Humint Events Online: What Exactly Will Penetrate Two Feet of Brick, Stone and Concrete?

Monday, June 27, 2005

What Exactly Will Penetrate Two Feet of Brick, Stone and Concrete?


The outer wall of the Pentagon-- graphic from Pentagonresearch.com Posted by Hello

posted by spooked at 11:10 PM

8 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What Exactly Will Penetrate Two Feet of Brick, Stone and Concrete?"

A Bunker Buster...that's what! :)

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/11.jpg

11:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What Exactly Will Penetrate Two Feet of Brick, Stone and Concrete?"

How about 221,000 lbs of mass traveling at nearly 500 mph that includes titanium, steel, explosive jet fuel and other sundry items of density?

4:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

so...look at the picture i posted above...see any "221,000 lbs" of mass anywhere? see a hole of ANY significant size? see plane parts anywhere? see luggage, bodies, engines...well, you get the picture. ;)

1:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What part of "221,000 lbs of mass traveling at nearly 500 mph" do you not understand? I swear...you morons seem to think this is some kind of cartoon where a pressurized aluminum tube with 20,000 lbs of jet fuel will bounce off a building like Wile E. Coyote is flying it. Get in the real world...go to an airshow, see what something looks like flying at 500 knots. The potential kinetic energy in that thing is incredible.

7:52 PM  
Blogger spooked said...

I for one never said a Boeing 757 going 500 mph couldn't penetrate that wall.

It was a rhetorical question.

But there are still other reasons to doubt flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

9:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i guess you think insults help bolster your argument, eh pinch??

so...i guess i should, as per your sage suggestion "go to an airshow" to learn how planes vaporize? um...ok.

yep...a pressurized thin aluminium tube manages to penetrate through at least 4 thick, re-enforced concrete pentagon walls.

suuuuure....

seems we have a self-described "right-wing reactionary" in our midst, fellow Truth seekers. :)

oh..just checked your bio. that could have something (a LOT actually) to do with explaining your insistance that planes that hit the pentagon suddenly de-materialize upon impact, which also happens to give credence to the official story. but us non "War College" grads are all just a bunch of "Morons" huh? they are teaching excellent english skills over there at your college these days i see. :P i guess i should just expect a War College grad to simply toe the official company line...but that's another matter altogether.

Of course, some of your fellow military (& civilian as well) avaitors have just a slightly different take on this topic though...unsurprisingly enough.

From CROSSING THE RUBICON page 581

Included here are the three known names of the five hijackers reported to have received military training: Atta, Alomari, and Alghamdi. To my knowledge, the other two who were listed have never been named. I strongly suspect that they are also among the living. This would also account for the fact that several of the hijackers were known to have stayed in a motel very close to the super-secret National Security Agency at Fort Meade Maryland just weeks before the attacks. These are
Hani Hanjour, Khalid Almidhar, Nawaf Alhazmi, Salem Alhazmi, and Majed
Moqed. They were the hijackers who allegedly performed an aerobatic maneuver of supreme skill before crashing a Boeing 757 into the Pentagon. Not one of them had even an instrument rating, let alone the commercial, multi-engine, or jet ratings required to even contemplate such a feat.
We’ll get to that....

...What we have, however, is a feat of airplane driving that far exceeds the skills reportedly possessed by any of the alleged hijackers. In fact, the flying skills required for such a maneuver surpass even those of commercial airline pilots. A 2002 story that originated in Portugal confirms this.
The Portugal News is a weekly English-language newspaper read largely by expatriate and touring Americans. On March 8, 2002, in a story headlined “September 11 — US Government Accused” it reported:
A group of military and civilian US pilots, under the chairmanship of
Colonel Don de Grand, after deliberating non-stop for 72 hours, has concluded that the flight crews of the four passenger airliners, involved in the September 11th tragedy, had no control over their aircraft.
In a detailed press communiqué the inquiry stated: “The so-called terrorist attack was in fact a superbly executed military operation carried out against the USA, requiring the utmost professional military skill in command, communications, and control. It was flawless in timing, in the choice of selected aircraft to be used as guided missiles and in the coordinated delivery of those missiles to their pre-selected targets.”
The report seriously questions whether or not the suspect hijackers,
supposedly trained on Cessna light aircraft, could have located a
target dead-on 200 miles from take off point. It further throws into
doubt their ability to master the intricacies of the instrument flight
rules (IFR) in the 45 minutes from take off to the point of impact.
Colonel de Grand said that it would be impossible for novices to have
taken control of the four aircraft and orchestrated such a terrible act
requiring military precision of the highest order.
A member of the inquiry team, a US Air Force officer who flew
over 100 sorties during the Vietnam war, told the press conference:
“Those birds (commercial airliners) either had a crack fighter pilot in
the left seat, or they were being maneuvered by remote control.”
In evidence given to the enquiry, Captain Kent Hill (retd.) of the
US Air Force, and friend of Chic Burlingame, the pilot of the plane
that crashed into the Pentagon, stated that the US had on several occasions
flown an unmanned aircraft, similar in size to a Boeing 737,
across the Pacific from Edwards Air Force base in California to South
Australia. According to Hill it had flown on a pre-programmed flight
path under the control of a pilot in an outside station.
Hill also quoted Bob Ayling, former British Airways boss, in an
interview given to the London Economist on September 20th, 2001.
Ayling admitted that it was now possible to control an aircraft in
flight from either the ground or in the air. This was confirmed by
expert witnesses at the inquiry who testified that airliners could be
controlled by electro-magnetic pulse or radio frequency instrumentation
from command and control platforms based either in the air or
at ground level.
All members of the inquiry team agreed that even if guns were held
to their heads none of them would fly a plane into a building. Their
reaction would be to ditch the plane into a river or a field, thereby
safeguarding the lives of those on the ground….
During the press conference Captain Hill maintained that the four
airliners must have been choreographed by an Airborne Warning and
Control System (AWACS). This system can engage several aircraft
simultaneously by knocking out their on-board flight controls. He
said that all the evidence points to the fact that the pilots and their
crews had not taken any evasive action to resist the supposed hijackers.
They had not attempted any sudden changes in flight path or
nose-dive procedures — which led him to believe that they had no
control over their aircraft.
THE NEWS, in an attempt to further substantiate the potential
veracity of these findings, spoke to an Algarve-based airline pilot, who
has more than 20 years of experience in flying passenger planes, to
seek his views. Captain Colin McHattie, currently flying with Cathay
Pacific, agreed with the independent commission’s findings. However,
he explained that while it is possible to fly a plane from the ground,the installation of the necessary equipment is a time-consuming process,
and needs extensive planning.
Which brings us back to the wargames again....

10:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The mention of AWACS reminded me.....Remember when an AWACS was forced to land in China?..Didn't China acquire one of our AWACS at the onset of his presidency?

3:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Fellow Truth Seekers"....heh

Insults are apropos when necessary and I've read enough DU over these past 4 years to recognize morons when I see them, especially when it comes to the Pentagon crash.

As far as "fellow military (& civilian as well) avaitors [sic]" are concerned, I learned a long time ago that the military is indeed in many ways a microcosm of society, proving the case that there are just as many lunatics there as there are anywhere else.

Thomas Barnett had a good comment about conspiracy theorists:

Conspiracy theories in general are attempts by people to explain complexity. Instead of acts of God, they become giant conspiracies of all-powerful men. All I can say is that I've met all these alleged conspirators, worked for a few, and gotten to know first hand virtually all of the organizations named in such things, working for a few, and life is so much more tragically boring and sad than the conspiracy types can handle.

So they tell their stories to console themselves about their ignorance.

You eat junk, you get fat. It's as simple as that. Stay away from the junk food.

Keep it up though! It is indeed the most entertainment I can find on the web these days - and all for free!

9:20 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger