More debunking of a 9-11 conspiracy

Some videos of the plane that hit the Pentagon were released.  From the DOD FOIA Requester Service Center:

Video 1
Video 2

A year and a half ago I spent a little time debunking that it was actually an explosive charge rather than fuel from the plane that caused the flash on the previous images that were released.  These videos should help a little bit on that front.

3 thoughts on “More debunking of a 9-11 conspiracy

  1. I’d generally have to agree with you. We use dynamite and AN based impact explosives at our shoots also and have done some experimenting with flaming explosions using diesel/gasoline mixtures…there had to be quite a significant amount of fuel to cause the cloud seen in the Pentagon (and WTC) explosions. No missile I can think of would have been able to contain the explosive payload to penetrate the building along with the quantity of volatiles needed to create such a huge burst. Sure, there are volatiles that could create such a flame ball in small quantities…but none of them (we’ve tried MANY different combinations) would provide the characteristic deep red with dark black smoke that is seen in the Pentagon blast. It is entirely consistent with a heavier hydrocarbon based burn…JP4 would do nicely for such a cloud.

    The second problem is that most of these conspiracies also seem to argue that some sort of explosive was used…and, frankly, the video evidence does not even remotely support this. I, like Joe, have probably blown up more than my fair share of stuff and watched TONS of video of stuff being blown up also. The “blast” in this case is entirely directional, the blast cloud and almost all debris continues in a forward pattern. While one may argue that “vectored” charges could have been used to direct the blast along the flight path, you would be correct but it could not have been done in this case. The video provides ample proof of this and, once again, the flame cloud is the significant factor. What we don’t see that is characteristic of ANY sort of explosive charge is ANY indication of a high-pressure shock wave. In this case, such a shock wave would likely have reflected off of the remaining walls of the Pentagon and created some measure of back-blast away from the direction of travel and parallel to the wall. This would have resulted in the ejection of flaming material against the direction of travel and directly above the point of impact vectored up and slightly to the rear and there is NO indication of any such effect.

    The arguments I have seen for the “no plane” at the Pentagon seem to be based on a vast number of misconceptions about explosives and the construction of aircraft (they are far more fragile than most people want/need to think), as well as the fact that those making such comments only have access to a limited amount of information on the aftermath and cleanup. I have yet to see anything which gives me any indication that anything other than a large airliner hit the Pentagon.

  2. It’s a pretty dumb conspiracy, seeing as how I-395 runs within a few hundred yards of the Pentagon, was gridlocked that morning, and a bunch of commuters had front row seats to watch the plane fly into the building (as you noted in your debunking). Our secretary’s husband watched the plane fly over and hit the building. We knew to look for the smoke before the crash had been announced because he had called her from his truck.

  3. For some this will merely reinforce the belief in the conspiracy– You’re obviously either in on it, or you have been duped. Videos? Hey, I saw Star Wars and T2, and “they” had plenty of time to doctor these “surveillance videos”. Smoke from fuel? Who says “they” couldn’t have faked that too? It looks a lot like your average TV car crash.

    Once a person becomes heavily invested in a belief, based on nothing but faith and wishful thinking, there is virtually nothing that will cause the average human to reverse that belief. To the contrary; most of what we see and hear will do more to reinforce our “faith” than to shake it.

    Therefore what we do mostly is preach to the choir, which does have its place. That’s why I often say, “OK, but what do we do about it? What are the possible solutions?”
    Or maybe a better first question is, “What is the goal?”
    I rarely have an answer other than “get the government out of the education business” (We’re turning out generations of ignoramuses, you see).

    Another answer is to get the barking moonbats talking and keep them talking as freely, as long, as loudly and as frequently as possible, so we can publicly laugh at them.

    Since you can rarely ever “convert” a large number of people, a good goal I came up with is; Disgrace the Left into the Woodwork of Society Where it Belongs.

Comments are closed.