounters ground effect. If you mean a median to steep nose down pitch, then the 757 defeats ground effect and slams into the Pentagon at a downward angle. All Pentagon video and eyewitness accounts place Flight 77's fuselage as level with the ground just before impact. Just before impact Flight 77 was moving at 530 mph. That speed would automatically LIFT the 757, without the necessity of a nose pitch up or flaps down. As I said, we have a problem.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
Is there an authoritative source for this?
"The official narrative has Flight 77 level with the ground just before the strike, which is also impossible. The massive air pressure building up under the wings as the aircraft approached cruise speed (530 mph) would prevent Flight 77 from getting a wing's length from the ground, while at the same time actually having the aircraft LIFTING off the ground automatically"
Wikipedia just says that
"One of the most important of these effects is the Wing In Ground effect, which refers to the reduction in drag experienced by an aircraft as it approaches a height approximately equal to the aircraft's wingspan above ground or other level surface, such as the sea. The effect increases as the wing descends closer to the ground, with the most significant effects occurring at an altitude of one half the wingspan. It can present a hazard for inexperienced pilots who are not accustomed to correcting for it on their approach to landing"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_in_aircraft
Wiki Also Says...
Vesa,
your Wiki article also says:
"The wing in ground effect, often described as a 'cushion', is thought to be an increase in air pressure which occurs below a wing when it comes into close proximity with the ground. The effect begins to be noticeable when the aircraft's altitude is within 1–1.5 times the length of its own wingspan and, when the altitude is within about half a wingspan of the ground, the effect can increase lift by as much as 40%." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_in_aircraft
Now, at 530 mph (cruise speed for a 757), the effect would be enough for a 757 to take off:
"For most aircraft, attempting a takeoff without a pitch-up would require cruise speeds while still on the runway."
and
"Fixed-wing aircraft designed for high-speed operation (such as commercial jet aircraft) have difficulty generating enough lift at the low speeds encountered during takeoff. These are therefore fitted with high-lift devices, often including slats and usually flaps, which increase the camber of the wing, making it more effective at low speed, thus creating more lift." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takeoff
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
Wiki is completely unreliable...
Wiki also says "Three buildings in the World Trade Center Complex collapsed due to structural failure on the day of the attack.[25] The south tower (2 WTC) fell at approximately 9:59 a.m., after burning for 56 minutes in a fire caused by the impact of United Airlines Flight 175.[25] The north tower (1 WTC) collapsed at 10:28 a.m., after burning for approximately 102 minutes.[25] When the north tower collapsed, debris that fell on the nearby 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC) building damaged it and initiated fires. These fires burned for hours and compromised the building's structural integrity, which led to the crumbling of the east penthouse at 5:20 p.m. and to the complete collapse of the building at 5:21 p.m."
Wiki is completely controlled and unreliable. Please stop using Wikipedia.org as a reference.
Politics vs. Pure Physics
bbruhwiler8,
Wiki is unreliable in a whole slew of political areas such as the JFK, RFK and MLK assassinations. And Wiki isn't alone on that count. Just about all reference sources rehash the "official narrative".
Now when it comes to airfoil lift, we're not talking about the political arena, we're talking about the Bernoulli theory.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
Sorry bro, but...
The destruction of the towers is pure physics. That is just one example. The proof is in the pudding. Wikipedia.org is controlled by the powers that be.
Just The Opposite Is True
bbruhwiler8,
The destruction of the towers is a political topic and NIST's coverage (which Wiki depends on because it is the "official narrative") is anti-physics.
Wiki's coverage of the application of the Bernoulli theory to airfoil lift is old, non-political, news.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
Don't rely on wikipedia
Either wikipedia is a reliable source or not. I am not going to buy that you can rely on wiki for the 'true' facts, but not the 'political', and then get into an argument over which facts are political or true. That will get us into the nightmarish world of newspeak in 1984.
Don't rely on wikipedia.
If you know a source that is totally reliable
please let me know. I hope we get more info from some of the first hand sources like this ranger but even then it may not be reliable. 911 is a lie inside a lie inside a lie. Seem like this ranger's first hand experience doesn't support anything close to the official story. It sure didn't seem to make any sense to him. Lots of empty offices were noted. That's interesting. I would suspect this guy needs to be very careful.
You Can't Distinguish 9/11 From Bernoulli's Principle?
bbruhwiler8,
you're being silly. As I said earlier ALL reference sources are unreliable when it come to political issues such as 9/11, the JFK assassination, Pearl Harbor, etc. Bernoulli's principle is not a hot topic of political controversy.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
What if...
What if the science becomes political? What is the science becomes part of the cover-up? In the least, wikipedia can cloud the facts with confusing and obscuring unnecessary information so that you can't get the clear and direct and correct 'science'.
I think you are being very naïve.
Discernment is Needed
bbruhwiler8,
what are you talking about? I'm talking about Daniel Bernoulli and the application of his equation on aircraft lift. The application of his equation to aircraft lift has been around long before the founder of Wiki's grandparents were alive!
Here is what Encyclopaedia Britannica says about Aircraft Lift:
"Upward-acting force on an aircraft wing or airfoil. An aircraft in flight experiences an upward lift force, as well as the thrust of the engine, the force of its own weight, and a drag force. The lift force arises because the speed at which the displaced air moves over the top of the airfoil (and over the top of the attached boundary layer) is greater than the speed at which it moves over the bottom and because the pressure acting on the airfoil from below is therefore greater than the pressure from above."
--http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/340350/lift
It's the same as Wiki!
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
They are the same source
Know anybody who has Encyclopedia Britannica from 30 years ago?
Dean, the info you are presenting is correct, I would imagine, but just be aware that both of those sources are incorrect about many other subjects. Maybe it is a lost cause, for I believe most resources available to us have been commandeered by the powers that be.
New Outlet
bbruhwiler8,
you need to keep up with the times. Encyclopaedia Britannica is now online!
I agree, of course, with your second point.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
Wikipedia
is good for finding facts such as how fast a cheetah can run (70 mph fyi) or anything purely non-political. However if something is even remotely political or controversial, Wiki is bad news.
trap
"is good for finding facts such as how fast a cheetah can run (70 mph fyi) or anything purely non-political."
Again, you are caught up in the newspeak trap, or think of ANIMAL FARM, where the pigs, who were in charge kept changing the words, and the definition of words.
Wikipedia is unreliable. It is controlled. How do you know which pages are controlled or not controlled? You don't. Most of us use wikipedia when it supports what we already believe. That is not reliable.
Wikipedia is good for finding facts...
Facts that are approved. If the speed a cheetah can run affected the credibility of the official story, do you really think you would find that information on wikipedia? Or that it would not be altered? How would you confirm either way?
Actually wikipedia says the speed a cheetah can run is between 70 and 75 mph. What if it said between 70 and 85 mph would you believe it? Then next year it says between 80 and 90 mph because they have better speed measuring technology. Would you believe it? Then they refer to papers from the 1970s that show they always knew and stated even back then that the speed a cheetah could run was 100 mph. Would your claims of foul play land on deaf ears because you are arguing with what is written right there in wikipedia?
Wikipedia is unreliable.
Point taken.
Point taken.
WTF?
"The building's internal fire suppression system lacked water pressure to fight the fires, and the building collapsed completely at 5:21:10 p.m.[1] The collapse began when a critical column on the 13th floor buckled and triggered structural failure throughout, causing at first the crumble of the east mechanical penthouse at 5:20:33 p.m."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center
This suggests that the east penthouse dropped almost a minute before the rest of the building. All the videos I've seen show it dropping a few seconds before the rest of the building. Where do they get these figures?
below grade damage
I am surprised at this testimony. I thought we had reliable photos showing the floor was not damaged, proving that the plane, or whatever it was, was travelling pretty well horizontally at the time. I just can't find the photos at the moment.
Reliability or Unreliability?
Frank,
why would you think any information having to do with 9/11 that is derived from an official source would be reliable? The only reliable thing about the official 9/11 narrative is its unreliability, and that goes double for Flight 77 & the Pentagon.
By the way, how's your revised paper on Flight 77 & the Pentagon coming along?
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC