Not sure if this has been posted, but here is a video that shows an F-4 Phantom hitting a concrete barrier at 500MPH. For those naysayers and conspiricy theorists that believe there may have been something fishy going on, this video shows what happens with such force. We are talking atomizing!
http://www.jokaroo.com/extremevideos/plane_vs_wall.html
What happens to an F-4 hitting a cement barrier at 500MPH
-
Leatherneck
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3655
- Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2000 12:00 am
- Location: The Great Midwest
-
Leatherneck
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3655
- Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2000 12:00 am
- Location: The Great Midwest
-
YARDofSTUF
- Posts: 70006
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2000 12:00 am
- Location: USA
-
Leatherneck
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3655
- Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2000 12:00 am
- Location: The Great Midwest
-
Leatherneck
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3655
- Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2000 12:00 am
- Location: The Great Midwest
Ok and that F-14 didn't Penetrate the wall if I remember that Video correctly. The 757 was able to penetrate into the inner rings and still left hardly any debris. If going by that Video the Plane would have vaporized on the first wall no?How thick are the walls to the Pentagon?
Pie
Pie
SG Pimp Name : *Treacherous P. Shizzle*
*
The fight for our way of life needs to be fought on our own soil, for our own people and because of our own interests.
*
Hey, If Me & My Buddies Were Making Billions of Dollars I'd Tell Ya What Ya Wanted To Hear Too!
*
The fight for our way of life needs to be fought on our own soil, for our own people and because of our own interests.
*
Hey, If Me & My Buddies Were Making Billions of Dollars I'd Tell Ya What Ya Wanted To Hear Too!
thepieman wrote:Ok and that F-14 didn't Penetrate the wall if I remember that Video correctly. The 757 was able to penetrate into the inner rings and still left hardly any debris. If going by that Video the Plane would have vaporized on the first wall no?How thick are the walls to the Pentagon?
Pie
Listen to the vid, that wall was a test for a nuclear reactor, designed to absorb and redirect energy. The pentagon and WTC had nothing even close to that level of protection.
Tao_Jones Cult Member since 2004
I gave Miss Manners a Dirty Sanchez, and she LIKED it.
I gave Miss Manners a Dirty Sanchez, and she LIKED it.
The WTC didn't have protection like that but it was setup for Earthquake and Plane impacts but thats not what I meant. I thought the Pentagon walls were supposedly sufficient enough to withstand a nuclear Bomb ? Isn't that what they were doing with part of the pentagon?brembo wrote:Listen to the vid, that wall was a test for a nuclear reactor, designed to absorb and redirect energy. The pentagon and WTC had nothing even close to that level of protection.
Pie
SG Pimp Name : *Treacherous P. Shizzle*
*
The fight for our way of life needs to be fought on our own soil, for our own people and because of our own interests.
*
Hey, If Me & My Buddies Were Making Billions of Dollars I'd Tell Ya What Ya Wanted To Hear Too!
*
The fight for our way of life needs to be fought on our own soil, for our own people and because of our own interests.
*
Hey, If Me & My Buddies Were Making Billions of Dollars I'd Tell Ya What Ya Wanted To Hear Too!
-
YARDofSTUF
- Posts: 70006
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2000 12:00 am
- Location: USA
thepieman wrote:The WTC didn't have protection like that but it was setup for Earthquake and Plane impacts but thats not what I meant. I thought the Pentagon walls were supposedly sufficient enough to withstand a nuclear Bomb ? Isn't that what they were doing with part of the pentagon?
Pie
I dunno about a nuke, but i think that section only where the plane hit was reenforced.
thepieman wrote:The WTC didn't have protection like that but it was setup for Earthquake and Plane impacts but thats not what I meant. I thought the Pentagon walls were supposedly sufficient enough to withstand a nuclear Bomb ? Isn't that what they were doing with part of the pentagon?
Pie
I thought the walls were like 5-10 feet thick or something like that
Offensive
thepieman wrote:The WTC didn't have protection like that but it was setup for Earthquake and Plane impacts but thats not what I meant. I thought the Pentagon walls were supposedly sufficient enough to withstand a nuclear Bomb ? Isn't that what they were doing with part of the pentagon?
Pie
They were reinforcing them, true but *NOT* for a passenger airliner slamming into them at hundereds of miles an hour.
I'm not sure people understand the energies involved in such an occurance.
A fully weighted 747(extended range) airliner tips in at 910,000 thousand pounds. Thats 260 mid-size sedans.
Now I doubt the planes that caused all this trouble were ER models and I doubt they were at full cap. SO lets make them 500,000 pounds. Still an assload of weight to be throwing around. Now lets make em move REAL fast.
Ever stand by the insterstate and think "gosh these cars are really whizzing by"? That was 80 mph or there abouts. I've seen cars move at 200mph and it was a blur. I had a F-16 doa flyby @ .99 mach and it was gone in a hurry.
Take this 250 TON 500mph reinforced aluminum bullet and aim it at something. What can you conjure up in your head that will withstand the impact and not be harmed some?
*edit*
A friend of mine does aircraft accident investigations for the airforce(former F-16 pilot). He let me peruse de-classified files of recent crashes. One that sticks in my mind is of a B1 bomber that hit a mesa going ~600 miles and hour, 500 something knots I think. Guess what the largest piece of bomber they found was? You could hold it it your hand and hide it totally.
Tao_Jones Cult Member since 2004
I gave Miss Manners a Dirty Sanchez, and she LIKED it.
I gave Miss Manners a Dirty Sanchez, and she LIKED it.
-
SteelersFANinMA
- Regular Member
- Posts: 185
- Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:43 pm
- Location: South Shore MA
-
YARDofSTUF
- Posts: 70006
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2000 12:00 am
- Location: USA
-
YeOldeStonecat
- SG VIP
- Posts: 51171
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: Somewhere along the shoreline in New England
Seems to make sense to me. Video of old fighter plane flying into a "small" wall..that's designed to give. You can see this relatively small wall slide back as the plane hits it. Yet the F4 disintegrates when it hits this little wall.
Passenger liner...much larger...yet it has a much larger..and MUCH more immovable object...the Pentagon..to fly into.
Small plane ==> small object at high speed = results you just saw
Larger plane ==> Larger object...I'd expect the end results to be somewhat similar.
Passenger liner...much larger...yet it has a much larger..and MUCH more immovable object...the Pentagon..to fly into.
Small plane ==> small object at high speed = results you just saw
Larger plane ==> Larger object...I'd expect the end results to be somewhat similar.
MORNING WOOD Lumber Company
Guinness for Strength!!!
Guinness for Strength!!!
-
YARDofSTUF
- Posts: 70006
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2000 12:00 am
- Location: USA
Prey521 wrote:http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911 ... dence.html
No, that site is a lie, they just want to sell me insurance and make me see The Davinci Code!
The test is good and bad for comparison.
On the good side, you can clearly see that just because objects like aircraft LOOK solid, they're really not. Consider that an airliner isn't a giant hunk of flying bullet.. it's more like a cardboard tube for a roll of paper towels. Go take one of those, and smash it as flat as you can. You'll be surprised how small it gets. A coke can can being squashed flat is another example of something looking solid but not actually being so.
On the bad side, the test was never really designed as a wall impact test per se. The concrete is actually floating on a column of air (impressive in itself) which allows it to "give" with the impact, dissapating much of the kinetic energy into motion.
It is only that energy in excess of the absorbable impact which is directed into the concrete, much of which is then reflected back towrds the aircraft itself.
Remember how I mentioned the coke can? Imagine it with a pencil going down the middle. Now drop a concrete block on it. What happens? It squashes flat. And that, is similar to what happened to the WTC. Remember, it's not a solid hunk of concrete either. It's got a hollow core with support beams, and and large hollow spaces between the flooring sections (which is where the office space is). The impact floor core supports had their fireproofing blasted away by the kinetic energy of the plane collision plus immediate fireball. That same fire ball whent right up the central core and killed many of the people on the floors above the impact point immediately as the air superheated to 1500 degrees instantly. That's what you generally don't hear discussed. The people on the floors ABOVE the crash points were dead almost instantly (in many cases). So now we have 1/4 of the external support destroyed on a couple of floors and the core supports also melting away since they're exposed to fire and are structurally getting weaker. Time is passing and the fire rages...
It's better to think of the WTC as a jenga model or a house of cards. More space than structure. The core supports for two floors fail. When you drop five floors on the single floor below, and add in the kinetic impact energy of all that weight descending.. the single floor simply can't handle the load and fails immediately... and then that weight and energy is added to the collapse on the NEXT single floor. And the process repeats until the house of cards has collapsed completely. You remember the coke can with the pencil that you squished flat? Go see how many pieces of pencil there are. The answer, is a lot. The pencil fractures multiple times as the weight keeps dropping on a new fracture point.
As to the people, well.. by comparison, it'd be easiest to think of them as soap bubbles you've blown in the house of cards. By comparison to concrete and steel we are about that tough. When you collapse the house of cards, what happens to the soap bubbles IN the house of cards is, mercifully, instantaneous. No time to feel pain. And that's about all you can really say about that.
The people who believe in a conspiracy almost universally do not work directly in or with the government. If they did, they would understand two things.
One, Gov't protection of fiefdoms is the norm, not the exception, especially at the level where big political rice bowls are being protected. This is what allows people to end up using gov't credit cards to get their girlfriend a boob job and NOT go to jail (real incident). It's also what led to clear warnings being ignored and intelligence not being shared.
Two, There is no way in hell you could create both an operation AND a coverup of said operation which would involve literally tens of THOUSANDS of people and not expect it to break. How many people new about extrordinary rendition? Abu Ghraib? The Atom bomb, NSA wiretaps? ALL of those broke within months or a few years. But it's coming up on FIVE years and not ONE leak has emerged about this conspiracy involving enough people to fill Giant stadium, and all their friends and relatives and bartenders and reporters and others they converse with.
And nary a peep. Not one time. It defies logic to believe the gov't COULD keep such a series of secrets for so long so perfectly. They're not that competant.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
On the good side, you can clearly see that just because objects like aircraft LOOK solid, they're really not. Consider that an airliner isn't a giant hunk of flying bullet.. it's more like a cardboard tube for a roll of paper towels. Go take one of those, and smash it as flat as you can. You'll be surprised how small it gets. A coke can can being squashed flat is another example of something looking solid but not actually being so.
On the bad side, the test was never really designed as a wall impact test per se. The concrete is actually floating on a column of air (impressive in itself) which allows it to "give" with the impact, dissapating much of the kinetic energy into motion.
It is only that energy in excess of the absorbable impact which is directed into the concrete, much of which is then reflected back towrds the aircraft itself.
Remember how I mentioned the coke can? Imagine it with a pencil going down the middle. Now drop a concrete block on it. What happens? It squashes flat. And that, is similar to what happened to the WTC. Remember, it's not a solid hunk of concrete either. It's got a hollow core with support beams, and and large hollow spaces between the flooring sections (which is where the office space is). The impact floor core supports had their fireproofing blasted away by the kinetic energy of the plane collision plus immediate fireball. That same fire ball whent right up the central core and killed many of the people on the floors above the impact point immediately as the air superheated to 1500 degrees instantly. That's what you generally don't hear discussed. The people on the floors ABOVE the crash points were dead almost instantly (in many cases). So now we have 1/4 of the external support destroyed on a couple of floors and the core supports also melting away since they're exposed to fire and are structurally getting weaker. Time is passing and the fire rages...
It's better to think of the WTC as a jenga model or a house of cards. More space than structure. The core supports for two floors fail. When you drop five floors on the single floor below, and add in the kinetic impact energy of all that weight descending.. the single floor simply can't handle the load and fails immediately... and then that weight and energy is added to the collapse on the NEXT single floor. And the process repeats until the house of cards has collapsed completely. You remember the coke can with the pencil that you squished flat? Go see how many pieces of pencil there are. The answer, is a lot. The pencil fractures multiple times as the weight keeps dropping on a new fracture point.
As to the people, well.. by comparison, it'd be easiest to think of them as soap bubbles you've blown in the house of cards. By comparison to concrete and steel we are about that tough. When you collapse the house of cards, what happens to the soap bubbles IN the house of cards is, mercifully, instantaneous. No time to feel pain. And that's about all you can really say about that.
The people who believe in a conspiracy almost universally do not work directly in or with the government. If they did, they would understand two things.
One, Gov't protection of fiefdoms is the norm, not the exception, especially at the level where big political rice bowls are being protected. This is what allows people to end up using gov't credit cards to get their girlfriend a boob job and NOT go to jail (real incident). It's also what led to clear warnings being ignored and intelligence not being shared.
Two, There is no way in hell you could create both an operation AND a coverup of said operation which would involve literally tens of THOUSANDS of people and not expect it to break. How many people new about extrordinary rendition? Abu Ghraib? The Atom bomb, NSA wiretaps? ALL of those broke within months or a few years. But it's coming up on FIVE years and not ONE leak has emerged about this conspiracy involving enough people to fill Giant stadium, and all their friends and relatives and bartenders and reporters and others they converse with.
And nary a peep. Not one time. It defies logic to believe the gov't COULD keep such a series of secrets for so long so perfectly. They're not that competant.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
-
Ghosthunter
- SG VIP
- Posts: 18183
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 12:00 pm
Bouncer wrote:The people who believe in a conspiracy almost universally do not work directly in or with the government. If they did, they would understand two things. Gov't incompetance is the norm, not the exception, especially at the level where big political rice bowls are being protected. This is what allows people to end up using gov't credit cards to get their girlfriend a boob job and NOT go to jail (real incident). Two, There is no way in hell you could create n operation AND a coverup of said operation which would involve literally tens of THOUSANDS of people and not expect it to break. How many people new about extrordinary rendition? Abu Ghraib? The Atom bomb. ALL of those broke within months or a few years. But it's coming up on FIVE years and not ONE leak has emerged about this conspiracy involving enough people to fill Giant stadium, and all their friends and relatives and bartenders and reporters and others they converse with.
And nary a peep. Not one time. It defies logic to believe the gov't COULD keep such a series of secrets for so long so perfectly. They're not that competant.
Hey you took my words out of my mouth that i posted in other pentagon thread=) except you said it a lot better...LOL
-
YARDofSTUF
- Posts: 70006
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2000 12:00 am
- Location: USA
-
Ghosthunter
- SG VIP
- Posts: 18183
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 12:00 pm
-
MissTynker2
- Posts: 6930
- Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 12:00 pm
- Location: Northern California
-
YARDofSTUF
- Posts: 70006
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2000 12:00 am
- Location: USA
Bouncer wrote:Two, There is no way in hell you could create both an operation AND a coverup of said operation which would involve literally tens of THOUSANDS of people and not expect it to break. How many people new about extrordinary rendition? Abu Ghraib? The Atom bomb, NSA wiretaps? ALL of those broke within months or a few years. But it's coming up on FIVE years and not ONE leak has emerged about this conspiracy involving enough people to fill Giant stadium, and all their friends and relatives and bartenders and reporters and others they converse with.
And nary a peep. Not one time. It defies logic to believe the gov't COULD keep such a series of secrets for so long so perfectly. They're not that competant.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
I think that our government can only be blamed for being caught flat-footed and over confident.
owned by pac0z atm
.-
SteelersFANinMA
- Regular Member
- Posts: 185
- Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:43 pm
- Location: South Shore MA
Prey521 wrote:There are pictures of the destroyed engine inside of the pentagon, what's your point?
There should be two engines, and the parts should all be numbered. Therefore, if the evidence is presented, there should be no debate about whether those parts in the pictures are actually from Flight 77. The problem is that the evidence hasn't been presented, and some have suggested that those engine parts belong to a different plane.
I think that most reasonable people should be suspicious that it took 4.5 years for just one of the 3 supposed videos to be released...and of course it's probably the worst video of them. I certainly can't see anything in the security video that would compromise the investigation or National Security. So why would they withhold it?
WTH did they carry out of there under the blue tarp?
...And if the plane disintegrated on impact, what caused the exit hole in the third(?) ring? I've seen the pics, and there is a distinct, round shape to the exit hole.
Hey, I'm only willing to believe the truth, but since that's been obviously withheld, I have to settle on the side that presents the best case. There are many questions left unanswered.
"...and when I leave, come together like butt cheeks." -Grits 'n' Gravy
Hmmm, do you mean the blue tarp that's being carried away by a bunch of guys? That's a service tent, there was quite a few of them around the crash site.
If it weren't for Judicial Watch, they may have not even released yesterdays video. Not that I care either way, though I would like to see the one from the hotel cam. They say that the video would not be released due to pending investigations. You believe what you want, but I don't think that the goverment should be forced to show something that they're using in a case, just to please the conspiracy theorist minority. I don't know what in the videos will prove anything in the cases that they present, but I'll take their word over theories full of half truths and phony facts to try and persuad the unknowing public that something else happened on that day.
If it weren't for Judicial Watch, they may have not even released yesterdays video. Not that I care either way, though I would like to see the one from the hotel cam. They say that the video would not be released due to pending investigations. You believe what you want, but I don't think that the goverment should be forced to show something that they're using in a case, just to please the conspiracy theorist minority. I don't know what in the videos will prove anything in the cases that they present, but I'll take their word over theories full of half truths and phony facts to try and persuad the unknowing public that something else happened on that day.
owned by pac0z atm
-
SteelersFANinMA
- Regular Member
- Posts: 185
- Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:43 pm
- Location: South Shore MA
Prey521 wrote:Hmmm, do you mean the blue tarp that's being carried away by a bunch of guys? That's a service tent, there was quite a few of them around the crash site.
If it weren't for Judicial Watch, they may have not even released yesterdays video. Not that I care either way, though I would like to see the one from the hotel cam. They say that the video would not be released due to pending investigations. You believe what you want, but I don't think that the goverment should be forced to show something that they're using in a case, just to please the conspiracy theorist minority. I don't know what in the videos will prove anything in the cases that they present, but I'll take their word over theories full of half truths and phony facts to try and persuad the unknowing public that something else happened on that day.
Chalk one up for your side!
I still don't understand why they would withhold these videos due to this investigation. I do undstand why this is done in other cases.
If the gov't, public and guilty party all know who did this, how and why, what's to hide? These videos should contain nothing more than a plane, (Flight 77) flying into the Pentagon.
"...and when I leave, come together like butt cheeks." -Grits 'n' Gravy
True, I don't know what kind of worth these videos have in their investigations, but who are we to question what they deem as worthy and non-worthy evidence? To us it's one thing, to them and their investigative team, it could be something totally different. The remaining videos will be released in due time...........then you will have the ones that say that it was edited! roofleberries!SteelersFANinMA wrote:Chalk one up for your side!
I still don't understand why they would withhold these videos due to this investigation. I do undstand why this is done in other cases.
If the gov't, public and guilty party all know who did this, how and why, what's to hide? These videos should contain nothing more than a plane, (Flight 77) flying into the Pentagon.
Another thing, why is it that the conspiracy theorists don't have a valid answer as to what happened to Flight 77, and the people and crew that were on it? I've never heard a logical answer to that one
owned by pac0z atm
-
Ghosthunter
- SG VIP
- Posts: 18183
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 12:00 pm
conspiracy theorists should learn about "Occam's razor" before trying to explain all different theories or at least agree on one thoery for a change
Occam's razor: When multiple competing theories have equal predictive powers, the principle recommends selecting those that introduce the fewest assumptions and postulate the fewest hypothetical entities.
the simplest explanation is likely to be the correct. In our case, what is the simplest explanation for 9/11?
- A conspiracy plan involving the US government with hundreds of people to fake a terrorist attack in order to gain support to then invade middle east and capture their oil. The plan was so perfectly performed and yet, nobody involved in the conspiracy has ever leaked the truth.
Or,
- A suicide terrorist attack using hijacked commercial planes as missiles, something that was unthinkable at that time.
If you pick second choice you are correct!!!!
Occam's razor: When multiple competing theories have equal predictive powers, the principle recommends selecting those that introduce the fewest assumptions and postulate the fewest hypothetical entities.
the simplest explanation is likely to be the correct. In our case, what is the simplest explanation for 9/11?
- A conspiracy plan involving the US government with hundreds of people to fake a terrorist attack in order to gain support to then invade middle east and capture their oil. The plan was so perfectly performed and yet, nobody involved in the conspiracy has ever leaked the truth.
Or,
- A suicide terrorist attack using hijacked commercial planes as missiles, something that was unthinkable at that time.
If you pick second choice you are correct!!!!
UOD wrote:The terrorist pilot was DAMN good.
Some of the people who question this aspect of the official account, say that there’]
The 270 degree right turn had me puzzled, until I realized that it would provide a simple set of landmarks for the pilot. Just intercept the Potomac River north of town, follow it south until you see the Washington Monument or Capitol. We used to use white country churches to navigate low-level over North and South Carolina, since they stand out clearly against the green or brown background.
Upon passing the Washington Monument, the plan may have been for the pilot to make a right turn and dive into the building. A right turn at this point would have led the airplane to hit Pentagon on the Potomac River side where the Secretary of Defense has his office. http://www.armytimes.com/content/editor ... impact.jpg
But being unfamiliar with flying large airplanes at high speeds, the pilot wouldn't have taken into account the large radius required to make the turn. This would explain the circuitous 270 degree turn that was made to the impact point.
When he rolled out, he'd simply point the nose of the airplane at the center courtyard of the Pentagon and dive toward his target. What he wouldn't know without experience is that when you dive, you accelerate the airplane and the lift increases. This causes the nose to rise, which would cause him to overshoot the target. In a panic, he would push forward on the controls and overcompensate, which would account for eyewitness descriptions of the airplane striking the ground short of the Pentagon.This analysis is flawed in that his approach trajectory doesn’t match that described by witnesses, but it remains an interesting idea. And it’s notable that a pilot describes the wide turn and eventual impact as a sign that the person flying Flight 77 was inexperienced, not that he must have been particularly skilled.
Further, if we look at what appears to be commonly accepted as the final approach, then we can see it does follow the Columbia Pike (dotted line is just an approximation, but you get the idea).
Now you tell me why that is so hard to believe? Or are you so deadset that that g'ment was behind it, that no rational explaination will suffice?
owned by pac0z atm
People say that if it was a conspiracy that there would be so many people involved and that there would be leaks...this pic with all those people holding that mysterious item is still unknown. So all those guys involved have still kept their mouths shut.Prey521 wrote:Hmmm, do you mean the blue tarp that's being carried away by a bunch of guys? That's a service tent, there was quite a few of them around the crash site.
Does anyone know exactly how far away Flight 77 was from the closest camera that film was publicly released from?
Pie
SG Pimp Name : *Treacherous P. Shizzle*
*
The fight for our way of life needs to be fought on our own soil, for our own people and because of our own interests.
*
Hey, If Me & My Buddies Were Making Billions of Dollars I'd Tell Ya What Ya Wanted To Hear Too!
*
The fight for our way of life needs to be fought on our own soil, for our own people and because of our own interests.
*
Hey, If Me & My Buddies Were Making Billions of Dollars I'd Tell Ya What Ya Wanted To Hear Too!
-
SteelersFANinMA
- Regular Member
- Posts: 185
- Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:43 pm
- Location: South Shore MA
Prey521 wrote:Now you tell me why that is so hard to believe? Or are you so deadset that that g'ment was behind it, that no rational explaination will suffice?
It's not hard to believe, but the real question is, what hit the Pentagon?
"...and when I leave, come together like butt cheeks." -Grits 'n' Gravy
Eh, that's NOT a mysterious item, it's a tent.thepieman wrote:People say that if it was a conspiracy that there would be so many people involved and that there would be leaks...this pic with all those people holding that mysterious item is still unknown. So all those guys involved have still kept their mouths shut.
Does anyone know exactly how far away Flight 77 was from the closest camera that film was publicly released from?
Pie
owned by pac0z atm
-
SteelersFANinMA
- Regular Member
- Posts: 185
- Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:43 pm
- Location: South Shore MA
thepieman wrote:People say that if it was a conspiracy that there would be so many people involved and that there would be leaks...this pic with all those people holding that mysterious item is still unknown. So all those guys involved have still kept their mouths shut.
If it's just a Service Tent, then there is no secret to keep for those men.
"...and when I leave, come together like butt cheeks." -Grits 'n' Gravy