Hi everyone. I saw a link to this site while browsing, and it looks like there are lots of smart posters here. A physics website, one assumes, would be a good place to ask a few questions that have been bugging me for years.
The official story of the 9/11 Pentagon incident, as told by the mass media, government, and lots of "experts", says that a 757 smashed into the ground before hitting the building. It says that the reason there was a single hole in the building, which went through three complete wings, was made because the 757s wings and tail "folded up" alongside the fuselage at impact, allowing the entire plane to pass through what appears to be a 15-20 foot wide hole. It says that the majority of the plane, consisting of aluminum, steel, and titanium, was consumed in the resulting fire, but that DNA from every passenger was recovered.
I'm not a physicist, so I don't know as much about the subject as most of you. That's why I have to ask someone these questions, and you guys seem like a good group to ask them to.
How can a plane smash into the ground without leaving any sign of having done so on the lawn directly in front of the impact point?
How could the fuselage punch completely through three wings of the building, while neither engine penetrated even the outermost wall?
How could the wings and tail of a large aircraft, moving at ~520 mph, "fold up" at impact? Wouldn't that require the fuselage to pause at the moment it hit the wall, while the wings and tail fold up, and then resume its forward motion, all together?
If DNA is destroyed at ~150 degrees C, how did a fire hot enough to consume tons of metal, seats, and luggage fail to destroy the passengers DNA?
To investigate the dynamics of the crash more, I looked at the most expensive and comprehensive computer simulation of the Pentagon incident I know of, the Purdue study. It showed the wings and tail disappearing at the moment of impact, and only purported to account for the single hole, which they say was made by the fuselage. They didn't show the wings and tail folding up; only disappearing. They said the plane entered the building "in a state resembling a liquid more than a solid". And yet they didn't show anything penetrate the building besides the fuselage. How could this happen?
Thanks for any answers that anyone can provide.
One new-by to another--welcome aboard. The dilemmas you expressed in your post were considered extensively in the 2004 documentary "911 In Plane Site-The Director's Cut" and also in "Loose Change". There are small but vigilant groups out there who believe that 911 was an inside job. A deliberately created singularity, to finally usher in the hitherto stalled "new world order". A round up and summary execution of all remnants of the profound Age of Enlightenment. Chain saws let loose, in the enchanted forests' of privacy, civil liberties, 1st amendment rights, environmental protections, social support systems, not to mention checks on corrupt campaign and manipulated vote counting systems,..... There is no bigger "sugar daddy" in the known universe than the DOD. Scientists, professors and engineers know; that only the RIGHT side of the bread gets the butter. That's why those in a position to know are silent. With the powers invested by the patriot act, a whistle blower would be tracked down like Sarah Conner's in the first "Terminator". Even if you just noticed irregularities by default of making an honest living; supporting operations that just happen to be close to "sensitive areas," you might not sleep well at night wondering if they know, that you are wondering about what you know. So now you see the proud and accomplished, suddenly becoming lapdogs, convulsively yapping in defensive of their evil master. The constant background noise of the country shearing off its' moorings, toward oblivion, is becoming increasingly disturbing with each passing day, deafening.
Thanks for the reply, zoktoberfest. I didn't mean to get into politics with my questions, though. I only meant to ask about the physical evidence, and how it matches (or doesn't) with the official story on what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11.
Do you (or anyone else) know how a 100+ ton plane at 520 mph can hit a building and leave only a single hole, punched all the way through three complete wings? They say the fuselage did this; but what about the engines? As I understand it, the Pentagon is a sturdy building. How did the fuselage alone penetrate so far, while neither engine even penetrated the outermost wall? The facade of the Pentagon is made of a thin facade of decorative brittle limestone, which is easily shattered. How could the wings and tail not have caused obvious, visible, major damage to the outer wall?
Is the "folding wings and tail" theory really possible? Where did the plane smash into the lawn? Where is any sign of the seats or the luggage that was on Flight 77? How did the passengers DNA survive a fire that consumed many tons of metal?
I know, just myself, several educated, intelligent people who wonder the same things. We don't understand how these things could have happened, and need someone to explain them to us. The more we wonder about them, and ask other people, the deeper the mystery gets. There must be a huge number of people all over the country who are thinking the same things.
Do you (or anyone else) know how a 100+ ton plane at 520 mph can hit a building and leave only a single hole, punched all the way through three complete wings? They say the fuselage did this; but what about the engines? As I understand it, the Pentagon is a sturdy building. How did the fuselage alone penetrate so far, while neither engine even penetrated the outermost wall? The facade of the Pentagon is made of a thin facade of decorative brittle limestone, which is easily shattered. How could the wings and tail not have caused obvious, visible, major damage to the outer wall?
Is the "folding wings and tail" theory really possible? Where did the plane smash into the lawn? Where is any sign of the seats or the luggage that was on Flight 77? How did the passengers DNA survive a fire that consumed many tons of metal?
I know, just myself, several educated, intelligent people who wonder the same things. We don't understand how these things could have happened, and need someone to explain them to us. The more we wonder about them, and ask other people, the deeper the mystery gets. There must be a huge number of people all over the country who are thinking the same things.
It has to do with aircraft construction.
The wings of an aircraft are designed to handle immense VERTICAL loads. They are not designed to handle LATERAL loads. The wings are designed to have a very large surface area, while at the same time having a very low weight. Thus they are essentially hollow structures made up with ribs and spars. When the wings hit the smaller front spar would have transmitted the force through the ribs to the main spar. Since it is not designed to handle lateral loads it would have folded rearward upon impact. There would not be a pause. The folding effect due to inability to handle lateral loads combined with fact that the wings are designed to be "sweptback" at a pretty rakish angle, would pretty much insure that the outer parts of the wings would never impact the Pentagon "head on".
Similarly the engines are attached to the wings via Shear Bolts. They are meant to come of if they encounter strong lateral loads (i.e. an engine stalling at high speed),
The engines, while appearing massive are really not, Look at pictures of jets from the 60s and you will notice that the engine is actually a fairly slim tube, or look at your classic fighter jet, like the Northrop T-20 where the engine fits nicely into a slim fuselage. The modern engines used on a 757 are known as Fan Jets and the Fan that is referenced is the large fan in the front of the engine. It blows a compressed circle of cold air through the large Shroud that encompasses the much smaller engine at its core. This not only improves efficiency but also reduces the sound footprint of the engine. The jet engine itself is essentially a hollow tube and most of the metals that it is made of are high strength, low weight alloys. Thus a modern jet engine, particularly from the side, or bottom, has a relatively large surface area, but relatively low mass. These factors are sufficient to dissipate the impact energy over a wide area thus preventing the high concentration of forces needed to penetrate the walls.
As to a single hole, a modern jet aircraft is built upon the two keels, one running the length of the cabin, the other is the Spars of the wings. The landing gear and engines are attached to these. These two major structural members come together at the Spar Box, which is essentially the center section of the wing. The spar box is by far the most massive part of any aircraft. It would have been this structure that punched its way through the wall.
As far as conspiracy.
There are surveillance pictures available of the 757 impacting the Pentagon.
There is damage to light posts on the final approach that confirm the wingspan.
The section of the Pentagon that was hit had been upgraded with Kevlar reinforcement.
There is eyewitness testimony from people seeing the 757 as it made its final approach into the Pentagon and then saw the explosion when it hit.
And of course, the people are dead and plane is gone.
Why could they get DNA? Because bodies are mostly water, it takes a crematorium a long time and a lot of energy to boil off that water and reduce a body to ash. Much longer than the fires burnt at the Pentagon. And just like a pot of water on the stove, you can turn up the flame to increase the rate of boiling, but the water in the pot still doesn't get above the boiling point.
This has been discussed in great detail on an aviation forum www.airdisaster.com , I suggest you visit that site if you still need "proof" that the Pentagon was hit by a 757 or that we did not shoot down the Penn. aircraft, or that we didn't sit around with our thumbs up our butts on 9/11.
Arthur
The wings of an aircraft are designed to handle immense VERTICAL loads. They are not designed to handle LATERAL loads. The wings are designed to have a very large surface area, while at the same time having a very low weight. Thus they are essentially hollow structures made up with ribs and spars. When the wings hit the smaller front spar would have transmitted the force through the ribs to the main spar. Since it is not designed to handle lateral loads it would have folded rearward upon impact. There would not be a pause. The folding effect due to inability to handle lateral loads combined with fact that the wings are designed to be "sweptback" at a pretty rakish angle, would pretty much insure that the outer parts of the wings would never impact the Pentagon "head on".
Similarly the engines are attached to the wings via Shear Bolts. They are meant to come of if they encounter strong lateral loads (i.e. an engine stalling at high speed),
The engines, while appearing massive are really not, Look at pictures of jets from the 60s and you will notice that the engine is actually a fairly slim tube, or look at your classic fighter jet, like the Northrop T-20 where the engine fits nicely into a slim fuselage. The modern engines used on a 757 are known as Fan Jets and the Fan that is referenced is the large fan in the front of the engine. It blows a compressed circle of cold air through the large Shroud that encompasses the much smaller engine at its core. This not only improves efficiency but also reduces the sound footprint of the engine. The jet engine itself is essentially a hollow tube and most of the metals that it is made of are high strength, low weight alloys. Thus a modern jet engine, particularly from the side, or bottom, has a relatively large surface area, but relatively low mass. These factors are sufficient to dissipate the impact energy over a wide area thus preventing the high concentration of forces needed to penetrate the walls.
As to a single hole, a modern jet aircraft is built upon the two keels, one running the length of the cabin, the other is the Spars of the wings. The landing gear and engines are attached to these. These two major structural members come together at the Spar Box, which is essentially the center section of the wing. The spar box is by far the most massive part of any aircraft. It would have been this structure that punched its way through the wall.
As far as conspiracy.
There are surveillance pictures available of the 757 impacting the Pentagon.
There is damage to light posts on the final approach that confirm the wingspan.
The section of the Pentagon that was hit had been upgraded with Kevlar reinforcement.
There is eyewitness testimony from people seeing the 757 as it made its final approach into the Pentagon and then saw the explosion when it hit.
And of course, the people are dead and plane is gone.
Why could they get DNA? Because bodies are mostly water, it takes a crematorium a long time and a lot of energy to boil off that water and reduce a body to ash. Much longer than the fires burnt at the Pentagon. And just like a pot of water on the stove, you can turn up the flame to increase the rate of boiling, but the water in the pot still doesn't get above the boiling point.
This has been discussed in great detail on an aviation forum www.airdisaster.com , I suggest you visit that site if you still need "proof" that the Pentagon was hit by a 757 or that we did not shoot down the Penn. aircraft, or that we didn't sit around with our thumbs up our butts on 9/11.
Arthur
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Oct 21 2005, 05:37 AM)
One newby to another--welcome aboard. The dilemmas you expressed in your post were considered extensively in the 2004 documentary "911 In Plane Site-The Director's Cut" and also in "Loose Change". There are small but vigilant groups out there who believe that 911 was an inside job. A deliberately created singularity to finally usher in the hitherto stalled "new world order". A round up and summary execution of all remnants of the Age of Enlightenment that generated the frame work of this once great country. This is a physics forum so expect to be reprimanded for bringing up controversial political elements. There is no bigger "sugar daddy" in the known universe than the DOD. Scientists, professors and engineers know who butters their bread. Brilliant minds, trained like pit bulls to attack weaknesses in any arguments that cross their path, suddenly become lapdogs convulsively yapping in defensive of their evil master. I have a very strong interest in science for a layman but the constant background noise of the country slipping toward oblivion is increasingly deafening and distracting.
refreshing analogy.
refreshing analogy.
adoucette. Are you a government plant or something. Lets see. Two airliners hit the WTC. They both leave a waking great hole in each building. The wings slice through the outer steel structure. The WTC was a huge steel structure that had to support thousands of tons. It had huge steel beams on the outside that must have been much larger and stronger than the pentagons. Yet you claim if an airliner hits the pentagon it's wings will fold up and so leave a nice neat small (comparatively) hole in the building. That makes no sense to me at all. Kevlar or not. Do you think we are all idiots or something.
Ho and if you didn't notice they only found the remains of 1 engine. And if you want to claim that wings fold up when they hit something hard at high speed then you have never seen the test where (NASA I think) rammed an F4 jet fighter on rails in to a concrete block at high speed. The wings got pretty fare in to it before they disappeared.
You lie. You either do not want to see what your own eyes are telling you or you are covering up for the government.
Ho and if you didn't notice they only found the remains of 1 engine. And if you want to claim that wings fold up when they hit something hard at high speed then you have never seen the test where (NASA I think) rammed an F4 jet fighter on rails in to a concrete block at high speed. The wings got pretty fare in to it before they disappeared.
You lie. You either do not want to see what your own eyes are telling you or you are covering up for the government.
I think its time to address some of your more flagrant mistakes:
It has to do with aircraft construction. What's it?
The wings of an aircraft are designed to handle immense VERTICAL loads. They are not designed to handle LATERAL loads. (Oh you mean lateral loads like those produced by lateral wind speeds of 500 mph?)
The wings are designed to have a very large surface area, while at the same time having a very low weight. (no numbers? the plane is 150 tons right?)
As far as conspiracy. (the only one proposed here is your own, we are merely pointing out flaws in official conspiracy theory)
There are surveillance pictures available of the 757 impacting the Pentagon. (it is a 4 frame faked video- over 30 video cameras near the Pentagon have been seized and destroyed- including various gas stations, hotels, traffic cameras, etc, and what about the 5 missile batteries protecting the pentagon? and NORAD? they intercepted Payne Stewarts plane within 15 minutes)
There is damage to light posts on the final approach that confirm the wingspan. (ah i'm glad you brought this up. The light post is 20 feet above the ground at least 500 yards away from the pentagon- and the huge boeing made no marks on the lawn, yet managed to squeeze all its mass through a tiny hole? it couldn't have been an unmanned vehicle?)
The section of the Pentagon that was hit had been upgraded with Kevlar reinforcement. (it was actually conveinently the section undergoing reconstruction)
There is eyewitness testimony from people seeing the 757 as it made its final approach into the Pentagon and then saw the explosion when it hit. (substitute tiny plane/missile and your dead on)
This has been discussed in great detail on an aviation forum www.airdisaster.com , I suggest you visit that site if you still need "proof" that the Pentagon was hit by a 757 or that we did not shoot down the Penn. aircraft, or that we didn't sit around with our thumbs up our butts on 9/11. (leading the witness much?)
It has to do with aircraft construction. What's it?
The wings of an aircraft are designed to handle immense VERTICAL loads. They are not designed to handle LATERAL loads. (Oh you mean lateral loads like those produced by lateral wind speeds of 500 mph?)
The wings are designed to have a very large surface area, while at the same time having a very low weight. (no numbers? the plane is 150 tons right?)
As far as conspiracy. (the only one proposed here is your own, we are merely pointing out flaws in official conspiracy theory)
There are surveillance pictures available of the 757 impacting the Pentagon. (it is a 4 frame faked video- over 30 video cameras near the Pentagon have been seized and destroyed- including various gas stations, hotels, traffic cameras, etc, and what about the 5 missile batteries protecting the pentagon? and NORAD? they intercepted Payne Stewarts plane within 15 minutes)
There is damage to light posts on the final approach that confirm the wingspan. (ah i'm glad you brought this up. The light post is 20 feet above the ground at least 500 yards away from the pentagon- and the huge boeing made no marks on the lawn, yet managed to squeeze all its mass through a tiny hole? it couldn't have been an unmanned vehicle?)
The section of the Pentagon that was hit had been upgraded with Kevlar reinforcement. (it was actually conveinently the section undergoing reconstruction)
There is eyewitness testimony from people seeing the 757 as it made its final approach into the Pentagon and then saw the explosion when it hit. (substitute tiny plane/missile and your dead on)
This has been discussed in great detail on an aviation forum www.airdisaster.com , I suggest you visit that site if you still need "proof" that the Pentagon was hit by a 757 or that we did not shoot down the Penn. aircraft, or that we didn't sit around with our thumbs up our butts on 9/11. (leading the witness much?)
peeeeuuuu! the sicklysweet smell of conspiracy theory thread!!!!!! enter at own risk of stupidity rubbing off on ya! you been warned!!
hey adoucette a_ht, like I said to Schneibster in them thar basic-physics and prove-collapse threads, man---these redneck anarchistwannabes aint interested in physics and knowlrdge, just CONSPIRACY FIXES man, theyr 'junkies' for that crap drug man...either that or they're stooges drummin up publicity n exposure for some MORON BOOKS on a conspiracy or other. that's how they make their LIVIN man, selling idiocy tu idiots like these man. don't waste your time and smarts on this garbage by SPAMMERS 'n SCAMMERS 'n SUCKERS man.use it where you cn make a difference,,,, let em rot in ignorance n stupidity c's you'l be talkin to hollow-heads man. what a hoooot they're but...very entertainin if you just sit and watch them go like they was real 'thinkers' man---hahahahaha, theyr a riot!!!!bye all.
hey adoucette a_ht, like I said to Schneibster in them thar basic-physics and prove-collapse threads, man---these redneck anarchistwannabes aint interested in physics and knowlrdge, just CONSPIRACY FIXES man, theyr 'junkies' for that crap drug man...either that or they're stooges drummin up publicity n exposure for some MORON BOOKS on a conspiracy or other. that's how they make their LIVIN man, selling idiocy tu idiots like these man. don't waste your time and smarts on this garbage by SPAMMERS 'n SCAMMERS 'n SUCKERS man.use it where you cn make a difference,,,, let em rot in ignorance n stupidity c's you'l be talkin to hollow-heads man. what a hoooot they're but...very entertainin if you just sit and watch them go like they was real 'thinkers' man---hahahahaha, theyr a riot!!!!bye all.
conspiracy fools.
you'd sooner put blame on our government because they want what exactly, hhhmm? to enslave humanity? Our government is so evil and crazy they think china and the rest of the world will happily bend over while we rape their resources to feed a few american fat pigs?
how about al qaeda and radical islam? nooo couldnt be them.
Do you idiots (yes you conspiracy obsessed people are idiots) not see with your own eyes what radical islam is up to? Do you have any grasp of history?
you want to find some smoking gun evidence to back up your claims Bushitler did it. Forget the blatant motives of radical islam. forget the 'death to america'. forget the countless islamic terroristattacks that you see with your own eyes.
no, no you have be a little sherlock holmes and somehow find proof that the u.s. government is evil and out to destroy the world.
and whats the motive exactly for dominating the world? oil profits? Perpetuating the infamous 'war machine'? to what end? WHY? so bush's daughters can be queens and get their own countries to rule? Good god
clueless.. miind numbingly clueless. sucks to be you.
let me say it again: IDIOTS!
maybe osama will save you.
you'd sooner put blame on our government because they want what exactly, hhhmm? to enslave humanity? Our government is so evil and crazy they think china and the rest of the world will happily bend over while we rape their resources to feed a few american fat pigs?
how about al qaeda and radical islam? nooo couldnt be them.
Do you idiots (yes you conspiracy obsessed people are idiots) not see with your own eyes what radical islam is up to? Do you have any grasp of history?
you want to find some smoking gun evidence to back up your claims Bushitler did it. Forget the blatant motives of radical islam. forget the 'death to america'. forget the countless islamic terroristattacks that you see with your own eyes.
no, no you have be a little sherlock holmes and somehow find proof that the u.s. government is evil and out to destroy the world.
and whats the motive exactly for dominating the world? oil profits? Perpetuating the infamous 'war machine'? to what end? WHY? so bush's daughters can be queens and get their own countries to rule? Good god
clueless.. miind numbingly clueless. sucks to be you.
let me say it again: IDIOTS!
maybe osama will save you.
Hi,
As with the destruction of the WTC, there are plenty of Physics questions regarding this terrible incident. However, it does not seem possible to do the same kind of basic analysis as for the twin towers, mainly because only the aftermath has been shown publicly, rather than the main disaster itself. Also, the available witness testimonies conflict in a few cases. I think some of the Physics related questions might be:
1) If a plane did indeed crash, why did the roof section collapse about 20 minutes after the impact? Given the height of the plane, the roof section which collapsed, should not have been intact (or least, not at the front of the building) after the plane hit.
2) How was it possible to fly the plane at about 500 mph, 2 feet above the ground without (a) a "ground cushion" effect and (
the powerful jet engines' thrust blowing cars off the road as the plane approached the impact point (a good example of this is shown in the Loose Change video, downloadable in 2 parts here http://www.question911.com/links.php)?
3) How was it possible to identify victims' DNA after the fire at the Pentagon, but not after the WTC disaster when they were essentially both caused by fuel-laden aircraft and fireballs (according to the official story)?
4) Even though pictures from the disaster show *certain* sections of the damaged interior of the Pentagon without any fire damage, there is no evidence of any bodies, luggage or other similar recognisable evidence - if they had burned up in a hot fire, why do we see things like an unburned book on an unburned stool?
There are many similar questions, to which the Official Story has no real answers.
As with the destruction of the WTC, there are plenty of Physics questions regarding this terrible incident. However, it does not seem possible to do the same kind of basic analysis as for the twin towers, mainly because only the aftermath has been shown publicly, rather than the main disaster itself. Also, the available witness testimonies conflict in a few cases. I think some of the Physics related questions might be:
1) If a plane did indeed crash, why did the roof section collapse about 20 minutes after the impact? Given the height of the plane, the roof section which collapsed, should not have been intact (or least, not at the front of the building) after the plane hit.
2) How was it possible to fly the plane at about 500 mph, 2 feet above the ground without (a) a "ground cushion" effect and (
the powerful jet engines' thrust blowing cars off the road as the plane approached the impact point (a good example of this is shown in the Loose Change video, downloadable in 2 parts here http://www.question911.com/links.php)?3) How was it possible to identify victims' DNA after the fire at the Pentagon, but not after the WTC disaster when they were essentially both caused by fuel-laden aircraft and fireballs (according to the official story)?
4) Even though pictures from the disaster show *certain* sections of the damaged interior of the Pentagon without any fire damage, there is no evidence of any bodies, luggage or other similar recognisable evidence - if they had burned up in a hot fire, why do we see things like an unburned book on an unburned stool?
There are many similar questions, to which the Official Story has no real answers.
adoucette;
You don't consider a fully loaded 757 (passengers, fuel, luggage and cargo) launching from a dead stop, into the sky, under full throttle, a huge source of lateral stress on the wings??? . You implied they would just fold in as if they were hinged or attached with crazy glue. Everyone who's ever flown feels those early G- forces and I'm sure the wing joint does to. If the wings were laterally weak, wouldn't inertia cause them to fail and shear forward. The nose hits first, slowing the body and the wings, attached to but away from the body (high MOI), keep going. Hence, weak laterally structured wings would shear at the wing/body joint as their inertial velocity, snaps them ahead of the slowing body. Strong or weak the 757s wings should have hit the Pentagon.Then there's your shear bolt argument. If the bolts are designed to protect the wing from sudden de-acceleration by shearing and releasing the engines from their mounts shouldn't there have been 2 concavities on the wall as the plane made the ULTIMATE DE-CEL. Then you tried to down play the inertial mass of the engines but you ignored the effects of the forward engine thrust, propulsive to the very end.----- How convenient, that every trace of whatever hit the Pentagon was eviscerated and that the cameras their and at the WTCs' were not operational. How ironic, that Marvin Bush was in charge of security at the WTCs and Logan airport. How peculiar, that the 2nd tower, which was hit with a more glancing blow dumping much of it's fuel to the side, collapsed BEFORE the 1st. The most suspicious of all was building 7. Implosion experts spend weeks reviewing blue prints and doing stress analysis of every primary and secondary load bearing structure in buildings scheduled for demolition. Wall, floor and roof materials need to be gutted and/or factored in. Then the size and location of the individual explosives are determined. Networks of horizontal arrays are created. Last, but hardly least, is the critical sequential timing of the vertical arrays. The design always strives to focus the blasts evenly and balanced through out the structure. All this intense preparation and the guys who do this for a living still worry to the last minute-- did we miss something?--- Now, we have a building that just decides to demolish itself. An "Immaculate Implosion". No attempt is made to save the steel or to investigate; how a perfect A+ implosion event could have resulted from the unbalanced, indirect effects of a rolling blast cloud, from the descending structure and debris. Off course there was damage, but compared to the devastated Oaklahoma City Federal building, #7 was relatively intact and not engulfed by fire like the WTC's. The official logic of why the WTC's started pancaking was: Because of total sub-structual failure, due to the collision and fire, effecting the floor sections near the impact zone: the massive, intact upper section, therefore crashed downward, initiating the chain reaction. The conclusion is plausible, if you ignore the anomaly of a collapse rate unusually close to free fall. The premises however, are based on bitterly debated failure conditions. Official logic of why Building #7 pancacked was: Because of its' close proximity to the WTC, resulting in exposure to the debris cloud: building #7, therefore sustains a catastrophic infrastructure failure, sufficient to support a pancake implosion-- WITHOUT a kinetic ignition force. In other words; it fell down because it couldn't stand up. --- The official story has more craters in it than the landscape of cambodia, after a wing of B-52's extended some of that good old american hospitality, from 30,000 ft., during the Viet- Nam war. Never mind that Cambodia was never a declared enemy . Estimates based on persons per acre in the effected areas have casualties and wounded ranging from 100,000 to as high as a million or more. Who knows. We were to too busy denying it, then and now, to be concerned about such things. I'm sure it did little to help keep a lid on Pol Pots' eventual psychotic meltdown. We created Bin Laden in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. We created hussein to establish a secularized state; to make it easier to be near the oil, eavesdrop on the Soviets (and others?) and eventually fight those "hostage taking" Iranians with all the non-nuclear WMDs', delivery systems and user training the U.S. (primary) and other European countries (secondary) could provide. Then, when the cherished family pit bull maims the child, they call in animal control, disassociate ownership, castigate the dog, and order it to be shot. After a while they a get a new one, because power by proxy is a required tool of an empire. Truth? Whose truth?
You don't consider a fully loaded 757 (passengers, fuel, luggage and cargo) launching from a dead stop, into the sky, under full throttle, a huge source of lateral stress on the wings??? . You implied they would just fold in as if they were hinged or attached with crazy glue. Everyone who's ever flown feels those early G- forces and I'm sure the wing joint does to. If the wings were laterally weak, wouldn't inertia cause them to fail and shear forward. The nose hits first, slowing the body and the wings, attached to but away from the body (high MOI), keep going. Hence, weak laterally structured wings would shear at the wing/body joint as their inertial velocity, snaps them ahead of the slowing body. Strong or weak the 757s wings should have hit the Pentagon.Then there's your shear bolt argument. If the bolts are designed to protect the wing from sudden de-acceleration by shearing and releasing the engines from their mounts shouldn't there have been 2 concavities on the wall as the plane made the ULTIMATE DE-CEL. Then you tried to down play the inertial mass of the engines but you ignored the effects of the forward engine thrust, propulsive to the very end.----- How convenient, that every trace of whatever hit the Pentagon was eviscerated and that the cameras their and at the WTCs' were not operational. How ironic, that Marvin Bush was in charge of security at the WTCs and Logan airport. How peculiar, that the 2nd tower, which was hit with a more glancing blow dumping much of it's fuel to the side, collapsed BEFORE the 1st. The most suspicious of all was building 7. Implosion experts spend weeks reviewing blue prints and doing stress analysis of every primary and secondary load bearing structure in buildings scheduled for demolition. Wall, floor and roof materials need to be gutted and/or factored in. Then the size and location of the individual explosives are determined. Networks of horizontal arrays are created. Last, but hardly least, is the critical sequential timing of the vertical arrays. The design always strives to focus the blasts evenly and balanced through out the structure. All this intense preparation and the guys who do this for a living still worry to the last minute-- did we miss something?--- Now, we have a building that just decides to demolish itself. An "Immaculate Implosion". No attempt is made to save the steel or to investigate; how a perfect A+ implosion event could have resulted from the unbalanced, indirect effects of a rolling blast cloud, from the descending structure and debris. Off course there was damage, but compared to the devastated Oaklahoma City Federal building, #7 was relatively intact and not engulfed by fire like the WTC's. The official logic of why the WTC's started pancaking was: Because of total sub-structual failure, due to the collision and fire, effecting the floor sections near the impact zone: the massive, intact upper section, therefore crashed downward, initiating the chain reaction. The conclusion is plausible, if you ignore the anomaly of a collapse rate unusually close to free fall. The premises however, are based on bitterly debated failure conditions. Official logic of why Building #7 pancacked was: Because of its' close proximity to the WTC, resulting in exposure to the debris cloud: building #7, therefore sustains a catastrophic infrastructure failure, sufficient to support a pancake implosion-- WITHOUT a kinetic ignition force. In other words; it fell down because it couldn't stand up. --- The official story has more craters in it than the landscape of cambodia, after a wing of B-52's extended some of that good old american hospitality, from 30,000 ft., during the Viet- Nam war. Never mind that Cambodia was never a declared enemy . Estimates based on persons per acre in the effected areas have casualties and wounded ranging from 100,000 to as high as a million or more. Who knows. We were to too busy denying it, then and now, to be concerned about such things. I'm sure it did little to help keep a lid on Pol Pots' eventual psychotic meltdown. We created Bin Laden in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. We created hussein to establish a secularized state; to make it easier to be near the oil, eavesdrop on the Soviets (and others?) and eventually fight those "hostage taking" Iranians with all the non-nuclear WMDs', delivery systems and user training the U.S. (primary) and other European countries (secondary) could provide. Then, when the cherished family pit bull maims the child, they call in animal control, disassociate ownership, castigate the dog, and order it to be shot. After a while they a get a new one, because power by proxy is a required tool of an empire. Truth? Whose truth?
I won't feed the trolls, since they already do a pretty good job at making it clear for everyone on which side of this issue the intellectual, rational and moral people stand.
manifespo, I wanted to point out a common mistake in your otherwise excellent post:
You don't consider a fully loaded 757 (passengers, fuel and luggage/cargo) launching from a dead stop, into the sky, under full throttle a huge source of lateral stress on the wings??? .
No, and neither does the FAA.
There are NO lateral wing load requirements imposed by the FAA's design criteria.
See: http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/structures/FAR301.html
By the way, at maximum acceleration, the load factor on the wing would be less than 1 G, while in flight vertical gust loads could easily exceed 3 Gs. While even a 1 G acceleration (not possible) would only load a wing by the weight of 1/2 of the wing, the wing root, at 3 Gs is taking a force equal to 3 times that of the entire aircraft.
Hence, the typical "I" beam construction of the wing spar and spar doubler provide this kind of vertical strength. There is no such structure to provide significant lateral strength.
I'm not saying its weak, but it does make sense that it would fail in this case by folding backward.
Arthur
The plane is 150 tons at maximum takeoff weight.
Empty the plane is about 1/2 that.
Each wing is probably about 1/4 of that, or roughly 15 tons or so.
The wings are designed to be light but strong.
Of course these are relative terms, but its not like a building where you can provide strength through mass. An aircraft designer's whole goal is to create strength while keeping weight to a minimum. Since the wings have such a large surface area, and for aerodynamic reasons have to be relatively thin, nothing goes into the structure that isn't needed to handle anticipated flight loads + a margin for safety.
Wings don't experience multiple g loads in a lateral direction so they aren't designed to handle them.
Arthur
manifespo, I wanted to point out a common mistake in your otherwise excellent post:
QUOTE (manifespo+Oct 21 2005, 06:53 PM)
and NORAD? they intercepted Payne Stewarts plane within 15 minutes...
According to the actual NTSB report the ATC lost contact with the Payne Stewart plane at 09:33 EDT. The plane was intercepted around 09:54 CDT (i.e. 10:54EDT), or about one hour and twenty-one minutes later. "About 1010 EDT, the accident airplane crossed from the EDT zone to the CDT zone in the vicinity of Eufaula, Alabama."
By getting Eastern time and Central time mixed up, even some mainstream media reports were incorrect on the Stewart story. Like I said, the rest of your post was very good, but since the traitors use innocent mistakes like this one as weapons against right-thinking people like yourself (in the same way they use insults and personal attacks) I thought I'd bring it up first.
According to the actual NTSB report the ATC lost contact with the Payne Stewart plane at 09:33 EDT. The plane was intercepted around 09:54 CDT (i.e. 10:54EDT), or about one hour and twenty-one minutes later. "About 1010 EDT, the accident airplane crossed from the EDT zone to the CDT zone in the vicinity of Eufaula, Alabama."
By getting Eastern time and Central time mixed up, even some mainstream media reports were incorrect on the Stewart story. Like I said, the rest of your post was very good, but since the traitors use innocent mistakes like this one as weapons against right-thinking people like yourself (in the same way they use insults and personal attacks) I thought I'd bring it up first.
QUOTE (Guest_scott+Oct 21 2005, 03:39 PM)
conspiracy fools.
you'd sooner put blame on our government because they want what exactly, hhhmm? to enslave humanity? Our government is so evil and crazy they think china and the rest of the world will happily bend over while we rape their resources to feed a few american fat pigs?
how about al qaeda and radical islam? nooo couldnt be them.
Do you idiots (yes you conspiracy obsessed people are idiots) not see with your own eyes what radical islam is up to? Do you have any grasp of history?
you want to find some smoking gun evidence to back up your claims Bushitler did it. Forget the blatant motives of radical islam. forget the 'death to america'. forget the countless islamic terroristattacks that you see with your own eyes.
no, no you have be a little sherlock holmes and somehow find proof that the u.s. government is evil and out to destroy the world.
and whats the motive exactly for dominating the world? oil profits? Perpetuating the infamous 'war machine'? to what end? WHY? so bush's daughters can be queens and get their own countries to rule? Good god
clueless.. miind numbingly clueless. sucks to be you.
let me say it again: IDIOTS!
maybe osama will save you.
You're ignoring the physical evidence and laws of physics to go off on tangents about politics. I asked how the plane passed through a single hole, 15-20 feet across. And how the plane bounced off the lawn without causing any damage to it. And how a fire hot enough to not just melt, but consume many tons of metal could have left delicate DNA of all the passengers intact. Folding wings and tail? That's absurd.
If the physical evidence doesn't agree with the popular theory, then the theory must be wrong, no matter how much heresay it has behind it. Eyewitnesses, news reports, and guesswork are only good for theorizing; they aren't solid proof.
A huge airliner, at 520 mph, doesn't even blast off the decorative outermost facade of brittle limestone where the wings, engines, and tail section would have hit it? A Honda Civic at 50 mph would certainly leave visible impact damage to the facade. The "757", at 520 mph did not. Oh, except for that incredible single hole which was made by the fuselage, through three complete wings of the building.
If the "757" entered the building, then it all went into the single small hole. If it didn't, then it remained outside the building. Since it's obvious from all pics that it didn't remain outside, anyone who supports the official story has to explain how a 757 can pass through a small single hole. This means the "folding wings and tail" theory has to be explained. What force would have been acting upon these structures as claimed? How much time elapsed between the nose impacting and the wings impacting? Is this enough time for anyone to seriously believe such large structures could have moved any appreciable amount in relation to the fuselage?
In short, the "folding wings and tail" theory is so farfetched as to be ludicrous. However farfetched it may seem that our own government attacked us on 9/11, it's at least physically possible, which is much more than can be said about the "folding wings and tail" theory.
Look at the well-known video of the F4 hitting a twelve-foot-thick super-strong reinforced wall. It blasts the hell out the wall, spraying concrete everywhere. Don't you think it would have done the same to the Pentagon wall, which was far less strong? And did the wings and tail show any sign of having moved in relation to the fuselage, never mind folding up alongside it?
Physics and physical evidence is the only useful tool for debate, on any subject where a theory is in sharp conflict with the physical evidence. No matter how popular a theory is, if physics and physical evidence prove it didn't happen, then the theory is wrong.
you'd sooner put blame on our government because they want what exactly, hhhmm? to enslave humanity? Our government is so evil and crazy they think china and the rest of the world will happily bend over while we rape their resources to feed a few american fat pigs?
how about al qaeda and radical islam? nooo couldnt be them.
Do you idiots (yes you conspiracy obsessed people are idiots) not see with your own eyes what radical islam is up to? Do you have any grasp of history?
you want to find some smoking gun evidence to back up your claims Bushitler did it. Forget the blatant motives of radical islam. forget the 'death to america'. forget the countless islamic terroristattacks that you see with your own eyes.
no, no you have be a little sherlock holmes and somehow find proof that the u.s. government is evil and out to destroy the world.
and whats the motive exactly for dominating the world? oil profits? Perpetuating the infamous 'war machine'? to what end? WHY? so bush's daughters can be queens and get their own countries to rule? Good god
clueless.. miind numbingly clueless. sucks to be you.
let me say it again: IDIOTS!
maybe osama will save you.
You're ignoring the physical evidence and laws of physics to go off on tangents about politics. I asked how the plane passed through a single hole, 15-20 feet across. And how the plane bounced off the lawn without causing any damage to it. And how a fire hot enough to not just melt, but consume many tons of metal could have left delicate DNA of all the passengers intact. Folding wings and tail? That's absurd.
If the physical evidence doesn't agree with the popular theory, then the theory must be wrong, no matter how much heresay it has behind it. Eyewitnesses, news reports, and guesswork are only good for theorizing; they aren't solid proof.
A huge airliner, at 520 mph, doesn't even blast off the decorative outermost facade of brittle limestone where the wings, engines, and tail section would have hit it? A Honda Civic at 50 mph would certainly leave visible impact damage to the facade. The "757", at 520 mph did not. Oh, except for that incredible single hole which was made by the fuselage, through three complete wings of the building.
If the "757" entered the building, then it all went into the single small hole. If it didn't, then it remained outside the building. Since it's obvious from all pics that it didn't remain outside, anyone who supports the official story has to explain how a 757 can pass through a small single hole. This means the "folding wings and tail" theory has to be explained. What force would have been acting upon these structures as claimed? How much time elapsed between the nose impacting and the wings impacting? Is this enough time for anyone to seriously believe such large structures could have moved any appreciable amount in relation to the fuselage?
In short, the "folding wings and tail" theory is so farfetched as to be ludicrous. However farfetched it may seem that our own government attacked us on 9/11, it's at least physically possible, which is much more than can be said about the "folding wings and tail" theory.
Look at the well-known video of the F4 hitting a twelve-foot-thick super-strong reinforced wall. It blasts the hell out the wall, spraying concrete everywhere. Don't you think it would have done the same to the Pentagon wall, which was far less strong? And did the wings and tail show any sign of having moved in relation to the fuselage, never mind folding up alongside it?
Physics and physical evidence is the only useful tool for debate, on any subject where a theory is in sharp conflict with the physical evidence. No matter how popular a theory is, if physics and physical evidence prove it didn't happen, then the theory is wrong.
QUOTE (computer fogie+Oct 21 2005, 11:23 PM)
You're ignoring the physical evidence and laws of physics to go off on tangents about politics.....
Ignoring physical evidence? Arent you conspiracy nuts ignoring reality?
Sorry, USA is not evil and bent on world domination. Go on 'n on all you want, I'll eat my words the day I am proved wrong. (won't happen)
A couple years ago I actually worked on the 9/11 WTC DAMAGE ASSESSMENT with 20 other engineers. Our goal was to assess the DAMAGE to the twin towers and the subsequent collapse. Not one person raised doubt on the physics of the collapse, and these guys are experts in explosions, material science, airplane pphysics, etc. The comanyy analyzed countless plane crashes, industrial accidents, off-shore oil rig collapses, exploding factories, etc. If theres a disaster anywhere, these engineers are there to analyse and report the results. It's their specialty. This company once had the name 'Failure Analysis Associates', they later changed it to something else. Talk to those guys, and they'll rip you a new one faster than you can say 'bush did it'.
Anyhow how do these crazy theories fit into the whole picture? Lets say our government did it. ok, WHY? to what end? it makes no sense. What's the point in the US staging this sort of event? whats the anticipated result, and how does America ultimately prosper?
Face it, a few crazy terrorists hit us hard. the terrorists not only have motive, they are vocal about it. it's 'what they do'. they like doing that kind of thing.
Now, if you just want to analyze the damage to the pentagon for instance and point out, "interesting physics, much to be learned because the damage is unusual" and leave it at THAT. OK, good discussion. But as soon as things like "perhaps a missle", or "the planes were packed with explossives planted by the CIA", etc, my eyes glaze over.
*** am I wasting my time trying to talk sense into you crazy people? oh yeah, it drives me nuts to hear this kind of crap, so I unleash my daily pent up angst on you. Ahh better...
Ignoring physical evidence? Arent you conspiracy nuts ignoring reality?
Sorry, USA is not evil and bent on world domination. Go on 'n on all you want, I'll eat my words the day I am proved wrong. (won't happen)
A couple years ago I actually worked on the 9/11 WTC DAMAGE ASSESSMENT with 20 other engineers. Our goal was to assess the DAMAGE to the twin towers and the subsequent collapse. Not one person raised doubt on the physics of the collapse, and these guys are experts in explosions, material science, airplane pphysics, etc. The comanyy analyzed countless plane crashes, industrial accidents, off-shore oil rig collapses, exploding factories, etc. If theres a disaster anywhere, these engineers are there to analyse and report the results. It's their specialty. This company once had the name 'Failure Analysis Associates', they later changed it to something else. Talk to those guys, and they'll rip you a new one faster than you can say 'bush did it'.
Anyhow how do these crazy theories fit into the whole picture? Lets say our government did it. ok, WHY? to what end? it makes no sense. What's the point in the US staging this sort of event? whats the anticipated result, and how does America ultimately prosper?
Face it, a few crazy terrorists hit us hard. the terrorists not only have motive, they are vocal about it. it's 'what they do'. they like doing that kind of thing.
Now, if you just want to analyze the damage to the pentagon for instance and point out, "interesting physics, much to be learned because the damage is unusual" and leave it at THAT. OK, good discussion. But as soon as things like "perhaps a missle", or "the planes were packed with explossives planted by the CIA", etc, my eyes glaze over.
*** am I wasting my time trying to talk sense into you crazy people? oh yeah, it drives me nuts to hear this kind of crap, so I unleash my daily pent up angst on you. Ahh better...
What I find odd is the number of "Unregistered Guests"... all seeming to have the same viewpoint...(not referring to 'piper' here) I wonder why these "unregistered guests" don't sign up to become "members". IP addresses might be a problem, do you think ???
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Oct 21 2005, 09:55 PM)
You don't consider a fully loaded 757 (passengers, fuel and luggage/cargo) launching from a dead stop, into the sky, under full throttle a huge source of lateral stress on the wings??? .
No, and neither does the FAA.
There are NO lateral wing load requirements imposed by the FAA's design criteria.
See: http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/structures/FAR301.html
By the way, at maximum acceleration, the load factor on the wing would be less than 1 G, while in flight vertical gust loads could easily exceed 3 Gs. While even a 1 G acceleration (not possible) would only load a wing by the weight of 1/2 of the wing, the wing root, at 3 Gs is taking a force equal to 3 times that of the entire aircraft.
Hence, the typical "I" beam construction of the wing spar and spar doubler provide this kind of vertical strength. There is no such structure to provide significant lateral strength.
I'm not saying its weak, but it does make sense that it would fail in this case by folding backward.
Arthur
QUOTE
The wings are designed to have a very large surface area, while at the same time having a very low weight. (no numbers? the plane is 150 tons right?)
The plane is 150 tons at maximum takeoff weight.
Empty the plane is about 1/2 that.
Each wing is probably about 1/4 of that, or roughly 15 tons or so.
The wings are designed to be light but strong.
Of course these are relative terms, but its not like a building where you can provide strength through mass. An aircraft designer's whole goal is to create strength while keeping weight to a minimum. Since the wings have such a large surface area, and for aerodynamic reasons have to be relatively thin, nothing goes into the structure that isn't needed to handle anticipated flight loads + a margin for safety.
Wings don't experience multiple g loads in a lateral direction so they aren't designed to handle them.
Arthur
A site with substantial evidence of a 757 hitting the Pentagon:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pe...e_evidence.html
Arthur
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pe...e_evidence.html
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 22 2005, 11:21 PM)
...I'm not saying its weak, but it does make sense that it would fail in this case by folding backward...
Can you give me some idea of why there would be any force pushing the wings backward (relative to the fuselage) as the plane hit the building? I can understand why the wings inertia would have tended to make them try to continue forward as the fuselage first made contact, but not backward.
In order to make the wings and tail "hinge" at their attachment points and fold up completely alongside the fuselage before they passed through the hole made by the fuselage, there would have to be a tremendous force acting on them. Their forward motion would have been almost completely stopped for this to happen, right?
I'm totally confused. I've heard experts say the wings and tail folded forward, and that they folded backward. Neither scenario sounds remotely plausible. Please note that I'm not suggesting any alternative explanations; I'm only noting that there are several glaring inconsistencies between the official story and the physical evidence. I'm not discussing politics, I'm saying that there are major problems with the official story that aren't going unnoticed by large numbers of people.
Not one detail of the official story is consistent with other plane crashes, photographic evidence, or basic-level physical laws. I think this is why there is such a rapidly growing number of people who have serious doubts.
Can you give me some idea of why there would be any force pushing the wings backward (relative to the fuselage) as the plane hit the building? I can understand why the wings inertia would have tended to make them try to continue forward as the fuselage first made contact, but not backward.
In order to make the wings and tail "hinge" at their attachment points and fold up completely alongside the fuselage before they passed through the hole made by the fuselage, there would have to be a tremendous force acting on them. Their forward motion would have been almost completely stopped for this to happen, right?
I'm totally confused. I've heard experts say the wings and tail folded forward, and that they folded backward. Neither scenario sounds remotely plausible. Please note that I'm not suggesting any alternative explanations; I'm only noting that there are several glaring inconsistencies between the official story and the physical evidence. I'm not discussing politics, I'm saying that there are major problems with the official story that aren't going unnoticed by large numbers of people.
Not one detail of the official story is consistent with other plane crashes, photographic evidence, or basic-level physical laws. I think this is why there is such a rapidly growing number of people who have serious doubts.
Ok, first, folding backward is simply a description to convey what occurred.
But from a physical point of view, I think it would be more like this:
An aircraft is built on a keel and almost all of the structure is in the bottom 1/2 of the aircraft, above the passenger floor is essentially just a thin aluminum tube, so the plane is really more like a fairly solid D shape (facing down) with a C shape above it.
When the plane hit it punched a hole through the outer wall but barely slowed down, when the wings hit they enlarged the hole (the fuselage is smaller than the hole) but in doing so they slowed down as the plane continued, the front of the wing would detach and the wings would, be pulled into the hole, but to do so, they would pivot backwards. At this point, all that would be left of the wings would most likely be the spars, the rest disintegrating on impact.
Just my opinion.
Contrary to what I've seen posted in these threads, there is evidence of the wing impact on the outside of the structure, and at least one engine entered the building (one impacted a large diesel generator outside the building, not sure of its eventual resting place) and punched a large hole in the 2nd wall. Its remains are clearly visible in the pictures from inside the pentagon, and it is clearly a large jet engine.
Arthur
But from a physical point of view, I think it would be more like this:
An aircraft is built on a keel and almost all of the structure is in the bottom 1/2 of the aircraft, above the passenger floor is essentially just a thin aluminum tube, so the plane is really more like a fairly solid D shape (facing down) with a C shape above it.
When the plane hit it punched a hole through the outer wall but barely slowed down, when the wings hit they enlarged the hole (the fuselage is smaller than the hole) but in doing so they slowed down as the plane continued, the front of the wing would detach and the wings would, be pulled into the hole, but to do so, they would pivot backwards. At this point, all that would be left of the wings would most likely be the spars, the rest disintegrating on impact.
Just my opinion.
Contrary to what I've seen posted in these threads, there is evidence of the wing impact on the outside of the structure, and at least one engine entered the building (one impacted a large diesel generator outside the building, not sure of its eventual resting place) and punched a large hole in the 2nd wall. Its remains are clearly visible in the pictures from inside the pentagon, and it is clearly a large jet engine.
Arthur
adoucette,
Yes, 1 engine is shown in the pictures. However, when you make comparitive measurements it's considerably smaller than the engine of a 757 - by several feet.
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/121003mysteryenginepart.html
The experts can't apparently agree on what type of engine it is (quite odd when you consider the relative clarity of the picture).
The damage to the pentagon isn't consistent enough with a 757 hitting to support the official story. If you haven't already, please watch "Painful Deceptions" and see what you think of the analysis of Pentagon evidence:
http://www.question911.com/links.php
I happen to think it is dispassionate, fair and balanced.
Yes, 1 engine is shown in the pictures. However, when you make comparitive measurements it's considerably smaller than the engine of a 757 - by several feet.
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/121003mysteryenginepart.html
The experts can't apparently agree on what type of engine it is (quite odd when you consider the relative clarity of the picture).
The damage to the pentagon isn't consistent enough with a 757 hitting to support the official story. If you haven't already, please watch "Painful Deceptions" and see what you think of the analysis of Pentagon evidence:
http://www.question911.com/links.php
I happen to think it is dispassionate, fair and balanced.
QUOTE (Guest_scott+Oct 22 2005, 02:42 AM)
QUOTE (computer fogie+Oct 21 2005, 11:23 PM)
You're ignoring the physical evidence and laws of physics to go off on tangents about politics.....
Ignoring physical evidence? Arent you conspiracy nuts ignoring reality?
Sorry, USA is not evil and bent on world domination. Go on 'n on all you want, I'll eat my words the day I am proved wrong. (won't happen)
A couple years ago I actually worked on the 9/11 WTC DAMAGE ASSESSMENT with 20 other engineers. Our goal was to assess the DAMAGE to the twin towers and the subsequent collapse. Not one person raised doubt on the physics of the collapse, and these guys are experts in explosions, material science, airplane pphysics, etc. The comanyy analyzed countless plane crashes, industrial accidents, off-shore oil rig collapses, exploding factories, etc. If theres a disaster anywhere, these engineers are there to analyse and report the results. It's their specialty. This company once had the name 'Failure Analysis Associates', they later changed it to something else. Talk to those guys, and they'll rip you a new one faster than you can say 'bush did it'.
Anyhow how do these crazy theories fit into the whole picture? Lets say our government did it. ok, WHY? to what end? it makes no sense. What's the point in the US staging this sort of event? whats the anticipated result, and how does America ultimately prosper?
Face it, a few crazy terrorists hit us hard. the terrorists not only have motive, they are vocal about it. it's 'what they do'. they like doing that kind of thing.
Now, if you just want to analyze the damage to the pentagon for instance and point out, "interesting physics, much to be learned because the damage is unusual" and leave it at THAT. OK, good discussion. But as soon as things like "perhaps a missle", or "the planes were packed with explossives planted by the CIA", etc, my eyes glaze over.
*** am I wasting my time trying to talk sense into you crazy people? oh yeah, it drives me nuts to hear this kind of crap, so I unleash my daily pent up angst on you. Ahh better...
Going off on an emotional tirade, while still ignoring the simple and valid questions I raised, does nothing to support your position. Name-calling and ranting about "conspiracy nuts" don't make for a very orderly discussion. Either you care to answer my questions, or you don't.
I mentioned nothing about missiles, or explosives planted by the CIA, did I? Why not just address the points I raised? If you don't want to do that for some reason, then perhaps you should vent your frustration at a deserving target, and leave the serious discussion to others on the board.
I posted a link to a site with extensive photos of the damage, including this one:
Damage from right engine, note circular mark.
Arthur
Ignoring physical evidence? Arent you conspiracy nuts ignoring reality?
Sorry, USA is not evil and bent on world domination. Go on 'n on all you want, I'll eat my words the day I am proved wrong. (won't happen)
A couple years ago I actually worked on the 9/11 WTC DAMAGE ASSESSMENT with 20 other engineers. Our goal was to assess the DAMAGE to the twin towers and the subsequent collapse. Not one person raised doubt on the physics of the collapse, and these guys are experts in explosions, material science, airplane pphysics, etc. The comanyy analyzed countless plane crashes, industrial accidents, off-shore oil rig collapses, exploding factories, etc. If theres a disaster anywhere, these engineers are there to analyse and report the results. It's their specialty. This company once had the name 'Failure Analysis Associates', they later changed it to something else. Talk to those guys, and they'll rip you a new one faster than you can say 'bush did it'.
Anyhow how do these crazy theories fit into the whole picture? Lets say our government did it. ok, WHY? to what end? it makes no sense. What's the point in the US staging this sort of event? whats the anticipated result, and how does America ultimately prosper?
Face it, a few crazy terrorists hit us hard. the terrorists not only have motive, they are vocal about it. it's 'what they do'. they like doing that kind of thing.
Now, if you just want to analyze the damage to the pentagon for instance and point out, "interesting physics, much to be learned because the damage is unusual" and leave it at THAT. OK, good discussion. But as soon as things like "perhaps a missle", or "the planes were packed with explossives planted by the CIA", etc, my eyes glaze over.
*** am I wasting my time trying to talk sense into you crazy people? oh yeah, it drives me nuts to hear this kind of crap, so I unleash my daily pent up angst on you. Ahh better...
Going off on an emotional tirade, while still ignoring the simple and valid questions I raised, does nothing to support your position. Name-calling and ranting about "conspiracy nuts" don't make for a very orderly discussion. Either you care to answer my questions, or you don't.
I mentioned nothing about missiles, or explosives planted by the CIA, did I? Why not just address the points I raised? If you don't want to do that for some reason, then perhaps you should vent your frustration at a deserving target, and leave the serious discussion to others on the board.
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 23 2005, 01:23 AM)
...the front of the wing would detach and the wings would, be pulled into the hole, but to do so, they would pivot backwards.
...Contrary to what I've seen posted in these threads, there is evidence of the wing impact on the outside of the structure, and at least one engine entered the building...
Again, can you give me some idea of what forces would act on the wings (and tail, I assume?) to "pull them into the hole", or "pivot backwards"?
If you've seen a pic of damage the wings (or tail, and especially the engines) caused by impacting the outer wall, can you post it?
Multi-ton jet engines hitting a wall at 520 have to leave major visible damage. I haven't seen any evidence of any kind of damage done by the wings, engine, or tail section. These are susbstantial structures; to dismiss their mass, moving at 520 mph, as being incapable of causing major damage to a wall, however sturdy it may be, is unreasonable and contrary to basic logic and physical law.
In all my research and discussion on this subject I've yet to hear anyone provide an explanation that fits within basic physical laws. A lawn that shows no damage after having a 757 bounces off it, DNA that survives a fire so intense it consumed tons of metal, folding wings and tail; these are more than minor details.
...Contrary to what I've seen posted in these threads, there is evidence of the wing impact on the outside of the structure, and at least one engine entered the building...
Again, can you give me some idea of what forces would act on the wings (and tail, I assume?) to "pull them into the hole", or "pivot backwards"?
If you've seen a pic of damage the wings (or tail, and especially the engines) caused by impacting the outer wall, can you post it?
Multi-ton jet engines hitting a wall at 520 have to leave major visible damage. I haven't seen any evidence of any kind of damage done by the wings, engine, or tail section. These are susbstantial structures; to dismiss their mass, moving at 520 mph, as being incapable of causing major damage to a wall, however sturdy it may be, is unreasonable and contrary to basic logic and physical law.
In all my research and discussion on this subject I've yet to hear anyone provide an explanation that fits within basic physical laws. A lawn that shows no damage after having a 757 bounces off it, DNA that survives a fire so intense it consumed tons of metal, folding wings and tail; these are more than minor details.
QUOTE
If you've seen a pic of damage the wings (or tail, and especially the engines) caused by impacting the outer wall, can you post it?
I posted a link to a site with extensive photos of the damage, including this one:
Damage from right engine, note circular mark.
Arthur
Hi
I know there is a lot of controversy over what these photos actually show. That particular one is difficult to judge, because a considerable amount of the facade of the building is obscured by fire-hose spray.
Of the part that isn't, however, my view is that a relatively small portion of facade rendering damage and a few dislodged bricks is not damage consistent with an object (discounting its internal angular momentum energy) weighing about 23 tonnes smashing into the wall at 500 mph.
But I freely admit that this is just my best guess and would not be permissable in a court of law as a qualified opinion!
I know there is a lot of controversy over what these photos actually show. That particular one is difficult to judge, because a considerable amount of the facade of the building is obscured by fire-hose spray.
Of the part that isn't, however, my view is that a relatively small portion of facade rendering damage and a few dislodged bricks is not damage consistent with an object (discounting its internal angular momentum energy) weighing about 23 tonnes smashing into the wall at 500 mph.
But I freely admit that this is just my best guess and would not be permissable in a court of law as a qualified opinion!
That's a nice picture, adoucette. Did you know that it is against FAA regulations to use water on a jet fuel fire?
Here are a few other telling things which they did at the Pentagon, and which were odd in the light of the 'official story':
* They allowed the fire to spread until the upper floors of the
Pentagon collapsed, burying Army and Navy personnel in the debris and
further hampering their rescue.
* Once the upper floors collapsed, the directors of the rescue
flouted standard rescue procedures for collapsed buildings.
* While there should still have been hope of finding survivors
alive, they used a wrecking ball to demolish sections of the building
still standing. Many additional tons of debris crashed down upon the
already buried victims, almost certainly collapsing any spaces or
voids which may have sheltering victims in the original debris.
* When qualified emergency medical technicians arrived by
helicopter to rescue the victims, they were ordered to leave and
forbidden from returning. One wave of survivors were brought out,
and then there were no more . . .
* One flimsy excuse after the other was used to stop the work and
delay rescue operations.
* Civilian rescuers worked long shifts and became exhausted with
wrongheaded methods. Meanwhile, thousands of able-bodied military
personnel at nearby bases -- including those specially trained in
putting out aviation fires -- sat and watched the drama on Tee Vee.
* Surviving military intelligence officers lost jurisdiction over
military intelligence documents and those documents were collected by
civilians not cleared to see them.
No rescue attempts for survivors, no silver suited hazard teams, water instead of foam. It is obvious that there was no jet fuel fire at the Pentagon.
The "renovation" was more likely preparations for a whole section of the building to collapse from the "airliner impact", but something went wrong (this is the government, after all) and it did not collapse. They had to delay the media reports and collapse the roof themselves, to make their fairy tale more palatable to anyone with some degree of intelligence. Videos of the forced collapse show the same eerie glow as some of the WTC collapse videos.
Had everything gone as planned, a whole "slice" of the Pentagon would have collapsed from the "impact", and none of us would have heard anything about the whole "renovation" story.
Here are a few other telling things which they did at the Pentagon, and which were odd in the light of the 'official story':
* They allowed the fire to spread until the upper floors of the
Pentagon collapsed, burying Army and Navy personnel in the debris and
further hampering their rescue.
* Once the upper floors collapsed, the directors of the rescue
flouted standard rescue procedures for collapsed buildings.
* While there should still have been hope of finding survivors
alive, they used a wrecking ball to demolish sections of the building
still standing. Many additional tons of debris crashed down upon the
already buried victims, almost certainly collapsing any spaces or
voids which may have sheltering victims in the original debris.
* When qualified emergency medical technicians arrived by
helicopter to rescue the victims, they were ordered to leave and
forbidden from returning. One wave of survivors were brought out,
and then there were no more . . .
* One flimsy excuse after the other was used to stop the work and
delay rescue operations.
* Civilian rescuers worked long shifts and became exhausted with
wrongheaded methods. Meanwhile, thousands of able-bodied military
personnel at nearby bases -- including those specially trained in
putting out aviation fires -- sat and watched the drama on Tee Vee.
* Surviving military intelligence officers lost jurisdiction over
military intelligence documents and those documents were collected by
civilians not cleared to see them.
No rescue attempts for survivors, no silver suited hazard teams, water instead of foam. It is obvious that there was no jet fuel fire at the Pentagon.
The "renovation" was more likely preparations for a whole section of the building to collapse from the "airliner impact", but something went wrong (this is the government, after all) and it did not collapse. They had to delay the media reports and collapse the roof themselves, to make their fairy tale more palatable to anyone with some degree of intelligence. Videos of the forced collapse show the same eerie glow as some of the WTC collapse videos.
Had everything gone as planned, a whole "slice" of the Pentagon would have collapsed from the "impact", and none of us would have heard anything about the whole "renovation" story.
QUOTE (Piper+Oct 23 2005, 03:20 PM)
That's a nice picture, adoucette. Did you know that it is against FAA regulations to use water on a jet fuel fire?
Here are a few other telling things which they did at the Pentagon, and which were odd in the light of the 'official story':
* They allowed the fire to spread until the upper floors of the
Pentagon collapsed, burying Army and Navy personnel in the debris and
further hampering their rescue.
* Once the upper floors collapsed, the directors of the rescue
flouted standard rescue procedures for collapsed buildings.
* While there should still have been hope of finding survivors
alive, they used a wrecking ball to demolish sections of the building
still standing. Many additional tons of debris crashed down upon the
already buried victims, almost certainly collapsing any spaces or
voids which may have sheltering victims in the original debris.
* When qualified emergency medical technicians arrived by
helicopter to rescue the victims, they were ordered to leave and
forbidden from returning. One wave of survivors were brought out,
and then there were no more . . .
* One flimsy excuse after the other was used to stop the work and
delay rescue operations.
* Civilian rescuers worked long shifts and became exhausted with
wrongheaded methods. Meanwhile, thousands of able-bodied military
personnel at nearby bases -- including those specially trained in
putting out aviation fires -- sat and watched the drama on Tee Vee.
* Surviving military intelligence officers lost jurisdiction over
military intelligence documents and those documents were collected by
civilians not cleared to see them.
No rescue attempts for survivors, no silver suited hazard teams, water instead of foam. It is obvious that there was no jet fuel fire at the Pentagon.
The "renovation" was more likely preparations for a whole section of the building to collapse from the "airliner impact", but something went wrong (this is the government, after all) and it did not collapse. They had to delay the media reports and collapse the roof themselves, to make their fairy tale more palatable to anyone with some degree of intelligence. Videos of the forced collapse show the same eerie glow as some of the WTC collapse videos.
Had everything gone as planned, a whole "slice" of the Pentagon would have collapsed from the "impact", and none of us would have heard anything about the whole "renovation" story.
I'm sure that applies to on airport fires, otherwise I suspect you use what you have, your typical local fire department doesn't have the foam sprayers that airport based ER trucks do.
Besides, by the time rescue people showed up, I would suspect that the majority of the fuel had burned off and they were dealing with your typical structure fire for the most part.
"They allowed the fire to spread" - Seems odd, since the people there seem intent on trying to put it out. Were they part of the conspiracy as well?
Survivors in a collapsed void, while applicable to an earthquake hardly applies to what happened here, and being in a "collapsed void" would hardly protect someone from the heat of the fire. If you were in that section and not killed by the impact there is zip chance you survived the fire that followed, void or no void.
While the rest of your post is interesting speculation, you'll have to provide more proof than your "say so". What makes your assertions implausible is the vast number of people who would have to be in on the conspiracy, from the construction workers all the way to the ER response teams. Can't keep that kind of thing secret for so long when so many people know about it. A conspiracy would have to extend to the WTCs as well which would add in another huge group of people.
Which makes the idea that it was a conspiracy ludicrous.
I am curious though, if it wasn't hit by the hijacked 757, then where is said 757 and what happened to the people on board the 757?
Arthur
Here are a few other telling things which they did at the Pentagon, and which were odd in the light of the 'official story':
* They allowed the fire to spread until the upper floors of the
Pentagon collapsed, burying Army and Navy personnel in the debris and
further hampering their rescue.
* Once the upper floors collapsed, the directors of the rescue
flouted standard rescue procedures for collapsed buildings.
* While there should still have been hope of finding survivors
alive, they used a wrecking ball to demolish sections of the building
still standing. Many additional tons of debris crashed down upon the
already buried victims, almost certainly collapsing any spaces or
voids which may have sheltering victims in the original debris.
* When qualified emergency medical technicians arrived by
helicopter to rescue the victims, they were ordered to leave and
forbidden from returning. One wave of survivors were brought out,
and then there were no more . . .
* One flimsy excuse after the other was used to stop the work and
delay rescue operations.
* Civilian rescuers worked long shifts and became exhausted with
wrongheaded methods. Meanwhile, thousands of able-bodied military
personnel at nearby bases -- including those specially trained in
putting out aviation fires -- sat and watched the drama on Tee Vee.
* Surviving military intelligence officers lost jurisdiction over
military intelligence documents and those documents were collected by
civilians not cleared to see them.
No rescue attempts for survivors, no silver suited hazard teams, water instead of foam. It is obvious that there was no jet fuel fire at the Pentagon.
The "renovation" was more likely preparations for a whole section of the building to collapse from the "airliner impact", but something went wrong (this is the government, after all) and it did not collapse. They had to delay the media reports and collapse the roof themselves, to make their fairy tale more palatable to anyone with some degree of intelligence. Videos of the forced collapse show the same eerie glow as some of the WTC collapse videos.
Had everything gone as planned, a whole "slice" of the Pentagon would have collapsed from the "impact", and none of us would have heard anything about the whole "renovation" story.
I'm sure that applies to on airport fires, otherwise I suspect you use what you have, your typical local fire department doesn't have the foam sprayers that airport based ER trucks do.
Besides, by the time rescue people showed up, I would suspect that the majority of the fuel had burned off and they were dealing with your typical structure fire for the most part.
"They allowed the fire to spread" - Seems odd, since the people there seem intent on trying to put it out. Were they part of the conspiracy as well?
Survivors in a collapsed void, while applicable to an earthquake hardly applies to what happened here, and being in a "collapsed void" would hardly protect someone from the heat of the fire. If you were in that section and not killed by the impact there is zip chance you survived the fire that followed, void or no void.
While the rest of your post is interesting speculation, you'll have to provide more proof than your "say so". What makes your assertions implausible is the vast number of people who would have to be in on the conspiracy, from the construction workers all the way to the ER response teams. Can't keep that kind of thing secret for so long when so many people know about it. A conspiracy would have to extend to the WTCs as well which would add in another huge group of people.
Which makes the idea that it was a conspiracy ludicrous.
I am curious though, if it wasn't hit by the hijacked 757, then where is said 757 and what happened to the people on board the 757?
Arthur
Hi guys. I think there are many suspicious activities related to the 'Pentagon Attack'.
The explaination given for 'wings folding back' makes no sense to me given the forward momentum and inertia of the impacting plane, especially given the point that computer fogie has noted - the thrust of the jet engines screaming at apparently full throttle. I can not believe that the insignificant deceleration that would have been caused by the impact of the nose, could sufficiently alter the inertia and forward momentum to cause the wings to fold forward, any more than I can believe that the impact of the root of the wings with the wall would cause a reversal of the forward momentum, inertia, (in concert with the added thrust of the engines), to allow the wings as a whole to fold back along the side of the plane within the milliseconds required to effect the wings folding into the hole. In my opinion even should the root of the wing fracture / break upon contact with the wall, it would take far longer to swing the entire mass of the wing backwards (in opposition to the above noted forces) than it would for the wingtips to have intercepted the wall... although I would allow for a slight shortening of the actual span should the wings start to fold back.
It is all well and good to try to imagine this folding of wings in slow motion and think it may have been possible, but I'd like to see some calculations on time span between the root intercept and wingtip intercept that could justify this slow-motion imagining.
Having said that, personally I don't think any 'folding' at all was required to account for the shortening of wingspan dimensions with actual size of the hole. Although the structural and materials strengths of an aircraft wing are generally plenty strong to support all the forces it is experiencing in normal flight through thin air; relative to the forces generated by impact with a solid body, these strengths become pretty insignificant.
http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/video-gallery/index.html
Although there has been much discussion about the fact that the opening does not match the exact wingspan, this is not the cartoon world where the exact span and shape should be reproduced upon the wall.
By the time the root had impacted the wall, I believe that the fuel tanks would have been ruptured and atomizing. I think it is 'possible' that the 'explosive' force of the ensuing fireball could easily have blown the wingtips to shreds before impacting the wall... remembering that by this time also all structural strengths of the wing as a unit would have been completely compromised. I don't think the above speculation can fully account for the shortening of the span of damage, nevertheless it is something to consider... I think?
I also feel that we should consider all the evidence.
Although not physical in nature, how do we deny that there are a substantial number of eyewitness accounts at the Pentagon referring to what appeared to be a Boeing arliner... yet then turn around and rely on eyewitness accounts to explosions and 'bombs' at the Twin Towers? Is this not the same 'discounting of evidence', as those who believe in the Official-Conspiracy theory do... they rely heavily on eyewitness evidence in the Pentagon incident, and then absolutely discount the numerous witnesses to explosions at the World Trade Center? It is an odd world.
'adoucette' mentioned 'Catherders' thread at AboveTopSecret. I thought Catherder brought up a number a valid points in his essay that are not easily dismissed, although if you follow through the entire long discussion thread which followed, some of his other points were debunked pretty well (I thought).
There has been a lot of controversy over the following picture which comes from FEMAs online library.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pe...e_evidence.html
The following quote was mentioned in the propagandamatrix article...
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pe...e_evidence.html
The following quote was mentioned in the propagandamatrix article...
While the front fan of the RB211-535 has a 74.5-inch diameter, compression discs inside the engine are much smaller. Schwarz said the inner discs are between 29 and 41 inches in diameter. “It could well be” an inner compression disc, Schwarz said. The discs from the inner stages are made of titanium, he added.
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/121003mysteryenginepart.html
A couple of years ago when I first began investigating 9/11 events, I had a serious look at the controversy surrounding this engine part.
At the time Karl W.B. Schwarz was promoting his theory that the engine part had come from a P&W JT8D engine (one which was never used on the Boeing in question). He had quite a convincing theory. This was published in the Online Journal. Unfortunately the Journal is currently reworking its site, so some of the links in the following article which I wrote (based upon my investigation of this) are dead.
If someone has the time, kindly look at the page below (which in my opinion dismisses Karls claims)... and I would like to hear your comments.
Thanks
http://www.foxxaero.com/zyxpent.html
Also, I believe that every conflicting theory should be investigated fully prior to reaching any absolute conclusions on the Pentagon anomalies (just my opinion), and so I invite all to have a look at Hoffmans analysis (critique) of the Pentagon-No-Plane theory. Bear in mind, that only a few short years ago Hoffman fully endorsed the No-Plane theory, however in the face of his (what I believe are) balanced, fair, and objective investigations has now modified his thoughts on the No-Plane theory...
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html
Not surprisingly, Hoffman has received quite a bit of flak from avid supporters of the No-Plane theory. Who's right or wrong, we will not know for sure until a proper Independant Counsel Investigation into the events of 9/11 is undertaken.
I hate to be a waffler, but even some of Hoffmans speculations in the above, I have to take with a grain of salt, but most I agree with.
The explaination given for 'wings folding back' makes no sense to me given the forward momentum and inertia of the impacting plane, especially given the point that computer fogie has noted - the thrust of the jet engines screaming at apparently full throttle. I can not believe that the insignificant deceleration that would have been caused by the impact of the nose, could sufficiently alter the inertia and forward momentum to cause the wings to fold forward, any more than I can believe that the impact of the root of the wings with the wall would cause a reversal of the forward momentum, inertia, (in concert with the added thrust of the engines), to allow the wings as a whole to fold back along the side of the plane within the milliseconds required to effect the wings folding into the hole. In my opinion even should the root of the wing fracture / break upon contact with the wall, it would take far longer to swing the entire mass of the wing backwards (in opposition to the above noted forces) than it would for the wingtips to have intercepted the wall... although I would allow for a slight shortening of the actual span should the wings start to fold back.
It is all well and good to try to imagine this folding of wings in slow motion and think it may have been possible, but I'd like to see some calculations on time span between the root intercept and wingtip intercept that could justify this slow-motion imagining.
Having said that, personally I don't think any 'folding' at all was required to account for the shortening of wingspan dimensions with actual size of the hole. Although the structural and materials strengths of an aircraft wing are generally plenty strong to support all the forces it is experiencing in normal flight through thin air; relative to the forces generated by impact with a solid body, these strengths become pretty insignificant.
http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/video-gallery/index.html
Although there has been much discussion about the fact that the opening does not match the exact wingspan, this is not the cartoon world where the exact span and shape should be reproduced upon the wall.
By the time the root had impacted the wall, I believe that the fuel tanks would have been ruptured and atomizing. I think it is 'possible' that the 'explosive' force of the ensuing fireball could easily have blown the wingtips to shreds before impacting the wall... remembering that by this time also all structural strengths of the wing as a unit would have been completely compromised. I don't think the above speculation can fully account for the shortening of the span of damage, nevertheless it is something to consider... I think?
I also feel that we should consider all the evidence.
Although not physical in nature, how do we deny that there are a substantial number of eyewitness accounts at the Pentagon referring to what appeared to be a Boeing arliner... yet then turn around and rely on eyewitness accounts to explosions and 'bombs' at the Twin Towers? Is this not the same 'discounting of evidence', as those who believe in the Official-Conspiracy theory do... they rely heavily on eyewitness evidence in the Pentagon incident, and then absolutely discount the numerous witnesses to explosions at the World Trade Center? It is an odd world.
'adoucette' mentioned 'Catherders' thread at AboveTopSecret. I thought Catherder brought up a number a valid points in his essay that are not easily dismissed, although if you follow through the entire long discussion thread which followed, some of his other points were debunked pretty well (I thought).
There has been a lot of controversy over the following picture which comes from FEMAs online library.
QUOTE
By Catherder
What is seen in this photo is most likely the APU (Aux Power Unit) used in a 757 that is equipped with Rolls-Royce RB211 engines. The APU (Honeywell GTCP331-200) is located in the tail section of the aircraft (that's what the large vent that looks like a 3rd jet engine is) as edvidenced on this technical rescue reference aid from Boeing. Boeing 757 reference website. These small turbine engines are quite common on modern turbine & turbofan passenger aircraft, and are used to furnish ground auxillary power while the main engines are shut down during ground operations. An online training aid lets you Play around with the controls on a 757/767 instrument pannel.
What is seen in this photo is most likely the APU (Aux Power Unit) used in a 757 that is equipped with Rolls-Royce RB211 engines. The APU (Honeywell GTCP331-200) is located in the tail section of the aircraft (that's what the large vent that looks like a 3rd jet engine is) as edvidenced on this technical rescue reference aid from Boeing. Boeing 757 reference website. These small turbine engines are quite common on modern turbine & turbofan passenger aircraft, and are used to furnish ground auxillary power while the main engines are shut down during ground operations. An online training aid lets you Play around with the controls on a 757/767 instrument pannel.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pe...e_evidence.html
The following quote was mentioned in the propagandamatrix article...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| By Catherder What is seen in this photo is most likely the APU (Aux Power Unit) used in a 757 that is equipped with Rolls-Royce RB211 engines. The APU (Honeywell GTCP331-200) is located in the tail section of the aircraft (that's what the large vent that looks like a 3rd jet engine is) as edvidenced on this technical rescue reference aid from Boeing. Boeing 757 reference website. These small turbine engines are quite common on modern turbine & turbofan passenger aircraft, and are used to furnish ground auxillary power while the main engines are shut down during ground operations. An online training aid lets you Play around with the controls on a 757/767 instrument pannel. |
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pe...e_evidence.html
The following quote was mentioned in the propagandamatrix article...
While the front fan of the RB211-535 has a 74.5-inch diameter, compression discs inside the engine are much smaller. Schwarz said the inner discs are between 29 and 41 inches in diameter. “It could well be” an inner compression disc, Schwarz said. The discs from the inner stages are made of titanium, he added.
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/121003mysteryenginepart.html
A couple of years ago when I first began investigating 9/11 events, I had a serious look at the controversy surrounding this engine part.
At the time Karl W.B. Schwarz was promoting his theory that the engine part had come from a P&W JT8D engine (one which was never used on the Boeing in question). He had quite a convincing theory. This was published in the Online Journal. Unfortunately the Journal is currently reworking its site, so some of the links in the following article which I wrote (based upon my investigation of this) are dead.
If someone has the time, kindly look at the page below (which in my opinion dismisses Karls claims)... and I would like to hear your comments.
Thanks
http://www.foxxaero.com/zyxpent.html
Also, I believe that every conflicting theory should be investigated fully prior to reaching any absolute conclusions on the Pentagon anomalies (just my opinion), and so I invite all to have a look at Hoffmans analysis (critique) of the Pentagon-No-Plane theory. Bear in mind, that only a few short years ago Hoffman fully endorsed the No-Plane theory, however in the face of his (what I believe are) balanced, fair, and objective investigations has now modified his thoughts on the No-Plane theory...
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html
Not surprisingly, Hoffman has received quite a bit of flak from avid supporters of the No-Plane theory. Who's right or wrong, we will not know for sure until a proper Independant Counsel Investigation into the events of 9/11 is undertaken.
I hate to be a waffler, but even some of Hoffmans speculations in the above, I have to take with a grain of salt, but most I agree with.
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 23 2005, 05:03 PM)
I'm sure that applies to on airport fires, otherwise I suspect you use what you have, your typical local fire department doesn't have the foam sprayers that airport based ER trucks do.
Well, if we are to believe the National Fire Protection Association Journal ("NFPA Journal") the first fire trucks on the scene were airport trucks and did use foam to extinguish the fire in 7 minutes. What makes you think a "typical local firefighting unit" would respond to a fire at the Pentagon? Note carefully that the heroic efforts of the Reagan National ARFF team were never publicized in the corporate media. Here's a quote from the article (which is available HERE):
Besides, by the time rescue people showed up, I would suspect that the majority of the fuel had burned off and they were dealing with your typical structure fire for the most part.
No, by the time the fires were re-ignited and the roof made to collapse they were dealing with a typical structure fire for the most part. There was no rescue attempt.
Well, if we are to believe the National Fire Protection Association Journal ("NFPA Journal") the first fire trucks on the scene were airport trucks and did use foam to extinguish the fire in 7 minutes. What makes you think a "typical local firefighting unit" would respond to a fire at the Pentagon? Note carefully that the heroic efforts of the Reagan National ARFF team were never publicized in the corporate media. Here's a quote from the article (which is available HERE):
QUOTE
Being among the first responding fire units, National's aircraft rescue firefighters (ARFF) crews were able to set up their apparatus directly in front of the gaping hole in the Pentagon. That was where their training in fighting aircraft fires and the capability of their foam units to extinguish jet fuel fires were put to the best use.
The ARFF foam units knocked down the bulk of the fire in the first seven minutes after their arrival, said Captain Michael Defina, who was the shift commander that day at National.
The ARFF foam units knocked down the bulk of the fire in the first seven minutes after their arrival, said Captain Michael Defina, who was the shift commander that day at National.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Being among the first responding fire units, National's aircraft rescue firefighters (ARFF) crews were able to set up their apparatus directly in front of the gaping hole in the Pentagon. That was where their training in fighting aircraft fires and the capability of their foam units to extinguish jet fuel fires were put to the best use. The ARFF foam units knocked down the bulk of the fire in the first seven minutes after their arrival, said Captain Michael Defina, who was the shift commander that day at National. |
Besides, by the time rescue people showed up, I would suspect that the majority of the fuel had burned off and they were dealing with your typical structure fire for the most part.
No, by the time the fires were re-ignited and the roof made to collapse they were dealing with a typical structure fire for the most part. There was no rescue attempt.
QUOTE (adoucette+)
While the rest of your post is interesting speculation, you'll have to provide more proof than your "say so". What makes your assertions implausible is the vast number of people who would have to be in on the conspiracy, from the construction workers all the way to the ER response teams. Can't keep that kind of thing secret for so long when so many people know about it. A conspiracy would have to extend to the WTCs as well which would add in another huge group of people.
Which makes the idea that it was a conspiracy ludicrous.
Would that be less or more people than the Manhattan Project? Project Paperclip? And don't forget all the "War Games" which were going on the day (like VIGILANT GUARDIAN). On Aug. 22, 2002 Associated Press ran the following story:
So it's easy enough if most people there thought they were part of a "terror exercise". It also explains the lack of rescue attempts and the "standing around" seen in so many photos.
So it's easy enough if most people there thought they were part of a "terror exercise". It also explains the lack of rescue attempts and the "standing around" seen in so many photos.
I am curious though, if it wasn't hit by the hijacked 757, then where is said 757 and what happened to the people on board the 757?
There are many possibilities, and the unlikeliest is the fantasy that the plane crashed into the Pentagon. The most likely explanation is that Flight 77 crashed or was brought down in Kentucky or Ohio, which is where transponder/radar contact were lost. There is no way that the FAA and NORAD could "lose track" of a passenger ariplane in American airspace for over 10-30 minutes.
The only evidence that Flight 77 did not crash was supplied by an attorney closely associated with the Bush administration, and through impossible cell phone calls from cruising altitude aircraft.
And no one noticed this crash?
Not likely.
NORAD's radars are pointing out from the coast, not inland.
FAA's radars, except around TCAs depend on the TRANSPONDER being turned on and turned to the ASSIGNED code.
The hijackers knew enough to turn it off.
There were thousands of planes in the air, if you are NOT flying within the system, using your assigned code and particularly if you are at low altitude it is very easy to "fly under the radar"
PS. I am a pilot.
Arthur
Which makes the idea that it was a conspiracy ludicrous.
Would that be less or more people than the Manhattan Project? Project Paperclip? And don't forget all the "War Games" which were going on the day (like VIGILANT GUARDIAN). On Aug. 22, 2002 Associated Press ran the following story:
QUOTE
"Top U.S. Intelligence Agency was to simulate plane crash into government building on September 11, 2001. U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings.
So it's easy enough if most people there thought they were part of a "terror exercise". It also explains the lack of rescue attempts and the "standing around" seen in so many photos.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "Top U.S. Intelligence Agency was to simulate plane crash into government building on September 11, 2001. U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings. |
So it's easy enough if most people there thought they were part of a "terror exercise". It also explains the lack of rescue attempts and the "standing around" seen in so many photos.
I am curious though, if it wasn't hit by the hijacked 757, then where is said 757 and what happened to the people on board the 757?
There are many possibilities, and the unlikeliest is the fantasy that the plane crashed into the Pentagon. The most likely explanation is that Flight 77 crashed or was brought down in Kentucky or Ohio, which is where transponder/radar contact were lost. There is no way that the FAA and NORAD could "lose track" of a passenger ariplane in American airspace for over 10-30 minutes.
The only evidence that Flight 77 did not crash was supplied by an attorney closely associated with the Bush administration, and through impossible cell phone calls from cruising altitude aircraft.
QUOTE
The most likely explanation is that Flight 77 crashed or was brought down in Kentucky or Ohio, which is where transponder/radar contact were lost. There is no way that the FAA and NORAD could "lose track" of a passenger ariplane in American airspace for over 10-30 minutes.
And no one noticed this crash?
Not likely.
NORAD's radars are pointing out from the coast, not inland.
FAA's radars, except around TCAs depend on the TRANSPONDER being turned on and turned to the ASSIGNED code.
The hijackers knew enough to turn it off.
There were thousands of planes in the air, if you are NOT flying within the system, using your assigned code and particularly if you are at low altitude it is very easy to "fly under the radar"
PS. I am a pilot.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 23 2005, 10:46 PM)
And no one noticed this crash?
Not likely.
Sorry, I'm afraid I don't have a comprehensive listing of everything that was noticed that day. Do you? Maybe it just landed at an Air Force base for a Northwoods-style switch.
Not likely.
Sorry, I'm afraid I don't have a comprehensive listing of everything that was noticed that day. Do you? Maybe it just landed at an Air Force base for a Northwoods-style switch.
QUOTE (adoucette+)
NORAD's radars are pointing out from the coast, not inland.
Lies! The northeast USA has extensive coverage and the majority of the flight paths were within NORAD radar.
• AA 11: 100% within NORAD radar coverage from takeoff until crashing into WTC 1.
• UA 175: 100% within NORAD radar coverage from takeoff until crashing into WTC 1.
• AA 77: Approximately 25% of the flight path within NORAD radar coverage, split between takeoff from Dulles and the final approach into the Pentagon.
• UA 93: Approximately first 10-15% of its flight path within NORAD radar coverage after taking off from Newark.
Lies! The northeast USA has extensive coverage and the majority of the flight paths were within NORAD radar.
• AA 11: 100% within NORAD radar coverage from takeoff until crashing into WTC 1.
• UA 175: 100% within NORAD radar coverage from takeoff until crashing into WTC 1.
• AA 77: Approximately 25% of the flight path within NORAD radar coverage, split between takeoff from Dulles and the final approach into the Pentagon.
• UA 93: Approximately first 10-15% of its flight path within NORAD radar coverage after taking off from Newark.
QUOTE (adoucette+)
FAA's radars, except around TCAs depend on the TRANSPONDER being turned on and turned to the ASSIGNED code.
The hijackers knew enough to turn it off.
More lies! The official 9-11 Commission Report states as follows:
Anyway, there is no proof that they turned off the transponders, being the first hijackers in history ever to do so. Remember that the FAA claimed the aircraft circled and descended from 7,000 feet, overhead the Pentagon. Only a functioning transponder would yield an FAA digital display, indicating the altitude.
Anyway, there is no proof that they turned off the transponders, being the first hijackers in history ever to do so. Remember that the FAA claimed the aircraft circled and descended from 7,000 feet, overhead the Pentagon. Only a functioning transponder would yield an FAA digital display, indicating the altitude.
There were thousands of planes in the air, if you are NOT flying within the system, using your assigned code and particularly if you are at low altitude it is very easy to "fly under the radar"
PS. I am a pilot.
Arthur
Making it much easier to do the old bait and switch with the drone plane. And don't forget all the "false blips" from the War Games involving hijacked planes being flown into buidings which were going on that morning!
We you involved in those simulations, as a pilot? I would think you would have a better grasp of NORAD and FAA radar coverage. Do you know the 4-digit hijacker code? Any idea why no one on the four "hijacked" planes punched it in?
The hijackers knew enough to turn it off.
More lies! The official 9-11 Commission Report states as follows:
QUOTE
Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56.
Anyway, there is no proof that they turned off the transponders, being the first hijackers in history ever to do so. Remember that the FAA claimed the aircraft circled and descended from 7,000 feet, overhead the Pentagon. Only a functioning transponder would yield an FAA digital display, indicating the altitude.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56. |
Anyway, there is no proof that they turned off the transponders, being the first hijackers in history ever to do so. Remember that the FAA claimed the aircraft circled and descended from 7,000 feet, overhead the Pentagon. Only a functioning transponder would yield an FAA digital display, indicating the altitude.
There were thousands of planes in the air, if you are NOT flying within the system, using your assigned code and particularly if you are at low altitude it is very easy to "fly under the radar"
PS. I am a pilot.
Arthur
Making it much easier to do the old bait and switch with the drone plane. And don't forget all the "false blips" from the War Games involving hijacked planes being flown into buidings which were going on that morning!
We you involved in those simulations, as a pilot? I would think you would have a better grasp of NORAD and FAA radar coverage. Do you know the 4-digit hijacker code? Any idea why no one on the four "hijacked" planes punched it in?
I still can't wrap my mind around the premise that a 757 could penetrate 3 levels of 24" thick, military spec., steel reinforced, barrier walls designed specifically not to be penetrable. If you were a defense contractor building a bunker busting device, would the thought of using commercial airline design ever cross your mind, even for a second. A 757 is like a hollow point bullet and a bunker buster is like an armor piercing round. The light, low velocity, hollow point is designed to collapse, flattening out to increase it's foot print in order to inflict wide surface damage. Law enforcement uses them because they are less likely to penetrate walls and hit innocent bystanders. The high velocity armor piercing round is heavy, extremely case hardened, and is able to survive the high temperature of bore-welding it's way through reinforced barriers. I'm sorry guys' but when I look at that wall it has the signature of a bunker busting device. Small entry hole, deep penetration. I don't understand how the fuselarge could have stayed on- line for the entire duration, considering that its' path was slightly downward. I think those few degrees off the perpendicular are important because they introduce a slight downward vector force as the wall pushes back. The body should have buckled upward slightly as it slowed, widening the vertical footprint and plastering more of the rear section against the top of the wall. What would be valuable to know is the line-bore angle through the wall.----- This isn't the inside-out world of particle physics where you have to check your instincts and common sense at the door. Lots of people in the active services have experience directing large, powerful ordinance against hardened targets. They've also seen aircraft downed, so some reference point for considering impact profiles exists. People with these backgrounds can trust there instincts and utilize common sense to direct there scientific inquires.
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 23 2005, 10:46 PM)
And no one noticed this crash?
Not likely.
Sorry, I'm afraid I don't have a comprehensive listing of everything that was noticed that day. Do you? Maybe it just landed at an Air Force base for a Northwoods-style switch.
==> "Everything that was noticed that day" is HARDLY the same as a 757 crashing which is what you PROPOSED. Except on a "Northwoods" type switch, no one ends up DEAD.
Not likely.
Sorry, I'm afraid I don't have a comprehensive listing of everything that was noticed that day. Do you? Maybe it just landed at an Air Force base for a Northwoods-style switch.
==> "Everything that was noticed that day" is HARDLY the same as a 757 crashing which is what you PROPOSED. Except on a "Northwoods" type switch, no one ends up DEAD.
QUOTE (adoucette+)
NORAD's radars are pointing out from the coast, not inland.
Lies! The northeast USA has extensive coverage and the majority of the flight paths were within NORAD radar.
• AA 11: 100% within NORAD radar coverage from takeoff until crashing into WTC 1.
• UA 175: 100% within NORAD radar coverage from takeoff until crashing into WTC 1.
• AA 77: Approximately 25% of the flight path within NORAD radar coverage, split between takeoff from Dulles and the final approach into the Pentagon.
• UA 93: Approximately first 10-15% of its flight path within NORAD radar coverage after taking off from Newark.
==> We were talking about the PENTAGON flight, which as you point out only 25% was on radar. Even that though is meaningless, if the plane doesn't have its transponder on and shows up on radar then it is still an UNKNOWN aircraft. So the answer by your own figures is YES, the FAA CAN lose track of a 757.
Lies! The northeast USA has extensive coverage and the majority of the flight paths were within NORAD radar.
• AA 11: 100% within NORAD radar coverage from takeoff until crashing into WTC 1.
• UA 175: 100% within NORAD radar coverage from takeoff until crashing into WTC 1.
• AA 77: Approximately 25% of the flight path within NORAD radar coverage, split between takeoff from Dulles and the final approach into the Pentagon.
• UA 93: Approximately first 10-15% of its flight path within NORAD radar coverage after taking off from Newark.
==> We were talking about the PENTAGON flight, which as you point out only 25% was on radar. Even that though is meaningless, if the plane doesn't have its transponder on and shows up on radar then it is still an UNKNOWN aircraft. So the answer by your own figures is YES, the FAA CAN lose track of a 757.
QUOTE (adoucette+)
FAA's radars, except around TCAs depend on the TRANSPONDER being turned on and turned to the ASSIGNED code.
The hijackers knew enough to turn it off.
More lies! The official 9-11 Commission Report states as follows:
Anyway, there is no proof that they turned off the transponders, being the first hijackers in history ever to do so. Remember that the FAA claimed the aircraft circled and descended from 7,000 feet, overhead the Pentagon. Only a functioning transponder would yield an FAA digital display, indicating the altitude.
==>They were trained as pilots, they were not your typical 'hijackers' who normally point a gun at the pilot and say "take me to Cuba" or some such. In this case they FLEW the planes. Know any other hijackers who FLEW the plane they hijacked?
Sure, reconstructions AFTER 9/11, we are talking THAT DAY, REAL TIME. There are a lot of planes in the air. IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT TO HAVE A RADIO ON AN AIRCRAFT. Planes can fly without a radio in VFR, totally legally. Radar returns with TRANSPONDER CODES ARE IDENTIFIED TO CONTROLLERS. IF THE OTHER AIRCRAFT IS NOT ON A COLLISION COURSE WITH ANOTHER AIRCRAFT, or flying into protected airspace, then it is of no concern to the controller. Not only that, if the aircraft does not identify ITSELF (via radio & position or via a transponder code) the FAA has no way of identifing a contact or establishing communication with it. AFTER the fact the RADAR tapes can be analysed and the specific flight can be tracked but not by HUMANS while trying to land hundreds of planes WHO ARE COMMUNICATING WITH THEM.
Anyway, there is no proof that they turned off the transponders, being the first hijackers in history ever to do so. Remember that the FAA claimed the aircraft circled and descended from 7,000 feet, overhead the Pentagon. Only a functioning transponder would yield an FAA digital display, indicating the altitude.
==>They were trained as pilots, they were not your typical 'hijackers' who normally point a gun at the pilot and say "take me to Cuba" or some such. In this case they FLEW the planes. Know any other hijackers who FLEW the plane they hijacked?
Sure, reconstructions AFTER 9/11, we are talking THAT DAY, REAL TIME. There are a lot of planes in the air. IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT TO HAVE A RADIO ON AN AIRCRAFT. Planes can fly without a radio in VFR, totally legally. Radar returns with TRANSPONDER CODES ARE IDENTIFIED TO CONTROLLERS. IF THE OTHER AIRCRAFT IS NOT ON A COLLISION COURSE WITH ANOTHER AIRCRAFT, or flying into protected airspace, then it is of no concern to the controller. Not only that, if the aircraft does not identify ITSELF (via radio & position or via a transponder code) the FAA has no way of identifing a contact or establishing communication with it. AFTER the fact the RADAR tapes can be analysed and the specific flight can be tracked but not by HUMANS while trying to land hundreds of planes WHO ARE COMMUNICATING WITH THEM.
There were thousands of planes in the air, if you are NOT flying within the system, using your assigned code and particularly if you are at low altitude it is very easy to "fly under the radar"
PS. I am a pilot.
Arthur
Making it much easier to do the old bait and switch with the drone plane. And don't forget all the "false blips" from the War Games involving hijacked planes being flown into buidings which were going on that morning!
==> I have no idea what you are talking about.
We you involved in those simulations, as a pilot? I would think you would have a better grasp of NORAD and FAA radar coverage. Do you know the 4-digit hijacker code? Any idea why no one on the four "hijacked" planes punched it in?
==> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe those simulations were only for training emergency response teams, there were NO ACTUAL AIRCRAFT involved. And the aircraft was presumed to be a GA aircraft not a passenger jet.
==> Pilots don't normally have ANY interaction with NORAD. If you are on an approved international flight plan you would NEVER know you were on their scope.
==> Yes.
==> Didn't have time, it is typically set with 4 rotary dials (at least on the planes I fly)
And finally, enough with this Lies!! BullSheet, If you don't agree with me just say so and say why. I'm not on here to post lies, but we ALL make mistakes now and again, or maybe our language isn't totally precise, but that doesn't mean we are telling LIES, which, by definition is when you are purposefully spreading false information.
Arthur
I posted a link to a site with extensive photos of the damage, including this one:
Damage from right engine, note circular mark.
Arthur
The outermost tiles are made of brittle , fragile limestone. In the pic you posted, only the first layer of tiles is pushed in, and not even broken.
This kind of minor damage isn't, in any way imaginable to a semi-intelligent layman, consistent with a solid object moving at 520 mph. Not even close.
How could an engine could have made merely this kind of "dent" in the outer facade, while the fuselage completely penetrated through three complete wings of the building? We can guess that since the fuselage had a greater sectional density (likely, IMHO), it should have penetrated somewhat further, but this is a HUGE disparity.
The hijackers knew enough to turn it off.
More lies! The official 9-11 Commission Report states as follows:
QUOTE
Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56.
Anyway, there is no proof that they turned off the transponders, being the first hijackers in history ever to do so. Remember that the FAA claimed the aircraft circled and descended from 7,000 feet, overhead the Pentagon. Only a functioning transponder would yield an FAA digital display, indicating the altitude.
==>They were trained as pilots, they were not your typical 'hijackers' who normally point a gun at the pilot and say "take me to Cuba" or some such. In this case they FLEW the planes. Know any other hijackers who FLEW the plane they hijacked?
Sure, reconstructions AFTER 9/11, we are talking THAT DAY, REAL TIME. There are a lot of planes in the air. IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT TO HAVE A RADIO ON AN AIRCRAFT. Planes can fly without a radio in VFR, totally legally. Radar returns with TRANSPONDER CODES ARE IDENTIFIED TO CONTROLLERS. IF THE OTHER AIRCRAFT IS NOT ON A COLLISION COURSE WITH ANOTHER AIRCRAFT, or flying into protected airspace, then it is of no concern to the controller. Not only that, if the aircraft does not identify ITSELF (via radio & position or via a transponder code) the FAA has no way of identifing a contact or establishing communication with it. AFTER the fact the RADAR tapes can be analysed and the specific flight can be tracked but not by HUMANS while trying to land hundreds of planes WHO ARE COMMUNICATING WITH THEM.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56. |
Anyway, there is no proof that they turned off the transponders, being the first hijackers in history ever to do so. Remember that the FAA claimed the aircraft circled and descended from 7,000 feet, overhead the Pentagon. Only a functioning transponder would yield an FAA digital display, indicating the altitude.
==>They were trained as pilots, they were not your typical 'hijackers' who normally point a gun at the pilot and say "take me to Cuba" or some such. In this case they FLEW the planes. Know any other hijackers who FLEW the plane they hijacked?
Sure, reconstructions AFTER 9/11, we are talking THAT DAY, REAL TIME. There are a lot of planes in the air. IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT TO HAVE A RADIO ON AN AIRCRAFT. Planes can fly without a radio in VFR, totally legally. Radar returns with TRANSPONDER CODES ARE IDENTIFIED TO CONTROLLERS. IF THE OTHER AIRCRAFT IS NOT ON A COLLISION COURSE WITH ANOTHER AIRCRAFT, or flying into protected airspace, then it is of no concern to the controller. Not only that, if the aircraft does not identify ITSELF (via radio & position or via a transponder code) the FAA has no way of identifing a contact or establishing communication with it. AFTER the fact the RADAR tapes can be analysed and the specific flight can be tracked but not by HUMANS while trying to land hundreds of planes WHO ARE COMMUNICATING WITH THEM.
There were thousands of planes in the air, if you are NOT flying within the system, using your assigned code and particularly if you are at low altitude it is very easy to "fly under the radar"
PS. I am a pilot.
Arthur
Making it much easier to do the old bait and switch with the drone plane. And don't forget all the "false blips" from the War Games involving hijacked planes being flown into buidings which were going on that morning!
==> I have no idea what you are talking about.
We you involved in those simulations, as a pilot? I would think you would have a better grasp of NORAD and FAA radar coverage. Do you know the 4-digit hijacker code? Any idea why no one on the four "hijacked" planes punched it in?
==> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe those simulations were only for training emergency response teams, there were NO ACTUAL AIRCRAFT involved. And the aircraft was presumed to be a GA aircraft not a passenger jet.
==> Pilots don't normally have ANY interaction with NORAD. If you are on an approved international flight plan you would NEVER know you were on their scope.
==> Yes.
==> Didn't have time, it is typically set with 4 rotary dials (at least on the planes I fly)
And finally, enough with this Lies!! BullSheet, If you don't agree with me just say so and say why. I'm not on here to post lies, but we ALL make mistakes now and again, or maybe our language isn't totally precise, but that doesn't mean we are telling LIES, which, by definition is when you are purposefully spreading false information.
Arthur
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Oct 24 2005, 01:20 AM)
I still can't wrap my mind around the premise that a 757 could penetrate 3 levels of 24" thick, military spec., steel reinforced, barrier walls designed specifically not to be penetrable. If you were a defense contractor building a bunker busting device would the thought of using commercial airline design ever cross your mind, even for a second. A 757 is like a hollow point bullet and a bunker buster is like an armor piercing round. The light, low velocity, hollow point is designed to collapse, flattening out to increase it's foot print in order to inflict wide surface damage. Law enforcement uses them because they are less likely to penetrate walls and hit innocent bystanders. The high velocity armor piercing round is heavy, extremely case hardened, and is able to survive the high temperature of bore-welding it's way through plated barriers. I'm sorry guys' but when I look at that wall it has the signature of a bunker busting device. Small entry hole, deep penetration. I don't understand how the fuselarge could have stayed on- line for the entire duration, considering that its' path was slightly downward. You would think that at some point during the impact, the wall whose mass extended well below ground would push back even for a split second. At that angle the body should have buckled, widening the footprint. This isn't the inside-out world of particle physics where you have to check your instincts and common sense at the door. Lots of people in the active service have experience directing large, powerful ordinance against hardened targets. They've also seen aircraft downed, so some reference point for considering impact profiles exists. People with these backgrounds can trust there instincts and utilize common sense to direct there scientific inquires.
You are comparing a round with a 200,000 + lb aircraft.
Force is a function of both MASS and VELOCITY, a round may be going faster, but it is nowhere near the MASS of a passenger jet.
Passenger Jet wins this contest by a landslide.
Arthur
You are comparing a round with a 200,000 + lb aircraft.
Force is a function of both MASS and VELOCITY, a round may be going faster, but it is nowhere near the MASS of a passenger jet.
Passenger Jet wins this contest by a landslide.
Arthur
QUOTE (piper+)
Would that be less or more people than the Manhattan Project? Project Paperclip?
BIG DIFFERENCE, people kept the Manhattan project secret because they were working on a weapon to end a terrible war, and thus to put an end to the killing.
In this case, you are claiming that Americans sanctioned the killing of hundreds (thousands if you include WTCs) of other RANDOM Americans.
For what noble purpose?
Hardly likely.
Arthur
BIG DIFFERENCE, people kept the Manhattan project secret because they were working on a weapon to end a terrible war, and thus to put an end to the killing.
In this case, you are claiming that Americans sanctioned the killing of hundreds (thousands if you include WTCs) of other RANDOM Americans.
For what noble purpose?
Hardly likely.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 23 2005, 09:00 AM)
QUOTE
If you've seen a pic of damage the wings (or tail, and especially the engines) caused by impacting the outer wall, can you post it?
I posted a link to a site with extensive photos of the damage, including this one:
Damage from right engine, note circular mark.
Arthur
The outermost tiles are made of brittle , fragile limestone. In the pic you posted, only the first layer of tiles is pushed in, and not even broken.
This kind of minor damage isn't, in any way imaginable to a semi-intelligent layman, consistent with a solid object moving at 520 mph. Not even close.
How could an engine could have made merely this kind of "dent" in the outer facade, while the fuselage completely penetrated through three complete wings of the building? We can guess that since the fuselage had a greater sectional density (likely, IMHO), it should have penetrated somewhat further, but this is a HUGE disparity.
Also, those of you who are skipping over the physical evidence to address such issues as "Why would the government do this"?, and "Where did Flight 77 go, then?" are missing the point. Those are side issues, to be addressed if/when the physical evidence is accounted for.
I can't control how people respond to my questions in this thread, but it could easily turn into a war of speculation about background issues we have no way of knowing about with any certainity.
As fans/students of physics, we can't allow our judgment to be controlled by non-physical issues. If physical evidence tells us a particular story of an event, logic says that whether we like it or not, we have to accept it. We might think we have reasons to disbelieve the physical evidence, but history and common sense says that's wrong.
I can't control how people respond to my questions in this thread, but it could easily turn into a war of speculation about background issues we have no way of knowing about with any certainity.
As fans/students of physics, we can't allow our judgment to be controlled by non-physical issues. If physical evidence tells us a particular story of an event, logic says that whether we like it or not, we have to accept it. We might think we have reasons to disbelieve the physical evidence, but history and common sense says that's wrong.
QUOTE (computer fogie+)
Multi-ton jet engines hitting a wall at 520 have to leave major visible damage. I haven't seen any evidence of any kind of damage done by the wings, engine, or tail section. These are susbstantial structures; to dismiss their mass, moving at 520 mph, as being incapable of causing major damage to a wall, however sturdy it may be, is unreasonable and contrary to basic logic and physical law.
This image shows pretty clearly damage from the right wing/engine
Remember the columns had been reinforced and bolted to the ground and Kevlar had been put between the columns, so this is no normal building, it appears to me at least that it did pretty much what the reconstruction had intended it to do.
By the way, a number of people mention 520 mph. I'm curious what supporting evidence you have for this impact speed. I'm not doubting it, but I have seen several slower speeds posted. None however say how they arrived at that speed.
Arthur
This image shows pretty clearly damage from the right wing/engine
Remember the columns had been reinforced and bolted to the ground and Kevlar had been put between the columns, so this is no normal building, it appears to me at least that it did pretty much what the reconstruction had intended it to do.
By the way, a number of people mention 520 mph. I'm curious what supporting evidence you have for this impact speed. I'm not doubting it, but I have seen several slower speeds posted. None however say how they arrived at that speed.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 23 2005, 11:40 PM)
QUOTE (computer fogie+)
Multi-ton jet engines hitting a wall at 520 have to leave major visible damage. I haven't seen any evidence of any kind of damage done by the wings, engine, or tail section. These are susbstantial structures; to dismiss their mass, moving at 520 mph, as being incapable of causing major damage to a wall, however sturdy it may be, is unreasonable and contrary to basic logic and physical law.
This image shows pretty clearly damage from the right wing/engine
Remember the columns had been reinforced and bolted to the ground and Kevlar had been put between the columns, so this is no normal building, it appears to me at least that it did pretty much what the reconstruction had intended it to do.
By the way, a number of people mention 520 mph. I'm curious what supporting evidence you have for this impact speed. I'm not doubting it, but I have seen several slower speeds posted. None however say how they arrived at that speed.
Arthur
I don't see any clear sign of damage from the right wing/engine or anything else. I can't read the text, either. Can you clarify what you're referring to in that picture as being damage from any particular part of the aircraft? I only see arrows pointing to non-specific black areas and beams(?).
The speed of 520 mph was the most reliable figure I've come across; I believe it was agovernment source. I don't have a source handy, sorry about that. Would it susbstantially change the situation if it was "only" ~400 mph? I think not...
This image shows pretty clearly damage from the right wing/engine
Remember the columns had been reinforced and bolted to the ground and Kevlar had been put between the columns, so this is no normal building, it appears to me at least that it did pretty much what the reconstruction had intended it to do.
By the way, a number of people mention 520 mph. I'm curious what supporting evidence you have for this impact speed. I'm not doubting it, but I have seen several slower speeds posted. None however say how they arrived at that speed.
Arthur
I don't see any clear sign of damage from the right wing/engine or anything else. I can't read the text, either. Can you clarify what you're referring to in that picture as being damage from any particular part of the aircraft? I only see arrows pointing to non-specific black areas and beams(?).
The speed of 520 mph was the most reliable figure I've come across; I believe it was agovernment source. I don't have a source handy, sorry about that. Would it susbstantially change the situation if it was "only" ~400 mph? I think not...
Adoucette;
I was trying to make the point, obviously lost on you, that a 757 is not a bunker buster. FYI: a bunker buster is type of a cruise missile designed to penetrate hardened targets. It has multiple war heads stacked in-line. What's unique is the way it delivers the ordinance. The blasts are timed to occur sequentially each phased to reinforced the previous blast, all directed at the same point on the target. Obviously, a 200 ton airliner traveling several hundred miles an hour is a heck of a lotta force. What I'm saying is, when that force hit the pentagon, why was it so neat and tidy, relatively speaking. Why didn't that airliner pancake itself all over the side of the building? Why is the government spending billions on bunker busters when they could just buy up old airliners and restore them? Hell if you can punch a well defined hole through the pentagon then no enemy target would be secure.
I was trying to make the point, obviously lost on you, that a 757 is not a bunker buster. FYI: a bunker buster is type of a cruise missile designed to penetrate hardened targets. It has multiple war heads stacked in-line. What's unique is the way it delivers the ordinance. The blasts are timed to occur sequentially each phased to reinforced the previous blast, all directed at the same point on the target. Obviously, a 200 ton airliner traveling several hundred miles an hour is a heck of a lotta force. What I'm saying is, when that force hit the pentagon, why was it so neat and tidy, relatively speaking. Why didn't that airliner pancake itself all over the side of the building? Why is the government spending billions on bunker busters when they could just buy up old airliners and restore them? Hell if you can punch a well defined hole through the pentagon then no enemy target would be secure.
Because its pretty easy to find and shoot down an airliner well before it gets to the target.
Massive works if it makes it to the target, but low, fast and small with a big warhead is much more effective at actually making it to the target.
While the Pentagon's retrofit was pretty strong, it is not a "bunker" in the sense you are describing either.
Why it didn't "mush" is because of its mass X velocity, added to the point that it is built on a very strong keel (which the nose landing gear is attached to) and this would have acted like a battering ram on impact. Once you get away from the bottom half, center section of the aircraft, and the wings (out to the engines) you are no longer dealing with anything particularly massive.
The analogy to a "hollow point" bullet was used earlier, but neither a jacketed, nor a hollow point makes any more then a small entry wound. AFTER entry the hollow point mushrooms and dissipates energy quickly while the jacketed round is barely stable and begins to tumble, often carving a cavity as it goes, but in both cases the entry wound is still just a small round hole.
Arthur
Massive works if it makes it to the target, but low, fast and small with a big warhead is much more effective at actually making it to the target.
While the Pentagon's retrofit was pretty strong, it is not a "bunker" in the sense you are describing either.
Why it didn't "mush" is because of its mass X velocity, added to the point that it is built on a very strong keel (which the nose landing gear is attached to) and this would have acted like a battering ram on impact. Once you get away from the bottom half, center section of the aircraft, and the wings (out to the engines) you are no longer dealing with anything particularly massive.
The analogy to a "hollow point" bullet was used earlier, but neither a jacketed, nor a hollow point makes any more then a small entry wound. AFTER entry the hollow point mushrooms and dissipates energy quickly while the jacketed round is barely stable and begins to tumble, often carving a cavity as it goes, but in both cases the entry wound is still just a small round hole.
Arthur
QUOTE (Computer fogie+)
I don't see any clear sign of damage from the right wing/engine or anything else. I can't read the text, either. Can you clarify what you're referring to in that picture as being damage from any particular part of the aircraft? I only see arrows pointing to non-specific black areas and beams(?).
The speed of 520 mph was the most reliable figure I've come across; I believe it was agovernment source. I don't have a source handy, sorry about that. Would it susbstantially change the situation if it was "only" ~400 mph? I think not...
The three arrows on the left, radiating from a point are pointing at the main entry hole.
Columns 16, 17 and 18 are marked. The right engine, based on impact angle would have hit at column 16.
The bottom right three lines are pointing to the extensive damage the columns and the broken limestone.
The damage shape is pretty much identical to the cross section of the fuselage and the wing root.
While I haven't found a good picture of the other side, base on the angle of impact I could easily see the engine going through the same hole the fuselage punched through the wall.
None the less, this picture alone, IMHO, is clear evidence that it was a jet that impacted the Pentagon. If you can't see it, then I don't think you don't want to see it.
As far as the speed, I guess it would depend on how much slower it was going.
I just wonder at the justification of posting "520", which implies a high level of accuracy, if it doesn't exist. Maybe it does, but I've not seen it.
Arthur
The speed of 520 mph was the most reliable figure I've come across; I believe it was agovernment source. I don't have a source handy, sorry about that. Would it susbstantially change the situation if it was "only" ~400 mph? I think not...
The three arrows on the left, radiating from a point are pointing at the main entry hole.
Columns 16, 17 and 18 are marked. The right engine, based on impact angle would have hit at column 16.
The bottom right three lines are pointing to the extensive damage the columns and the broken limestone.
The damage shape is pretty much identical to the cross section of the fuselage and the wing root.
While I haven't found a good picture of the other side, base on the angle of impact I could easily see the engine going through the same hole the fuselage punched through the wall.
None the less, this picture alone, IMHO, is clear evidence that it was a jet that impacted the Pentagon. If you can't see it, then I don't think you don't want to see it.
As far as the speed, I guess it would depend on how much slower it was going.
I just wonder at the justification of posting "520", which implies a high level of accuracy, if it doesn't exist. Maybe it does, but I've not seen it.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 24 2005, 03:05 AM)
And don't forget all the "false blips" from the War Games involving hijacked planes being flown into buildings which were going on that morning!
==> I have no idea what you are talking about.
Oh come on now, I'm sure they mention the War Games in your 9/11 Debunking Procudures Manual somewhere! Flip a few pages, or go borrow a_ht's!
Air Force wargames on 9/11: Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, Northern Guardian, Northern Vigilance
==> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe those simulations were only for training emergency response teams, there were NO ACTUAL AIRCRAFT involved. And the aircraft was presumed to be a GA aircraft not a passenger jet.
These War Games were not just for training emergency response teams, as you state. Here's a quote from an article from the Toronto Sun on Operation Northern Vigilance:
"Any simulated information", in this case, refers to "hijacked" airplane blips.
And don't forget the US National Reconnaissance Office, which operates spy satellites, and was conducting a simulation of a plane crash into their headquarters (near Dulles Airport in Virginia) on September 11th.
More information on the War Games of 9/11 available HERE
Anyway, I know what happened, you know what happened, and every intelligent person that looks into it knows what really happened that day. These "debates" are mere distraction and, yes, misinformation. The only difference is that you get paid for pushing the official story, and I do what I do out of my desire to search for and uncover the TRUTH.
Government shills on this board have already exposed themselves, and that exposure has been disseminated worldwide (LINK). I just hope it makes your soulless jobs of misleading innocent people more difficult.
==> I have no idea what you are talking about.
Oh come on now, I'm sure they mention the War Games in your 9/11 Debunking Procudures Manual somewhere! Flip a few pages, or go borrow a_ht's!
Air Force wargames on 9/11: Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, Northern Guardian, Northern Vigilance
QUOTE (adoucette+)
==> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe those simulations were only for training emergency response teams, there were NO ACTUAL AIRCRAFT involved. And the aircraft was presumed to be a GA aircraft not a passenger jet.
These War Games were not just for training emergency response teams, as you state. Here's a quote from an article from the Toronto Sun on Operation Northern Vigilance:
QUOTE
NORAD's Northeast Air Defence Sector (NEADS), based in Rome, N.Y., contacts the mountain.
The Federal Aviation Administration has evidence of a hijacking and is asking for NORAD support. This is not part of the exercise.
In a flash, Operation Northern Vigilance is called off. Any simulated information, what's known as an "inject," is purged from the screens.
The Federal Aviation Administration has evidence of a hijacking and is asking for NORAD support. This is not part of the exercise.
In a flash, Operation Northern Vigilance is called off. Any simulated information, what's known as an "inject," is purged from the screens.
"Any simulated information", in this case, refers to "hijacked" airplane blips.
And don't forget the US National Reconnaissance Office, which operates spy satellites, and was conducting a simulation of a plane crash into their headquarters (near Dulles Airport in Virginia) on September 11th.
More information on the War Games of 9/11 available HERE
Anyway, I know what happened, you know what happened, and every intelligent person that looks into it knows what really happened that day. These "debates" are mere distraction and, yes, misinformation. The only difference is that you get paid for pushing the official story, and I do what I do out of my desire to search for and uncover the TRUTH.
Government shills on this board have already exposed themselves, and that exposure has been disseminated worldwide (LINK). I just hope it makes your soulless jobs of misleading innocent people more difficult.
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 24 2005, 03:05 AM)
And don't forget all the "false blips" from the War Games involving hijacked planes being flown into buildings which were going on that morning!
==> I have no idea what you are talking about.
Oh come on now, I'm sure they mention the War Games in your 9/11 Debunking Procudures Manual somewhere! Flip a few pages, or go borrow a_ht's!
==> Ok, the only WG with "false blips" appears to be the one in Alaska/Northern Canada, hardly likely to be an issue on an East Coast based attack. The issue of having fewer fighters is a red herring, as nothing could have been launched fast enough to stop the first two strikes.
Air Force wargames on 9/11: Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, Northern Guardian, Northern Vigilance
==> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe those simulations were only for training emergency response teams, there were NO ACTUAL AIRCRAFT involved. And the aircraft was presumed to be a GA aircraft not a passenger jet.
These War Games were not just for training emergency response teams, as you state. Here's a quote from an article from the Toronto Sun on Operation Northern Vigilance:
"Any simulated information", in this case, refers to "hijacked" airplane blips.
And don't forget the US National Reconnaissance Office, which operates spy satellites, and was conducting a simulation of a plane crash into their headquarters (near Dulles Airport in Virginia) on September 11th.
More information on the War Games of 9/11 available HERE
==> Yes, and in this case it was not involving any ACTUAL aircraft.
Anyway, I know what happened, you know what happened, and every intelligent person that looks into it knows what really happened that day. These "debates" are mere distraction and, yes, misinformation. The only difference is that you get paid for pushing the official story, and I do what I do out of my desire to search for and uncover the TRUTH.
==> What happened that day? 4 planes got hijacked, two crashed into the WTC towers, 1 into the Pentagon, 1 crashed in Penn.
Get paid for this? You must be kidding.
Oh, of course, being a govt. disinformation peddler, of course I would say that.
Let me ask you, is it true you stopped beating your wife?
Government shills on this board have already exposed themselves, and that exposure has been disseminated worldwide (LINK). I just hope it makes your soulless jobs of misleading innocent people more difficult.
So now I'm a Govt shill, cute. Now I am part of the conspiracy as well?
Oh, so I joined this board months and months ago, just waiting for a thread like this to pop up.
I'd be angry too, if I was as much of an idiot as you appear to be.
Arthur
==> I have no idea what you are talking about.
Oh come on now, I'm sure they mention the War Games in your 9/11 Debunking Procudures Manual somewhere! Flip a few pages, or go borrow a_ht's!
==> Ok, the only WG with "false blips" appears to be the one in Alaska/Northern Canada, hardly likely to be an issue on an East Coast based attack. The issue of having fewer fighters is a red herring, as nothing could have been launched fast enough to stop the first two strikes.
Air Force wargames on 9/11: Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, Northern Guardian, Northern Vigilance
QUOTE (adoucette+)
==> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe those simulations were only for training emergency response teams, there were NO ACTUAL AIRCRAFT involved. And the aircraft was presumed to be a GA aircraft not a passenger jet.
These War Games were not just for training emergency response teams, as you state. Here's a quote from an article from the Toronto Sun on Operation Northern Vigilance:
QUOTE
NORAD's Northeast Air Defence Sector (NEADS), based in Rome, N.Y., contacts the mountain.
The Federal Aviation Administration has evidence of a hijacking and is asking for NORAD support. This is not part of the exercise.
In a flash, Operation Northern Vigilance is called off. Any simulated information, what's known as an "inject," is purged from the screens.
The Federal Aviation Administration has evidence of a hijacking and is asking for NORAD support. This is not part of the exercise.
In a flash, Operation Northern Vigilance is called off. Any simulated information, what's known as an "inject," is purged from the screens.
"Any simulated information", in this case, refers to "hijacked" airplane blips.
And don't forget the US National Reconnaissance Office, which operates spy satellites, and was conducting a simulation of a plane crash into their headquarters (near Dulles Airport in Virginia) on September 11th.
More information on the War Games of 9/11 available HERE
==> Yes, and in this case it was not involving any ACTUAL aircraft.
Anyway, I know what happened, you know what happened, and every intelligent person that looks into it knows what really happened that day. These "debates" are mere distraction and, yes, misinformation. The only difference is that you get paid for pushing the official story, and I do what I do out of my desire to search for and uncover the TRUTH.
==> What happened that day? 4 planes got hijacked, two crashed into the WTC towers, 1 into the Pentagon, 1 crashed in Penn.
Get paid for this? You must be kidding.
Oh, of course, being a govt. disinformation peddler, of course I would say that.
Let me ask you, is it true you stopped beating your wife?
Government shills on this board have already exposed themselves, and that exposure has been disseminated worldwide (LINK). I just hope it makes your soulless jobs of misleading innocent people more difficult.
So now I'm a Govt shill, cute. Now I am part of the conspiracy as well?
Oh, so I joined this board months and months ago, just waiting for a thread like this to pop up.
I'd be angry too, if I was as much of an idiot as you appear to be.
Arthur
QUOTE (Guest+Oct 24 2005, 04:29 PM)
adoucette;
Even though I was using a law enforcement ballistics analogy, the impact effects on the human body was never the point and frankly not applicable here. You brought that up to distract and muddy the argument. Right? Were talking hard(ened) surfaces here like say stucco. A high velocity jacketed round has a chance of penetration, a hollow point no chance. Last time I checked, our so called enemies flagship weaponry was still the car and road side bomb. When did they turn on there low horizon radar units and activate there anti aircraft batteries? I was out sick that day and I guess I miss it.
I didn't think the analogy had much use, but you brought it up, not me.
As I understand it the facing was not stucco, but limestone. Looking at the pictures the limestone blocks appear pretty substantial and nothing like a stucco coating.
Arthur
Even though I was using a law enforcement ballistics analogy, the impact effects on the human body was never the point and frankly not applicable here. You brought that up to distract and muddy the argument. Right? Were talking hard(ened) surfaces here like say stucco. A high velocity jacketed round has a chance of penetration, a hollow point no chance. Last time I checked, our so called enemies flagship weaponry was still the car and road side bomb. When did they turn on there low horizon radar units and activate there anti aircraft batteries? I was out sick that day and I guess I miss it.
I didn't think the analogy had much use, but you brought it up, not me.
As I understand it the facing was not stucco, but limestone. Looking at the pictures the limestone blocks appear pretty substantial and nothing like a stucco coating.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 24 2005, 04:49 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 24 2005, 03:05 AM)
So now I'm a Govt shill, cute. Now I am part of the conspiracy as well?
Oh, so I joined this board months and months ago, just waiting for a thread like this to pop up.
Of course not! If you were a 9/11 expert, they wouldn't have had to transfer Schneibster to this board! But there IS a lot on a Physics board that gatekeepers like yourself need to defend. You know, all those fairy-tales used to prop up a dead "standard theory"? Such as black holes, neutron stars, WIMPs, MACHOs, MOND and all those other complete fabrications?
I am sure every single one of your views is completely "mainstream". What's your stand on comets, for example? "Dirty snowballs"? "Snowy dirtballs"? Loose agglomerations of particles which can somehow sustain craters? Or do you admit that they are electrical phenomena, and that the jets come from electric arcs "machining" the rocky surfaces of the comets, which are composed of the same thing as asteroids and only become active due to their orbital characteristics? No? For some reason, I didn't think so...
Have you ever looked into anything for yourself, or do you automatically bow down to the government and scientists' superior knowledge and intellect?
If you don't work for one of the government's "public relations" departments, why spend your days on messageboards defending them against "conspiracy theorists" anyway? Do you honestly believe that the people in government are looking out for the interests of the population above their own self-interests?!? Now THERE'S a conspiracy theory!
Oh, so I joined this board months and months ago, just waiting for a thread like this to pop up.
Of course not! If you were a 9/11 expert, they wouldn't have had to transfer Schneibster to this board! But there IS a lot on a Physics board that gatekeepers like yourself need to defend. You know, all those fairy-tales used to prop up a dead "standard theory"? Such as black holes, neutron stars, WIMPs, MACHOs, MOND and all those other complete fabrications?
I am sure every single one of your views is completely "mainstream". What's your stand on comets, for example? "Dirty snowballs"? "Snowy dirtballs"? Loose agglomerations of particles which can somehow sustain craters? Or do you admit that they are electrical phenomena, and that the jets come from electric arcs "machining" the rocky surfaces of the comets, which are composed of the same thing as asteroids and only become active due to their orbital characteristics? No? For some reason, I didn't think so...
Have you ever looked into anything for yourself, or do you automatically bow down to the government and scientists' superior knowledge and intellect?
If you don't work for one of the government's "public relations" departments, why spend your days on messageboards defending them against "conspiracy theorists" anyway? Do you honestly believe that the people in government are looking out for the interests of the population above their own self-interests?!? Now THERE'S a conspiracy theory!
QUOTE (computer fogie+Oct 24 2005, 04:13 AM)
Also, those of you who are skipping over the physical evidence to address such issues as "Why would the government do this"?, and "Where did Flight 77 go, then?" are missing the point. Those are side issues, to be addressed if/when the physical evidence is accounted for.
"The physical evidence", appears to be arguing about a few inconclusive pictures, most somewhat obscured by smoke or firefighting efforts.
On the other hand there are NUMEROUS eyewitness accounts of a passenger jet impacting the Pentagon.
Should they be dismissed out of hand?
Should the fact that flight 77 and all souls on board are gone be dismissed?
Should the fact that after the WTC towers had been hit, there would be no "additional" value (in a conspiracy) to then hit the Pentagon with a cruise missile? In fact this would appear to be the MOST difficult cover up to pull off and the one MOST likely to be exposed.
Considering the above and the fact that two jets were filmed as they flew into the WTC towers that day, and another one, also obviously hijacked, crashed in Penn, WHY would anyone even consider that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon WITHOUT ANY DIRECT evidence that it did not?
You know, like some of the passengers showing up alive, the plane (or its serial numbered parts) showing up, pieces of a cruise missile found inside the pentagon, etc etc.
Since NONE of the latter have shown up, these "discussions" about the PICTURES, while interesting from a collision analysis point of view, has done nothing to cast any doubt on the obvious cause of the damage at the Pentagon.
At least in my mind.
Arthur
"The physical evidence", appears to be arguing about a few inconclusive pictures, most somewhat obscured by smoke or firefighting efforts.
On the other hand there are NUMEROUS eyewitness accounts of a passenger jet impacting the Pentagon.
Should they be dismissed out of hand?
Should the fact that flight 77 and all souls on board are gone be dismissed?
Should the fact that after the WTC towers had been hit, there would be no "additional" value (in a conspiracy) to then hit the Pentagon with a cruise missile? In fact this would appear to be the MOST difficult cover up to pull off and the one MOST likely to be exposed.
Considering the above and the fact that two jets were filmed as they flew into the WTC towers that day, and another one, also obviously hijacked, crashed in Penn, WHY would anyone even consider that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon WITHOUT ANY DIRECT evidence that it did not?
You know, like some of the passengers showing up alive, the plane (or its serial numbered parts) showing up, pieces of a cruise missile found inside the pentagon, etc etc.
Since NONE of the latter have shown up, these "discussions" about the PICTURES, while interesting from a collision analysis point of view, has done nothing to cast any doubt on the obvious cause of the damage at the Pentagon.
At least in my mind.
Arthur
QUOTE (Piper+Oct 24 2005, 05:25 PM)
Of course not! If you were a 9/11 expert, they wouldn't have had to transfer Schneibster to this board! But there IS a lot on a Physics board that gatekeepers like yourself need to defend. You know, all those fairy-tales used to prop up a dead "standard theory"? Such as black holes, neutron stars, WIMPs, MACHOs, MOND and all those other complete fabrications?
I am sure every single one of your views is completely "mainstream". What's your stand on comets, for example? "Dirty snowballs"? "Snowy dirtballs"? Loose agglomerations of particles which can somehow sustain craters? Or do you admit that they are electrical phenomena, and that the jets come from electric arcs "machining" the rocky surfaces of the comets, which are composed of the same thing as asteroids and only become active due to their orbital characteristics? No? For some reason, I didn't think so...
Have you ever looked into anything for yourself, or do you automatically bow down to the government and scientists' superior knowledge and intellect?
If you don't work for one of the government's "public relations" departments, why spend your days on messageboards defending them against "conspiracy theorists" anyway? Do you honestly believe that the people in government are looking out for the interests of the population above their own self-interests?!? Now THERE'S a conspiracy theory!
Ah, what dead "standard theory" are we propping up?
Oh no, in fact I just bought 10,000 shares in AAMC (ACME ASTEROID MINING COMPANY), got in cheap and expect to make a fortune.
Bow down? No, I'm more into boot licking. You?
Work's slow right now and I get bored easily.
Govt looking out for the interests of the people above their own self interests? No, I think they often try to find ways for the two to be the same. I'm not a politician so I don't have any "inside scoop" on this but I do notice that most either are rich or become rich as a "side effect" of their public service, much more than their published salaries would seem to support. On the other hand, they seem to manage to do this while staying, at least slightly on the gray side of "legal". What I mean by this is becoming rich, even at public expense, is normally a CIVIL issue or at worst "White Collar Crime" and that is a LONG WAY from orchestrating the deaths of a whole bunch of Americans. Not only don't I think that few politicians would have the "stomach" for such, I don't think you would find many who would accept even a remote risk of discovery and all that could entail. To do this would require a certain amount of "bravery", i.e. willing to do something where the potential personal risk is high, that I don't think is a common trait among politicians.
Arthur
I am sure every single one of your views is completely "mainstream". What's your stand on comets, for example? "Dirty snowballs"? "Snowy dirtballs"? Loose agglomerations of particles which can somehow sustain craters? Or do you admit that they are electrical phenomena, and that the jets come from electric arcs "machining" the rocky surfaces of the comets, which are composed of the same thing as asteroids and only become active due to their orbital characteristics? No? For some reason, I didn't think so...
Have you ever looked into anything for yourself, or do you automatically bow down to the government and scientists' superior knowledge and intellect?
If you don't work for one of the government's "public relations" departments, why spend your days on messageboards defending them against "conspiracy theorists" anyway? Do you honestly believe that the people in government are looking out for the interests of the population above their own self-interests?!? Now THERE'S a conspiracy theory!
Ah, what dead "standard theory" are we propping up?
Oh no, in fact I just bought 10,000 shares in AAMC (ACME ASTEROID MINING COMPANY), got in cheap and expect to make a fortune.
Bow down? No, I'm more into boot licking. You?
Work's slow right now and I get bored easily.
Govt looking out for the interests of the people above their own self interests? No, I think they often try to find ways for the two to be the same. I'm not a politician so I don't have any "inside scoop" on this but I do notice that most either are rich or become rich as a "side effect" of their public service, much more than their published salaries would seem to support. On the other hand, they seem to manage to do this while staying, at least slightly on the gray side of "legal". What I mean by this is becoming rich, even at public expense, is normally a CIVIL issue or at worst "White Collar Crime" and that is a LONG WAY from orchestrating the deaths of a whole bunch of Americans. Not only don't I think that few politicians would have the "stomach" for such, I don't think you would find many who would accept even a remote risk of discovery and all that could entail. To do this would require a certain amount of "bravery", i.e. willing to do something where the potential personal risk is high, that I don't think is a common trait among politicians.
Arthur
adoucette;
Even though I was using a law enforcement ballistics analogy, the impact effects on the human body was never the point and frankly, not applicable here. You brought that up to distract and muddy the argument, right? The operative was hard(ened) surfaces like say stucco. A jacketed round has a chance of penetration. The hollow point doesn't and will only leave a wide crater.
Even though I was using a law enforcement ballistics analogy, the impact effects on the human body was never the point and frankly, not applicable here. You brought that up to distract and muddy the argument, right? The operative was hard(ened) surfaces like say stucco. A jacketed round has a chance of penetration. The hollow point doesn't and will only leave a wide crater.
Here's a bit more for you, since I'm bored as well. 
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 24 2005, 05:46 PM)
On the other hand there are NUMEROUS eyewitness accounts of a passenger jet impacting the Pentagon.
Should they be dismissed out of hand?
What about the NUMEROUS accounts describing a twin-engine plane, or a missile? Should THOSE be dismissed out of hand? Eyewitnesses are the worst "proof" you can have, since perceptions vary widely among people.
Should they be dismissed out of hand?
What about the NUMEROUS accounts describing a twin-engine plane, or a missile? Should THOSE be dismissed out of hand? Eyewitnesses are the worst "proof" you can have, since perceptions vary widely among people.
QUOTE (adoucette+)
Should the fact that flight 77 and all souls on board are gone be dismissed?
Should the fact that the flight only filled to 25% capacity be dismissed? Should the fact that so many passengers on board were seemingly involved with the government in some way be dismissed? Should the fact that the alleged cell phone calls they made are impossible to make be dismissed?
Summary of Flight 77 passengers:
Total passengers: 64
Passengers involved in gov’t/defense related work: 21
Senior staff/directors/managers: 18
Military backgrounds: 10
Navy background: 7
Executives/chief officers/presidents: 5
Men: 30
Women: 24
Kids: 5
Alleged Hijackers: 5
Should the fact that the flight only filled to 25% capacity be dismissed? Should the fact that so many passengers on board were seemingly involved with the government in some way be dismissed? Should the fact that the alleged cell phone calls they made are impossible to make be dismissed?
Summary of Flight 77 passengers:
Total passengers: 64
Passengers involved in gov’t/defense related work: 21
Senior staff/directors/managers: 18
Military backgrounds: 10
Navy background: 7
Executives/chief officers/presidents: 5
Men: 30
Women: 24
Kids: 5
Alleged Hijackers: 5
QUOTE (adoucette+)
Considering the above and the fact that two jets were filmed as they flew into the WTC towers that day, and another one, also obviously hijacked, crashed in Penn, WHY would anyone even consider that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon WITHOUT ANY DIRECT evidence that it did not?
"Obviously hijacked"? Based on what, exactly? Impossible cell phone calls from a cruising-altitude airplane? The flight recorder tapes? The black box information? Or the government conspiracy theory of the hijackings? Because for me to state that something is "obvious" I have to see some pretty serious proof, and I would hope anyone else on a physics board would agree. What proof did you see, exactly?
Government shills on this board have already exposed themselves, and that exposure has been disseminated worldwide (LINK). I just hope it makes your soulless jobs of misleading innocent people more difficult.
Bwwaaaahahahahahahah !!!
Oh, you noticed too? Yeppers... worldwide!
I would guess poor old a_ht has been sent to his room... maybe to Homeland Security in Alaska
We owe a debt of gratitude to Andrew Johnson. Hip..Hip...
"Obviously hijacked"? Based on what, exactly? Impossible cell phone calls from a cruising-altitude airplane? The flight recorder tapes? The black box information? Or the government conspiracy theory of the hijackings? Because for me to state that something is "obvious" I have to see some pretty serious proof, and I would hope anyone else on a physics board would agree. What proof did you see, exactly?
QUOTE (adoucette+)
You know, like some of the passengers showing up alive, the plane (or its serial numbered parts) showing up, pieces of a cruise missile found inside the pentagon, etc etc.
You mean someone like Barbara Olson, who while "aboard" "Flight 77" made the "cell phone calls" to husband Ted Olson (former Solicitor General under Bush Sr.) describing "box-cutters" and "hijackers"? This being the unsubstantiated claim which was the solitary foundation on which the spurious “Hijacker” story was built? This same Barbara Olson who was recently arrested in Europe?
Or do you mean the "hijackers", seven or more of which have turned up alive and well, wondering why their names were used by the U.S. government in their conspiracy theory? As reported by such sites as the BBC?
You mean someone like Barbara Olson, who while "aboard" "Flight 77" made the "cell phone calls" to husband Ted Olson (former Solicitor General under Bush Sr.) describing "box-cutters" and "hijackers"? This being the unsubstantiated claim which was the solitary foundation on which the spurious “Hijacker” story was built? This same Barbara Olson who was recently arrested in Europe?
Or do you mean the "hijackers", seven or more of which have turned up alive and well, wondering why their names were used by the U.S. government in their conspiracy theory? As reported by such sites as the BBC?
QUOTE (Piper+Oct 24 2005, 04:25 PM)
Government shills on this board have already exposed themselves, and that exposure has been disseminated worldwide (LINK). I just hope it makes your soulless jobs of misleading innocent people more difficult.
Bwwaaaahahahahahahah !!!
Oh, you noticed too? Yeppers... worldwide!
I would guess poor old a_ht has been sent to his room... maybe to Homeland Security in Alaska
We owe a debt of gratitude to Andrew Johnson. Hip..Hip...
QUOTE (Piper+Oct 24 2005, 07:09 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+)
You know, like some of the passengers showing up alive, the plane (or its serial numbered parts) showing up, pieces of a cruise missile found inside the pentagon, etc etc.
You mean someone like Barbara Olson, who while "aboard" "Flight 77" made the "cell phone calls" to husband Ted Olson (former Solicitor General under Bush Sr.) describing "box-cutters" and "hijackers"? This being the unsubstantiated claim which was the solitary foundation on which the spurious “Hijacker” story was built? This same Barbara Olson who was recently arrested in Europe?
Oh this is rich.
The first version of the story has Olson spelled "Olsen", has the arrest on the Austrian Polish border, which of course does not actually exist.
Finally, Italian lyra is no longer used. It stopped being able to be used as legal tender in February of 2002. Which makes claims about "Olsen" having fake lyra currency totally preposterous.
See: http://www.tomflocco.com/ for more "true" stories.
I also refer you to this site, which is by no means a mainstream media outlet for their take on previous stories by Tom Flocco.
http://www.wingtv.net/thornarticles/flocco.html
Of course let me predict the "future news": "Olsen" won't make it back to the US and her "disappearance" will just be added to the growing govt cover up.
Arthur
You mean someone like Barbara Olson, who while "aboard" "Flight 77" made the "cell phone calls" to husband Ted Olson (former Solicitor General under Bush Sr.) describing "box-cutters" and "hijackers"? This being the unsubstantiated claim which was the solitary foundation on which the spurious “Hijacker” story was built? This same Barbara Olson who was recently arrested in Europe?
Oh this is rich.
The first version of the story has Olson spelled "Olsen", has the arrest on the Austrian Polish border, which of course does not actually exist.
Finally, Italian lyra is no longer used. It stopped being able to be used as legal tender in February of 2002. Which makes claims about "Olsen" having fake lyra currency totally preposterous.
See: http://www.tomflocco.com/ for more "true" stories.
I also refer you to this site, which is by no means a mainstream media outlet for their take on previous stories by Tom Flocco.
http://www.wingtv.net/thornarticles/flocco.html
Of course let me predict the "future news": "Olsen" won't make it back to the US and her "disappearance" will just be added to the growing govt cover up.
Arthur
QUOTE (Piper+Oct 24 2005, 07:09 PM)
What about the NUMEROUS accounts describing a twin-engine plane, or a missile? Should THOSE be dismissed out of hand? Eyewitnesses are the worst "proof" you can have, since perceptions vary widely among people.
NEWS FLASH: a 757 IS a TWIN ENGINE PLANE.
EVERY reference I've seen to a "missile" was being used as an ANALOGY, not a description.
While it is TRUE that eyewitness accounts can be individually wrong, particularly as to small details, when you have dozens of people saying they saw the SAME thing and that was that a PASSENGER JET passed right by/over them and hit the Pentagon, and also provide corroborating data which turns out to be correct (wing hit diesel generator before striking pentagon, hit lightposts etc) then IN SUM, NO, you do not discount it.
Arthur
NEWS FLASH: a 757 IS a TWIN ENGINE PLANE.
EVERY reference I've seen to a "missile" was being used as an ANALOGY, not a description.
While it is TRUE that eyewitness accounts can be individually wrong, particularly as to small details, when you have dozens of people saying they saw the SAME thing and that was that a PASSENGER JET passed right by/over them and hit the Pentagon, and also provide corroborating data which turns out to be correct (wing hit diesel generator before striking pentagon, hit lightposts etc) then IN SUM, NO, you do not discount it.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 24 2005, 08:06 PM)
QUOTE (Piper+Oct 24 2005, 07:09 PM)
What about the NUMEROUS accounts describing a twin-engine plane, or a missile? Should THOSE be dismissed out of hand? Eyewitnesses are the worst "proof" you can have, since perceptions vary widely among people.
NEWS FLASH: a 757 IS a TWIN ENGINE PLANE.
Ah yes, that's true. I must have mistaken it for the OTHER passenger plane (the one with four engines) that was seen doing dives in highly restricted arispace over Washington that day, as seen in a BBC news report, and in this photo:
Or maybe I was simply mistaking it for the "small, twin-engine plane" that Karl Rove reported to Bush as having hit the WTC1 tower (according to the Washington Post). There are so many misleading statements in the corporate media, it's hard to keep track...
Oh, and I'm sorry you don't like the Tom Flocco site. He came out with the current Fitzgerald indictment story a couple of months before the mainstream media did. Now why would they not have been covering such an important story, I wonder?
Cyberspace ???
Are you a cyberspace pilot, adoucette ?
adoucette Posted: Oct 23 2005, 10:46 PM (on the Pentagon thread)
Cyberspace ???
Are you a cyberspace pilot, adoucette ?
adoucette Posted: Oct 23 2005, 10:46 PM (on the Pentagon thread)
Posted by adoucette
There were thousands of planes in the air, if you are NOT flying within the system, using your assigned code and particularly if you are at low altitude it is very easy to "fly under the radar"
PS. I am a pilot.
Arthur
adoucette Posted: Oct 25 2005, 11:40 PM (on the Basic Physics thread)
NEWS FLASH: a 757 IS a TWIN ENGINE PLANE.
Ah yes, that's true. I must have mistaken it for the OTHER passenger plane (the one with four engines) that was seen doing dives in highly restricted arispace over Washington that day, as seen in a BBC news report, and in this photo:
Or maybe I was simply mistaking it for the "small, twin-engine plane" that Karl Rove reported to Bush as having hit the WTC1 tower (according to the Washington Post). There are so many misleading statements in the corporate media, it's hard to keep track...
Oh, and I'm sorry you don't like the Tom Flocco site. He came out with the current Fitzgerald indictment story a couple of months before the mainstream media did. Now why would they not have been covering such an important story, I wonder?
That would be a KC-135 tanker.
Rove may have told Bush that, don't really know, except that's the SAME thing I heard on the news that morning. My guess is we got it from the same source (I think CNN but not positive as I was switching channels a lot that morning). Since at the time Bush was told, the film of the first jet hitting the WTC had not been aired there was a lot of speculation as to the size of the aircraft that hit the tower.
Its not that Flocco can't post something that TURNS OUT to be right occasionally, but he has posted enough horse pucky to fill a barn.
This story is full of holes, not the least of which being, what happened since this story came out to corroborate it?
NOTHING.
Arthur
Rove may have told Bush that, don't really know, except that's the SAME thing I heard on the news that morning. My guess is we got it from the same source (I think CNN but not positive as I was switching channels a lot that morning). Since at the time Bush was told, the film of the first jet hitting the WTC had not been aired there was a lot of speculation as to the size of the aircraft that hit the tower.
Its not that Flocco can't post something that TURNS OUT to be right occasionally, but he has posted enough horse pucky to fill a barn.
This story is full of holes, not the least of which being, what happened since this story came out to corroborate it?
NOTHING.
Arthur
QUOTE (piper+)
"Obviously hijacked"? Based on what, exactly? Impossible cell phone calls from a cruising-altitude airplane? The flight recorder tapes? The black box information? Or the government conspiracy theory of the hijackings? Because for me to state that something is "obvious" I have to see some pretty serious proof, and I would hope anyone else on a physics board would agree. What proof did you see, exactly?
Ah, the American calls to their support group, telling of the hijacking.
The FAA tapes from (Chicago Center I believe) where the hijackers had the mike on as they told the people they had a bomb on board.
The calls from the Penn flight describing their attempts to take control of the plane.
AND FINALLY
The fact that the friggin planes were flown into the WTC, Pentagon and that the one in Penn was flying very erratically, so much so that it rolled into an inverted dive.
HOW MUCH MORE EVIDENCE DO YOU NEED THAT THE PLANES WERE HIJACKED?????
What friggin evidence would you ACTUALLY accept????
Arthur
Ah, the American calls to their support group, telling of the hijacking.
The FAA tapes from (Chicago Center I believe) where the hijackers had the mike on as they told the people they had a bomb on board.
The calls from the Penn flight describing their attempts to take control of the plane.
AND FINALLY
The fact that the friggin planes were flown into the WTC, Pentagon and that the one in Penn was flying very erratically, so much so that it rolled into an inverted dive.
HOW MUCH MORE EVIDENCE DO YOU NEED THAT THE PLANES WERE HIJACKED?????
What friggin evidence would you ACTUALLY accept????
Arthur
hahaah Isn't it frustrating adoucette?? It just kills me!
Oh so true,
Arthur
Arthur
Funny picture adoucette. I'm just wondering though why you are spending so much time discussing 9/11 events all over the board. I thought you have been here for months discussing other areas of physics. Did you not see 'searcherrs' post...
"Calculating Ambient Heat in a bedroom, Its too hot in there".
I thought since you were just bored, and having been here for so long, you would want to help him rather than 'wasting time' on 'silly conspiracy threads' ?
Also wondering how (as you don't seem to know much about 9/11 events and seem to claim no prior interest in 'conspiracy theories')... you were aware of the particulars of the fake Olson story so quickly. I don't recall that story on CNN? But... it was a good 'sting' to send out that story.
I wonder who was really behind sending out that disinformation?
"Calculating Ambient Heat in a bedroom, Its too hot in there".
I thought since you were just bored, and having been here for so long, you would want to help him rather than 'wasting time' on 'silly conspiracy threads' ?
Also wondering how (as you don't seem to know much about 9/11 events and seem to claim no prior interest in 'conspiracy theories')... you were aware of the particulars of the fake Olson story so quickly. I don't recall that story on CNN? But... it was a good 'sting' to send out that story.
I wonder who was really behind sending out that disinformation?
~
~................plane!
~missile?
~missile and plane!
~missile on plane!
~missile off plane!
~.................plane
~........................
~
~................plane!
~missile?
~missile and plane!
~missile on plane!
~missile off plane!
~.................plane
~........................
~
QUOTE (Foxx+Oct 25 2005, 12:01 AM)
Funny picture adoucette. I'm just wondering though why you are spending so much time discussing 9/11 events all over the board. I thought you have been here for months discussing other areas of physics. Did you not see 'searcherrs' post...
"Calculating Ambient Heat in a bedroom, Its too hot in there".
I thought since you were just bored, and having been here for so long, you would want to help him rather than 'wasting time' on 'silly conspiracy threads' ?
Also wondering how (as you don't seem to know much about 9/11 events and seem to claim no prior interest in 'conspiracy theories')... you were aware of the particulars of the fake Olson story so quickly. I don't recall that story on CNN? But... it was a good 'sting' to send out that story.
I wonder who was really behind sending out that disinformation?
I've been on the board for 7 months.
Most of my postings have been in Space and Creation/Evolution.
You can in fact see all my posts if you care to, just click on my name and select "see all posts"
As to Olson, real simple, I did a google search on "Barbara Olson arrested in Europe" and found the conflicting information on the first page of hits. It was pretty easy to skip past all the repeats of Flocco's story and check the ones that pointed out that it was full of holes. Go ahead do the search yourself. No magic needed.
Send out what disinformtion?
I saw Searcherrs thread title, didn't seem to interesting.
I didn't claim not to know much about 9/11, I pointed you to www.airdisaster.com where I no longer frequent, but for a while I very actively debated people who claimed that we shot down the Penn flight and others who claimed that we COULD HAVE shot down at least the second jet to hit the WTC with our jets from Otis and flight 77 with our fighters from Va, and similar issues. They eventually created a section just for 9/11 but it was all pretty much aviation issues related.
I had heard of the Pentagon "no jet/missile" but never researched it, pretty much thinking that it was a non-issue. I hadn't heard of the "we blew up the WTC" until I saw it in these threads though.
Arthur
"Calculating Ambient Heat in a bedroom, Its too hot in there".
I thought since you were just bored, and having been here for so long, you would want to help him rather than 'wasting time' on 'silly conspiracy threads' ?
Also wondering how (as you don't seem to know much about 9/11 events and seem to claim no prior interest in 'conspiracy theories')... you were aware of the particulars of the fake Olson story so quickly. I don't recall that story on CNN? But... it was a good 'sting' to send out that story.
I wonder who was really behind sending out that disinformation?
I've been on the board for 7 months.
Most of my postings have been in Space and Creation/Evolution.
You can in fact see all my posts if you care to, just click on my name and select "see all posts"
As to Olson, real simple, I did a google search on "Barbara Olson arrested in Europe" and found the conflicting information on the first page of hits. It was pretty easy to skip past all the repeats of Flocco's story and check the ones that pointed out that it was full of holes. Go ahead do the search yourself. No magic needed.
Send out what disinformtion?
I saw Searcherrs thread title, didn't seem to interesting.
I didn't claim not to know much about 9/11, I pointed you to www.airdisaster.com where I no longer frequent, but for a while I very actively debated people who claimed that we shot down the Penn flight and others who claimed that we COULD HAVE shot down at least the second jet to hit the WTC with our jets from Otis and flight 77 with our fighters from Va, and similar issues. They eventually created a section just for 9/11 but it was all pretty much aviation issues related.
I had heard of the Pentagon "no jet/missile" but never researched it, pretty much thinking that it was a non-issue. I hadn't heard of the "we blew up the WTC" until I saw it in these threads though.
Arthur
"Controlled Demolition is Now a Fact, Not a Theory"
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government." --
--Dr. Griffin included excerpts from the firemen’s tapes which were recently released as a result of a prolonged court battle led by victim’s families represented by attorney Norman Siegel and reported in the NY Times. He also included statements by many witnesses. These sources gave ample testimony giving evidence of explosions going off in the buildings. A 12 minute film was shown for the audiences, who saw for themselves the undeniable evidence for controlled demolition.
Dr. Griffin listed ten characteristics of the collapses which all indicate that the buildings did not fall due to being struck by planes or the ensuing fires. --
http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.ph...order=0&thold=0
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government." --
--Dr. Griffin included excerpts from the firemen’s tapes which were recently released as a result of a prolonged court battle led by victim’s families represented by attorney Norman Siegel and reported in the NY Times. He also included statements by many witnesses. These sources gave ample testimony giving evidence of explosions going off in the buildings. A 12 minute film was shown for the audiences, who saw for themselves the undeniable evidence for controlled demolition.
Dr. Griffin listed ten characteristics of the collapses which all indicate that the buildings did not fall due to being struck by planes or the ensuing fires. --
http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.ph...order=0&thold=0
QUOTE (brian+Oct 25 2005, 02:11 PM)
"Controlled Demolition is Now a Fact, Not a Theory"
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government." --
--Dr. Griffin included excerpts from the firemen’s tapes which were recently released as a result of a prolonged court battle led by victim’s families represented by attorney Norman Siegel and reported in the NY Times. He also included statements by many witnesses. These sources gave ample testimony giving evidence of explosions going off in the buildings. A 12 minute film was shown for the audiences, who saw for themselves the undeniable evidence for controlled demolition.
Dr. Griffin listed ten characteristics of the collapses which all indicate that the buildings did not fall due to being struck by planes or the ensuing fires. --
http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.ph...order=0&thold=0
Because someone says it is a FACT, does not make it so.
The assertions he makes, most of which are presented in these threads, aren't holding up too well under the moderate scrutiny that the few posters are making.
Looking at the supporters for this "show" I find WABI, out of Berkley who also sponsered this:
Commission of Inquiry on Crimes of the Bush Admin. - Fri.-Sat., Oct. 21-22
(www.bushcommission.org, Oct. 18) The 2005 Interntl. Commission of Inquiry on War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity Committed by the Bush Admin. and Evidentiary Hearing on the Bush Admin.'s Response to Hurricane Katrina.
Fri, Oct. 21, 6pm & Sat., Oct. 22, 10:00 AM. At Grand Ballroom, Manhattan Center, 311 W. 34th Street (at 8th Ave.), New York City.
"When the possibility of far-reaching war crimes and crimes against humanity exists, people of conscience have a solemn responsibility to inquire into the nature and scope of these acts and to determine if they do in fact rise to the level of war crimes and crimes against humanity."
Presentation of INDICTMENTS:
1) Wars of Aggression;
2) Torture and Indefinite Detention;
3) Destruction of the Global Environment;
4) Attacks on Global Public Health and Reproductive Rights;
and
Special Evidentiary Hearing: Hurricane Katrina.
Survivor, Kimberly S.: "If it hadn't been for the young men they were calling thugs, I would have died."
Participants:
Featuring Katrina Survivors and Witnesses from the Gulf Coast, Former Detainees and Expert Testimony:
* Denis Halliday, ex-UN Assistant Secretary-General, former head of UN Humanitarian Mission In Iraq;
* Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst;
* Howard Zinn (special videotaped message);
* Michael Ratner, president, Center for Constitutional Rights;
* Jeremy Scahill, correspondent for Democracy Now!;
* Camilo E. Mejia, member of Iraq Veterans Against the War;
* Rev. Luis Barrios, associate professor, John Jay College;
* Barbara Olshansky, Center for Constitutional Rights and co-ordinator of Guantanamo detainee defense;
* John Clark, Professor of Environmental Studies, Loyola University, New Orleans;
* Malik Rahim, Common Ground Collective, New Orleans;
* and more.
*******************************
Session I: 10/21 FRI, 6 pm: "Is the Bush administration guilty of war crimes & crimes against humanity?"
10/22 SAT, 10 am: "Is the Bush administration indictable for its actions on Hurricane Katrina?" w/eyewitness testimony.
2nd session (1/06 at latest) will present evidence to support charges & a finding by the jury of conscience.
At Manhattan Ctr, Grand Ballroom, 311 W 34th St
$30 (1 day $20); student/low income $15/10.
Register: 212-941-8086, commission@nion.us & http://www.ovationtix.com/trs/cal/24
Info: www.bushcommission.org
Obviously, no AGENDA here.
Arthur
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government." --
--Dr. Griffin included excerpts from the firemen’s tapes which were recently released as a result of a prolonged court battle led by victim’s families represented by attorney Norman Siegel and reported in the NY Times. He also included statements by many witnesses. These sources gave ample testimony giving evidence of explosions going off in the buildings. A 12 minute film was shown for the audiences, who saw for themselves the undeniable evidence for controlled demolition.
Dr. Griffin listed ten characteristics of the collapses which all indicate that the buildings did not fall due to being struck by planes or the ensuing fires. --
http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.ph...order=0&thold=0
Because someone says it is a FACT, does not make it so.
The assertions he makes, most of which are presented in these threads, aren't holding up too well under the moderate scrutiny that the few posters are making.
Looking at the supporters for this "show" I find WABI, out of Berkley who also sponsered this:
Commission of Inquiry on Crimes of the Bush Admin. - Fri.-Sat., Oct. 21-22
(www.bushcommission.org, Oct. 18) The 2005 Interntl. Commission of Inquiry on War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity Committed by the Bush Admin. and Evidentiary Hearing on the Bush Admin.'s Response to Hurricane Katrina.
Fri, Oct. 21, 6pm & Sat., Oct. 22, 10:00 AM. At Grand Ballroom, Manhattan Center, 311 W. 34th Street (at 8th Ave.), New York City.
"When the possibility of far-reaching war crimes and crimes against humanity exists, people of conscience have a solemn responsibility to inquire into the nature and scope of these acts and to determine if they do in fact rise to the level of war crimes and crimes against humanity."
Presentation of INDICTMENTS:
1) Wars of Aggression;
2) Torture and Indefinite Detention;
3) Destruction of the Global Environment;
4) Attacks on Global Public Health and Reproductive Rights;
and
Special Evidentiary Hearing: Hurricane Katrina.
Survivor, Kimberly S.: "If it hadn't been for the young men they were calling thugs, I would have died."
Participants:
Featuring Katrina Survivors and Witnesses from the Gulf Coast, Former Detainees and Expert Testimony:
* Denis Halliday, ex-UN Assistant Secretary-General, former head of UN Humanitarian Mission In Iraq;
* Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst;
* Howard Zinn (special videotaped message);
* Michael Ratner, president, Center for Constitutional Rights;
* Jeremy Scahill, correspondent for Democracy Now!;
* Camilo E. Mejia, member of Iraq Veterans Against the War;
* Rev. Luis Barrios, associate professor, John Jay College;
* Barbara Olshansky, Center for Constitutional Rights and co-ordinator of Guantanamo detainee defense;
* John Clark, Professor of Environmental Studies, Loyola University, New Orleans;
* Malik Rahim, Common Ground Collective, New Orleans;
* and more.
*******************************
Session I: 10/21 FRI, 6 pm: "Is the Bush administration guilty of war crimes & crimes against humanity?"
10/22 SAT, 10 am: "Is the Bush administration indictable for its actions on Hurricane Katrina?" w/eyewitness testimony.
2nd session (1/06 at latest) will present evidence to support charges & a finding by the jury of conscience.
At Manhattan Ctr, Grand Ballroom, 311 W 34th St
$30 (1 day $20); student/low income $15/10.
Register: 212-941-8086, commission@nion.us & http://www.ovationtix.com/trs/cal/24
Info: www.bushcommission.org
Obviously, no AGENDA here.
Arthur
Quote -
"Because someone says it is a FACT, does not make it so."
--
That criticism applies more to your assertion -
"The assertions he makes, most of which are presented in these threads, aren't holding up too well under the moderate scrutiny that the few posters are making."
Dr Griffin makes his statement based on the evidence he presented whereas you are indulging in wishful thinking or perhaps deliberate misrepresentation.
If the laws of physics + OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE point to controlled demolition the scrutiny must be very moderate indeed if it leads to the conclusion you wish to project.
Even moderate scrutiny of the evidence presented below should help the less informed see the error of your ways
http://www.911proof.com/
"Because someone says it is a FACT, does not make it so."
--
That criticism applies more to your assertion -
"The assertions he makes, most of which are presented in these threads, aren't holding up too well under the moderate scrutiny that the few posters are making."
Dr Griffin makes his statement based on the evidence he presented whereas you are indulging in wishful thinking or perhaps deliberate misrepresentation.
If the laws of physics + OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE point to controlled demolition the scrutiny must be very moderate indeed if it leads to the conclusion you wish to project.
Even moderate scrutiny of the evidence presented below should help the less informed see the error of your ways
http://www.911proof.com/
What I'd really like the answer to is How did a J.O. like adoucette
get accepted into college, if that is what he is in. Seems more like an institution
of lower learning! What a dunce!
get accepted into college, if that is what he is in. Seems more like an institution
of lower learning! What a dunce!
Oh, Scarlet, you want to back up your name calling with some facts?
Arthur
Arthur
QUOTE (Guest+Oct 25 2005, 04:49 PM)
Quote -
"Because someone says it is a FACT, does not make it so."
--
That criticism applies more to your assertion -
"The assertions he makes, most of which are presented in these threads, aren't holding up too well under the moderate scrutiny that the few posters are making."
Dr Griffin makes his statement based on the evidence he presented whereas you are indulging in wishful thinking or perhaps deliberate misrepresentation.
If the laws of physics + OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE point to controlled demolition the scrutiny must be very moderate indeed if it leads to the conclusion you wish to project.
Even moderate scrutiny of the evidence presented below should help the less informed see the error of your ways
http://www.911proof.com/
Well it is interesting that the people pushing these conspiracies have got zip coverage outside the internet, which is pretty surprising since you claim to have OVERWHELMING PROOF.
Maybe that proof ain't so OVERWHELMING after all if your "Proof" can only survive in cyberspace.
Arthur
"Because someone says it is a FACT, does not make it so."
--
That criticism applies more to your assertion -
"The assertions he makes, most of which are presented in these threads, aren't holding up too well under the moderate scrutiny that the few posters are making."
Dr Griffin makes his statement based on the evidence he presented whereas you are indulging in wishful thinking or perhaps deliberate misrepresentation.
If the laws of physics + OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE point to controlled demolition the scrutiny must be very moderate indeed if it leads to the conclusion you wish to project.
Even moderate scrutiny of the evidence presented below should help the less informed see the error of your ways
http://www.911proof.com/
Well it is interesting that the people pushing these conspiracies have got zip coverage outside the internet, which is pretty surprising since you claim to have OVERWHELMING PROOF.
Maybe that proof ain't so OVERWHELMING after all if your "Proof" can only survive in cyberspace.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 25 2005, 06:48 PM)
Well it is interesting that the people pushing these conspiracies have got zip coverage outside the internet, which is pretty surprising since you claim to have OVERWHELMING PROOF.
Maybe that proof ain't so OVERWHELMING after all if your "Proof" can only survive in cyberspace.
Ah, so now you are implying that the internet is a "bad" source of information, and that anything that isn't covered in the corporate-owned, government-regulated media is not worth trusting? What's your next demand, peer-reviewed papers? LMAO!
Do you mean the media like the New York Times, who regularly publish false information and get caught doing so? What would you consider a credible source? Is it based on market share, Nielsen ratings, circulation, paid subscriber numbers? How about the Los Angeles Times Magazine interview with David Ray Griffin (average circulation ~1 million)? Or better yet, Griffin's Hustler Magazine interview (average circulation ~21 million)? Or his appearance on C-SPAN? Griffin is one of those "people pushing conspiracies" (which are different from the government's) that you refer to.
And let's not forget the multitude of DVDs and Videos! DVDs like "911 In Plane Sight", "Truth and Lies of 9/11", "Road to Tyranny" and "Loose Change" have sold tens of thousands of copies, with hundreds of thousands more being shared freely through bittorrent and other P2P methods - or simply handed out to friends and family - and all with the filmmakers' blessings.
But you're right about one thing. The only kind of "proof" that YOU offer is right here in front of us, on the internet. And yes, your version of the "truth (i.e. the "official" conspiracy theory) can only survive in cyberspace. That's because people in the "real world" have the ability to think for themselves, and not just believe lies that they are told by those who have their own agendas.
Maybe that proof ain't so OVERWHELMING after all if your "Proof" can only survive in cyberspace.
Ah, so now you are implying that the internet is a "bad" source of information, and that anything that isn't covered in the corporate-owned, government-regulated media is not worth trusting? What's your next demand, peer-reviewed papers? LMAO!
Do you mean the media like the New York Times, who regularly publish false information and get caught doing so? What would you consider a credible source? Is it based on market share, Nielsen ratings, circulation, paid subscriber numbers? How about the Los Angeles Times Magazine interview with David Ray Griffin (average circulation ~1 million)? Or better yet, Griffin's Hustler Magazine interview (average circulation ~21 million)? Or his appearance on C-SPAN? Griffin is one of those "people pushing conspiracies" (which are different from the government's) that you refer to.
And let's not forget the multitude of DVDs and Videos! DVDs like "911 In Plane Sight", "Truth and Lies of 9/11", "Road to Tyranny" and "Loose Change" have sold tens of thousands of copies, with hundreds of thousands more being shared freely through bittorrent and other P2P methods - or simply handed out to friends and family - and all with the filmmakers' blessings.
But you're right about one thing. The only kind of "proof" that YOU offer is right here in front of us, on the internet. And yes, your version of the "truth (i.e. the "official" conspiracy theory) can only survive in cyberspace. That's because people in the "real world" have the ability to think for themselves, and not just believe lies that they are told by those who have their own agendas.
QUOTE
Originally posted by adoucette
Well it is interesting that the people pushing these conspiracies have got zip coverage outside the internet, which is pretty surprising since you claim to have OVERWHELMING PROOF.
Maybe that proof ain't so OVERWHELMING after all if your "Proof" can only survive in cyberspace.
Well it is interesting that the people pushing these conspiracies have got zip coverage outside the internet, which is pretty surprising since you claim to have OVERWHELMING PROOF.
Maybe that proof ain't so OVERWHELMING after all if your "Proof" can only survive in cyberspace.
Cyberspace ???
Are you a cyberspace pilot, adoucette ?
adoucette Posted: Oct 23 2005, 10:46 PM (on the Pentagon thread)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by adoucette Well it is interesting that the people pushing these conspiracies have got zip coverage outside the internet, which is pretty surprising since you claim to have OVERWHELMING PROOF. Maybe that proof ain't so OVERWHELMING after all if your "Proof" can only survive in cyberspace. |
Cyberspace ???
Are you a cyberspace pilot, adoucette ?
adoucette Posted: Oct 23 2005, 10:46 PM (on the Pentagon thread)
Posted by adoucette
There were thousands of planes in the air, if you are NOT flying within the system, using your assigned code and particularly if you are at low altitude it is very easy to "fly under the radar"
PS. I am a pilot.
Arthur
adoucette Posted: Oct 25 2005, 11:40 PM (on the Basic Physics thread)
QUOTE
Posted by adoucette
I am no structural engineer, I'm a software designer...... I don't get paid to post here, the idea is simply foolish, who WOULD get paid for this?
Arthur
I am no structural engineer, I'm a software designer...... I don't get paid to post here, the idea is simply foolish, who WOULD get paid for this?
Arthur
Well actually there are a number of "stories" that start out on the internet, and because of their veracity, and because the "facts check out" make it to the general press.
I love the internet, but it is the "wild wild west", in that anything goes.
Like your post that Barbara Olson was found alive on a non-existent border carrying millions in obsolete currency.
So, the way I look at it, if its got legs, the story WILL grow, regardless of where it starts.
In a country with 100+ million adults, tens of thousands is minuscule.
There are probably tens of thousands that believe almost anything you can think of, don't make it true.
Didn't see either of the articles you refer to, but what you are saying is that his theory got WIDE circulation, and still nothing came of it?
Maybe people aren't buying what he's selling.
Contrary to popular belief, most of us still think for ourselves, but if his story doesn't persuade, then typically the facts don't hold up either.
Arthur
PS I don't read the NY times (and if you see my posts on Global Warming you can surmise why I don't buy what its selling) and rarely watch news on TV, I read my local Chattanooga paper just for news about local issues. I occasionally read the WSJ and USA-Today, but that's just when I'm traveling for business.
I love the internet, but it is the "wild wild west", in that anything goes.
Like your post that Barbara Olson was found alive on a non-existent border carrying millions in obsolete currency.
So, the way I look at it, if its got legs, the story WILL grow, regardless of where it starts.
In a country with 100+ million adults, tens of thousands is minuscule.
There are probably tens of thousands that believe almost anything you can think of, don't make it true.
Didn't see either of the articles you refer to, but what you are saying is that his theory got WIDE circulation, and still nothing came of it?
Maybe people aren't buying what he's selling.
Contrary to popular belief, most of us still think for ourselves, but if his story doesn't persuade, then typically the facts don't hold up either.
Arthur
PS I don't read the NY times (and if you see my posts on Global Warming you can surmise why I don't buy what its selling) and rarely watch news on TV, I read my local Chattanooga paper just for news about local issues. I occasionally read the WSJ and USA-Today, but that's just when I'm traveling for business.
QUOTE (Foxx+Oct 26 2005, 12:40 AM)
Cyberspace? Are you a cyberspace pilot, adoucette ?
adoucette Posted: Oct 23 2005, 10:46 PM (on the Pentagon thread)
adoucette Posted: Oct 25 2005, 11:40 PM (on the Basic Physics thread)
adoucette Posted: Oct 25 2005, 11:40 PM (on the Basic Physics thread)
Posted by adoucette
I am no structural engineer, I'm a software designer...... I don't get paid to post here, the idea is simply foolish, who WOULD get paid for this?
Arthur
Didn't mean to mislead.
I am a PRIVATE pilot, I earn my living as a software designer.
I'd give you my certificate number but the FAA uses your SSN as your id.
I've been a pilot since 7/18/78. Designing computer systems is what allows me sufficient disposable income to fly. Though with the current price of avgas, that may not continue at the levels I'm used to.
I design computer systems that allow banks to clear payments via image. The current work I do is mainly BECAUSE of 9/11. On 9/11 they grounded all the planes in the nation, and kept them grounded for days. At the time, for a bank to collect a check they had to physically get it to the bank it was drawn on. Each day, banks clear an average of 60 million checks, about 1/3 or which get to the paying bank by plane (bank doesn't receive payment until the checks arrive, thus they are generally flown to any place more than a few hundred miles away)
Because of this grounding, which cost banks a small fortune, the congress passed Check 21, that allows banks to exchange the electronic image of a check instead of the physical paper. The Fed Reserve and ANSI came up with a new electronic format for that exchange, called X9.37 (the X9 standard covers MICR (magnetic ink char reco, those funny black numbers on the bottom of your checks)) that specifies the format for exchanging images.
The systems I've designed (for the company I work for), will start going into production near the end of this year and all through next year. It has been nothing short of a monumental effort, the reason I have free time now is the systems are just being completed but not yet in Beta test so this time is a lull for me. Won't last long.
I'm just finishing a patent for a totally new system related to this which is also nearing completion, I can't talk about it now (no prior art) but will be able to fairly soon.
Arthur
adoucette Posted: Oct 23 2005, 10:46 PM (on the Pentagon thread)
QUOTE
Posted by adoucette
There were thousands of planes in the air, if you are NOT flying within the system, using your assigned code and particularly if you are at low altitude it is very easy to "fly under the radar"
PS. I am a pilot.
Arthur
There were thousands of planes in the air, if you are NOT flying within the system, using your assigned code and particularly if you are at low altitude it is very easy to "fly under the radar"
PS. I am a pilot.
Arthur
adoucette Posted: Oct 25 2005, 11:40 PM (on the Basic Physics thread)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Posted by adoucette There were thousands of planes in the air, if you are NOT flying within the system, using your assigned code and particularly if you are at low altitude it is very easy to "fly under the radar" PS. I am a pilot. Arthur |
adoucette Posted: Oct 25 2005, 11:40 PM (on the Basic Physics thread)
Posted by adoucette
I am no structural engineer, I'm a software designer...... I don't get paid to post here, the idea is simply foolish, who WOULD get paid for this?
Arthur
Didn't mean to mislead.
I am a PRIVATE pilot, I earn my living as a software designer.
I'd give you my certificate number but the FAA uses your SSN as your id.
I've been a pilot since 7/18/78. Designing computer systems is what allows me sufficient disposable income to fly. Though with the current price of avgas, that may not continue at the levels I'm used to.
I design computer systems that allow banks to clear payments via image. The current work I do is mainly BECAUSE of 9/11. On 9/11 they grounded all the planes in the nation, and kept them grounded for days. At the time, for a bank to collect a check they had to physically get it to the bank it was drawn on. Each day, banks clear an average of 60 million checks, about 1/3 or which get to the paying bank by plane (bank doesn't receive payment until the checks arrive, thus they are generally flown to any place more than a few hundred miles away)
Because of this grounding, which cost banks a small fortune, the congress passed Check 21, that allows banks to exchange the electronic image of a check instead of the physical paper. The Fed Reserve and ANSI came up with a new electronic format for that exchange, called X9.37 (the X9 standard covers MICR (magnetic ink char reco, those funny black numbers on the bottom of your checks)) that specifies the format for exchanging images.
The systems I've designed (for the company I work for), will start going into production near the end of this year and all through next year. It has been nothing short of a monumental effort, the reason I have free time now is the systems are just being completed but not yet in Beta test so this time is a lull for me. Won't last long.
I'm just finishing a patent for a totally new system related to this which is also nearing completion, I can't talk about it now (no prior art) but will be able to fairly soon.
Arthur
The truth is slowly coming out, so I have no worries. Scientifically, I call it the "Fabergé Organics Effect" (2 friends * 2 friends * 2 friends ad infinitum)
You won't find a search for the truth about these acts in the corporate media, one obvious reason being their implication in the mass murders of innocent Americans by "reporting" instead of investigating the crimes.
And not seeing some very important questions asked in the 'mainstream media' is precisely what is leading so many people to independent news sources and the internet for their information.
Fortunately there are more and more who are daring to ask the unasked questions (like the statewide Vermont Guardian newspaper) meaning more and more people are now openly discussing the events of that day.
There can't be anything wrong with that, right?
Discussion is a good thing!
You won't find a search for the truth about these acts in the corporate media, one obvious reason being their implication in the mass murders of innocent Americans by "reporting" instead of investigating the crimes.
And not seeing some very important questions asked in the 'mainstream media' is precisely what is leading so many people to independent news sources and the internet for their information.
Fortunately there are more and more who are daring to ask the unasked questions (like the statewide Vermont Guardian newspaper) meaning more and more people are now openly discussing the events of that day.
There can't be anything wrong with that, right?
Discussion is a good thing!
How can I argue against discussing it?
That's exactly what I'm doing.
However, I haven't read anything that has cast any doubt on the "official story" so far.
The single biggest question I have is why if passenger planes were used on the WTC why use a cruise missile on the Pentagon?
So,not only does the evidence not support the theory, it isn't even logical.
A cruise missile could easily have been filmed, its radar track easily tracked back to its launch point, plenty of military people, familiar with cruise missiles could have seen its approach, it could have failed to detonate, parts of it could be found in the wreckage, etc etc etc.
Can you answer any of these questions?
Arthur
That's exactly what I'm doing.
However, I haven't read anything that has cast any doubt on the "official story" so far.
The single biggest question I have is why if passenger planes were used on the WTC why use a cruise missile on the Pentagon?
So,not only does the evidence not support the theory, it isn't even logical.
A cruise missile could easily have been filmed, its radar track easily tracked back to its launch point, plenty of military people, familiar with cruise missiles could have seen its approach, it could have failed to detonate, parts of it could be found in the wreckage, etc etc etc.
Can you answer any of these questions?
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 26 2005, 01:57 AM)
The single biggest question I have is why if passenger planes were used on the WTC why use a cruise missile on the Pentagon?
So,not only does the evidence not support the theory, it isn't even logical.
A cruise missile could easily have been filmed, its radar track easily tracked back to its launch point, plenty of military people, familiar with cruise missiles could have seen its approach, it could have failed to detonate, parts of it could be found in the wreckage, etc etc etc.
Can you answer any of these questions?
The first mistake you make is the assumption that passenger planes hit the WTC towers. I am sure you've come across the Northwoods document and are familiar with the idea of drones being used. After all the idea was to "minimize" casualties, both at the towers and the Pentagon.
So yes saying passenger airliners hit the towers but a missile hit the Pentagon would be rather stupid. I fully agree.
I also never stated that it was a cruise missile. Based on multiple though admittedly unreliable eyewitness testimonies about a "small commuter jet" painted in United Airlines colors, I think it might have been a GlobalHawk (i.e. a remote-controlled military drone).
Who knows? Maybe the drone plane that got shot down in Pennsylvania was intended for the Pentagon and they had promised everyone a "terror exercise" so went ahead anyway. Why let all the preparations go to waste? Heck, maybe it was a "dynamic aerial holographic projection system" covering a bunker-buster missile. Or even the Pentagon's own air-defense systems... it does have them doesn't it?
Tthose are all merely theories, of course, just like the '19-arab-terrorists-who-hate-our-freedom' theory. Very little evidence is available for any of them. Videos have been confiscated that could show the truth once and for all, but never released. And the few frames that have been released has been tampered with. Only a truly independant investigation could find anything beyond a theory, and none have been forthcoming so far.
So,not only does the evidence not support the theory, it isn't even logical.
A cruise missile could easily have been filmed, its radar track easily tracked back to its launch point, plenty of military people, familiar with cruise missiles could have seen its approach, it could have failed to detonate, parts of it could be found in the wreckage, etc etc etc.
Can you answer any of these questions?
The first mistake you make is the assumption that passenger planes hit the WTC towers. I am sure you've come across the Northwoods document and are familiar with the idea of drones being used. After all the idea was to "minimize" casualties, both at the towers and the Pentagon.
So yes saying passenger airliners hit the towers but a missile hit the Pentagon would be rather stupid. I fully agree.
I also never stated that it was a cruise missile. Based on multiple though admittedly unreliable eyewitness testimonies about a "small commuter jet" painted in United Airlines colors, I think it might have been a GlobalHawk (i.e. a remote-controlled military drone).
Who knows? Maybe the drone plane that got shot down in Pennsylvania was intended for the Pentagon and they had promised everyone a "terror exercise" so went ahead anyway. Why let all the preparations go to waste? Heck, maybe it was a "dynamic aerial holographic projection system" covering a bunker-buster missile. Or even the Pentagon's own air-defense systems... it does have them doesn't it?
Tthose are all merely theories, of course, just like the '19-arab-terrorists-who-hate-our-freedom' theory. Very little evidence is available for any of them. Videos have been confiscated that could show the truth once and for all, but never released. And the few frames that have been released has been tampered with. Only a truly independant investigation could find anything beyond a theory, and none have been forthcoming so far.
QUOTE (piper+)
So yes saying passenger airliners hit the towers but a missile hit the Pentagon would be rather stupid. I fully agree.
Well then you must feel pretty stupid, considering that live video broadcasts were quite clear that it was a passenger jet that hit the 2nd tower, and shortly thereafter a non-live TV tape was made available showing the first passenger jet hitting WTC 1.
So, no I don't think you are going to get anyone to believe the WTCs were not hit with passenger jets.
If you are trying to say they used drones in place of the actual passenger jets, that makes no sense considering the crash in Penn, that had bodies on board, they were taken to the local morgue and identified. So it was clear that that passenger jet was no drone. And besides, it wasn't shot down, I've already spent too much of my life debunking that foolishness, go to www.airdisaster.com and they can rip you a new one, I no longer have the patience.
Arthur
Well then you must feel pretty stupid, considering that live video broadcasts were quite clear that it was a passenger jet that hit the 2nd tower, and shortly thereafter a non-live TV tape was made available showing the first passenger jet hitting WTC 1.
So, no I don't think you are going to get anyone to believe the WTCs were not hit with passenger jets.
If you are trying to say they used drones in place of the actual passenger jets, that makes no sense considering the crash in Penn, that had bodies on board, they were taken to the local morgue and identified. So it was clear that that passenger jet was no drone. And besides, it wasn't shot down, I've already spent too much of my life debunking that foolishness, go to www.airdisaster.com and they can rip you a new one, I no longer have the patience.
Arthur
Hi, guys just happened across this thread, was reading about nanoparticles just now.
I have asked these questions since 911, always met with the same cries of "idiot" by paid people with nanoparticle size brains. The ones who fell for the govmints ludirous conspiracy theory - that 19 arabs did it at the behest of a bearded man who lives in a cave in Afghanistan. And those in such deep denlal there is no hope for.
You are most certainly right to ask these questions. I do not beleive one word of the "official conspiracy theory". Yes Northwoods is writ large all over 911.
When the "plane" hit the recently re-enforced Pentagon wouldn't the fuel laden wings not have snapped forward with 100% de-celeration? An unrestrained object is not thrown backways in your car when you jam your brakes on.
But thats neither here nor there because - it wasnt an airplane that hit the Pentagon.
It's late now, I will come back tomorrow and register.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1535000/vide...rstcrash_vi.ram
I have asked these questions since 911, always met with the same cries of "idiot" by paid people with nanoparticle size brains. The ones who fell for the govmints ludirous conspiracy theory - that 19 arabs did it at the behest of a bearded man who lives in a cave in Afghanistan. And those in such deep denlal there is no hope for.
You are most certainly right to ask these questions. I do not beleive one word of the "official conspiracy theory". Yes Northwoods is writ large all over 911.
When the "plane" hit the recently re-enforced Pentagon wouldn't the fuel laden wings not have snapped forward with 100% de-celeration? An unrestrained object is not thrown backways in your car when you jam your brakes on.
But thats neither here nor there because - it wasnt an airplane that hit the Pentagon.
It's late now, I will come back tomorrow and register.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1535000/vide...rstcrash_vi.ram
The anniversary of the assassination of JFK is approaching (22 nov. 1963). After that day of infamy, or more likely many months before, an official story was concocted that, like the one we're debating now, also stretched the limits of plausibility. A guy with a $29 used WW2 mail order rifle, gets uncontested access to a building overseeing the motorcade route from behind. From several hundred feet away, he hits a moving target through the head. But, inexplicably, JFKs' reaction is rearward into the vector force that supposedly struck him. The back of his skull was blown out, brain matter was found on the trunk, a small entry wound was in the front and his wifes' primal survival instincts suggests that she sensed (smelled?) the danger was ahead as she desperately moves rearward in the vehicle. And just like the rush to remove and melt down the 911 ruble, Oswald is murdered and the most critical piece of evidence is buried. We were asked to ignore anomalies then, and now we're being asked to do it again. The wings folded in, tower 2 falls first, #7s' immaculate implosion,... Then, the families and fellow country men of the most wanted criminal in the world and his saudi hijackers are allowed to leave the country during an unprecedented national aviation stand-down. Not even adoucette could fly, just those from the countries that supposedly hit us. Just a few of the bones likely to stick in the throat while mass consuming the official gruel.
While reviewing available videos of the planes hitting the WTCs, I was wondering if any comparative audio analysis of the engine noise was done. Although highly subjective, and based on my experience of living in the flight path of an airport, they don't sound right. The pitch is too low. Too much growl not enough shhhhh. I know this would be almost impossible considering the multitude of variables involved. Obviously, the myriads of acoustical transformations, do to the extensive cityscape, would stretch the concept of differential acoustical analysis to its' present limits. I just thought that re-recording a commercial 757 from the same locations with similar equipment, on similar flight paths, through the (now) air space of WTCs footprints and then computer processing in the acoustical effects of the missing architecture, could yield clues as to the pedigree of those planes.
You won't get anyone to do it because the planes were most likely past Vne (well past manuevering speed, into the red arc on the ASI) for the altitude they were at.
Which might account for the the noise you hear sounding different. You would never here a normal passenger plane flying at those speeds at that altitude.
Arthur
Which might account for the the noise you hear sounding different. You would never here a normal passenger plane flying at those speeds at that altitude.
Arthur
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Oct 26 2005, 09:38 PM)
The anniversary of the assassination of JFK is approaching (22 nov. 1963). After that day of infamy, or more likely many months before, an official story was concocted that, like the one we're debating now, also stretched the limits of plausibility to the breaking point. A guy with a $29 used WW2 mail order rifle gets uncontested access to a building overseeing the motorcade route from behind. From several hundred feet away he hits a moving target through the head. But,inexplicably, JFKs' reaction is rearward into the vector force that supposedly struck him. The back of his skull was blown out, brain matter was found on the trunk, a small entry wound was in the front and his wifes' primal survival instincts suggests that she sensed the danger was in ahead and desperately moves rearward in the vehicle. And just like the rush to remove and melt down the 911 ruble, Oswald is murdered and the most critical piece of evidence is buried. We were asked to ignore inconsistencies large enough to drive a truck through then, and now we're being asked to do it again. The wings folded in, tower 2 falls first, #7s' immaculate implosion. Then, the families and fellow country men of the most wanted criminal in the world and his saudi hijackers are allowed to leave the country during an unprecedented national aviation stand-down. Not even adoucette could fly, just those from the countries that supposedly hit us. Just a few of the chicken bones likely to stick in the throat while mass consuming the official gruel.
Oh PLEASE.
Lets see now, a bullet that does NOT expend ALL of its ENERGY when first striking the target, in fact, once inside the skull it can be easily redirected and expending its energy in a totally different direction than the entry angle. Bullets that exit a body like the fatal head shot, don't necessarily impart a lot of energy to the target.
Note in the first bullet, it went through Kennedy's neck, through Connally's chest, shattering a rib, and was still traveling about 1,000 fpm when it shattered his wrist and STILL had enough energy left after exiting his wrist to penetrate his thigh. The point being, only a small amount of the energy of the bullet was transfered to Kennedy.
Basic ballistics.
Second the skull, once penetrated by said bullet has an entry hole and the bullet can then, through its expenditure of energy, generate significant hydrostatic forces causing material to be ejected from the entry hole.
Again basic forensics for skull wounds, perps are often spattered with blood and brain matter when they shoot someone in the head, wonder why?
The back of his skull was not blown off.
Go to this link if you really want to see the autopsy photo of JFK:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/back.jpg
Dr. Pepper Jenkins states, "The autopsy photo, with the rear of the head intact and a protrusion in the parietal [side] region, is the way I remember it. I never did say occipital."(5)
"I don't think any of us got a good look at the head wound," says Dr. Malcolm Perry.(6) "I did not look at it that closely. . . . But like everyone else, I saw it back there. It was in the occipital/parietal area. The occipital and parietal bone join each other, so we are only talking a centimeter or so in difference. And you must remember the President had a lot of hair, and it was bloody and matted, and it was difficult to tell where the wound started or finished."(7)
Dr. Charles Baxter concurs: "He had such a bushy head of hair, and blood and all in it, you couldn't tell what was the wound versus dried blood or dangling tissue. I have been misquoted enough on this, some saying I claimed the whole back of his head was blown away. That's just wrong. I never even saw the back of his head. The wound was on the right side, not the back."(8)
Dr. Ronald Jones confirms his colleagues' observations, adding he did not even realize for several minutes that there was a head wound. He finally noticed there was a "large side wound, with blood and tissue that extended toward the rear, from what you could tell of the mess that was there."(9)
There was no Front Entry Wound
Dr. Malcolm Perry was one of five doctors who saw the President's throat wound before it was obliterated by a tracheotomy incision; it was Dr. Perry who performed the tracheotomy, and who later stated at a press conference that the wound "appeared to be an entrance wound."(11)
Dr. Perry has this to say: As the press is wont to do, they took my statement at the press conference out of context. I did say it looked like an entrance wound since it was small, but I qualified it by saying that I did not know where the bullets came from. I wish now that I had not speculated. Everyone ignored my qualification. It was a small wound, slightly ragged at the edges, and could have been an exit or entrance.(12)
Dr. Ronald Jones, one of Parkland's senior resident surgeons, also saw the throat wound. He says, "The neck wound could have been either an entrance or an exit. I only called it an entrance wound because I did not know about the back wound."
Of the five doctors who saw the wound, Dr. Pepper Jenkins had the most experience with gunshot wounds of anyone at Parkland. Jenkins says, "Even at that time, I was convinced it was a wound of exit because it was bigger than an entrance wound should be. Entrance wounds, as you look at them, are small and round, and may have a halo around them, black, from the bullet. But it makes a clean wound. When a bullet goes through the body, tissue moves in front of it and bursts."(15)
What the autopsy showed:
The autopsy examination revealed two wounds in the President's head. One wound, approximately one-fourth of an inch by five-eighths of an inch (6 by 15 millimeters), was located about an inch (2.5 centimeters) to the right and slightly above the large bony protrusion (external occipital protuberance) which juts out at the center of the lower part of the back of the skull. The second head wound measured approximately 5 inches (13 centimeters) in its greatest diameter, but it was difficult to measure accurately because multiple crisscross fractures radiated from the large defect.280 During the autopsy examination, Federal agents brought the surgeons three pieces of bone recovered from Elm Street and the Presidential automobile. When put together, these fragments accounted for approximately three-quarters of the missing portion of the skull.281 The surgeons observed, through X-ray analysis, 30 or 40 tiny dustlike fragments of metal running in a line from the wound in the rear of the President's head toward the front part of the skull, with a sizable metal fragment lying just above the right eye.282 From this head wound two small irregularly shaped fragments of metal were recovered and turned over to the FBI.283
RIGHT Rear Entry wound, Massive FRONT exit wound.
Very consistent with a rear entry shot and the resultant jet spray, which pushes the head backward.
$29 was worth quite a bit more in 63.
Are you saying the gun didn't have the accuracy? It did.
Are you saying it couldn't be fired fast enough? It could
Are you saying the rounds it fired weren't lethal at that range? They were.
It was in fact a highly reliable fire arm, not expensive, just effective.
As I recall the whole motorcade trip route and jag around Dealey plaza was kind of a last minute thing. Could be a conspiracy, could have just been lucky for Oswald.
From what I can tell, the SS wasn't nearly as proactive protective in those days.
He was moving, AT A WALK and just barely changing angle to the shooter, it was an EASY shot. All of them were.
His wife went over the trunk because that's where the closest SS agent was and Connally, in the jump seat FORWARD had been shot as well. I'd have gone over the trunk.
Kennedy and Connally were hit with the same NON magic bullet whose trajectory exactly matches the rear neck entry to Kennedy, the exit through the neck and then into Connally's back, out his chest and into his hand then barely into his thigh.
Magic bullet as shown in "conspiracy" books.
Magic bullet as shown from OTHER angle:
Also, the amount of damage inflicted upon Connally's wrist and thigh indicates that its energy had been "partially expended elsewhere" -- not merely on the Governor's chest wound, expert testimony indicates, but also on the President's neck.
Dr. John K. Lattimer independently conducted a series of tests stringently simulating the velocity of the bullet for each separate bullet strike, the trajectory of each flight path, and the obstructive force of each wound. The results verify that the condition of the recovered bullet is absolutely consistent with the conditions present in Dealey Plaza.
Researcher John Cahill, a veteran sportsman and gun aficionado, writes, "The long, heavy 6.5 [Mannlicher-Carcano] has often been described as a ballistic overachiever, with 'killing power' far greater than one would think, given its diminutive size and modest velocity."(3)
Cahill also notes that the type of ammunition used for the assassination was favored by turn-of-the-century elephant hunters.(4) Any bullet capable of penetrating elephant hide can be expected to inflict considerable damage upon a human being without suffering excessive mutilation of its own.
So, about those inconsistencies?
OK, SAY there WAS a second gunman.
Who Oswald doesn't give up.
So?
He and Oswald could have planned it together, with the #2 setting Oswald up for the fall.
So?
Does this make it a conspiracy?
No.
The point being there was no one caught on the Grassy knoll.
Ever been to Dealey plaza? I have, went there a few years after the assassination.
Hadn't changed much.
Behind the grassy knoll was a empty rail yard, with no way to get away without being seen. If you drove up (which would have been both tricky and obvious) your car would have been seen driving away. If you walked up, easier to be less obvious, you would have a long hike in the open carrying a rifle.
The grassy knoll fails the test that any sniper would use, concealment.
Sheesh.
By the way, I take it we shot down the Pan Am 747 on its way to Paris with a missile as well, right?
But did the US and not Libyans plant the bomb in the 747 in Scotland?
Any other nefarious acts that I probably believe the "fairy tale" version of?
Arthur
Oh PLEASE.
Lets see now, a bullet that does NOT expend ALL of its ENERGY when first striking the target, in fact, once inside the skull it can be easily redirected and expending its energy in a totally different direction than the entry angle. Bullets that exit a body like the fatal head shot, don't necessarily impart a lot of energy to the target.
Note in the first bullet, it went through Kennedy's neck, through Connally's chest, shattering a rib, and was still traveling about 1,000 fpm when it shattered his wrist and STILL had enough energy left after exiting his wrist to penetrate his thigh. The point being, only a small amount of the energy of the bullet was transfered to Kennedy.
Basic ballistics.
Second the skull, once penetrated by said bullet has an entry hole and the bullet can then, through its expenditure of energy, generate significant hydrostatic forces causing material to be ejected from the entry hole.
Again basic forensics for skull wounds, perps are often spattered with blood and brain matter when they shoot someone in the head, wonder why?
The back of his skull was not blown off.
Go to this link if you really want to see the autopsy photo of JFK:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/back.jpg
Dr. Pepper Jenkins states, "The autopsy photo, with the rear of the head intact and a protrusion in the parietal [side] region, is the way I remember it. I never did say occipital."(5)
"I don't think any of us got a good look at the head wound," says Dr. Malcolm Perry.(6) "I did not look at it that closely. . . . But like everyone else, I saw it back there. It was in the occipital/parietal area. The occipital and parietal bone join each other, so we are only talking a centimeter or so in difference. And you must remember the President had a lot of hair, and it was bloody and matted, and it was difficult to tell where the wound started or finished."(7)
Dr. Charles Baxter concurs: "He had such a bushy head of hair, and blood and all in it, you couldn't tell what was the wound versus dried blood or dangling tissue. I have been misquoted enough on this, some saying I claimed the whole back of his head was blown away. That's just wrong. I never even saw the back of his head. The wound was on the right side, not the back."(8)
Dr. Ronald Jones confirms his colleagues' observations, adding he did not even realize for several minutes that there was a head wound. He finally noticed there was a "large side wound, with blood and tissue that extended toward the rear, from what you could tell of the mess that was there."(9)
There was no Front Entry Wound
Dr. Malcolm Perry was one of five doctors who saw the President's throat wound before it was obliterated by a tracheotomy incision; it was Dr. Perry who performed the tracheotomy, and who later stated at a press conference that the wound "appeared to be an entrance wound."(11)
Dr. Perry has this to say: As the press is wont to do, they took my statement at the press conference out of context. I did say it looked like an entrance wound since it was small, but I qualified it by saying that I did not know where the bullets came from. I wish now that I had not speculated. Everyone ignored my qualification. It was a small wound, slightly ragged at the edges, and could have been an exit or entrance.(12)
Dr. Ronald Jones, one of Parkland's senior resident surgeons, also saw the throat wound. He says, "The neck wound could have been either an entrance or an exit. I only called it an entrance wound because I did not know about the back wound."
Of the five doctors who saw the wound, Dr. Pepper Jenkins had the most experience with gunshot wounds of anyone at Parkland. Jenkins says, "Even at that time, I was convinced it was a wound of exit because it was bigger than an entrance wound should be. Entrance wounds, as you look at them, are small and round, and may have a halo around them, black, from the bullet. But it makes a clean wound. When a bullet goes through the body, tissue moves in front of it and bursts."(15)
What the autopsy showed:
The autopsy examination revealed two wounds in the President's head. One wound, approximately one-fourth of an inch by five-eighths of an inch (6 by 15 millimeters), was located about an inch (2.5 centimeters) to the right and slightly above the large bony protrusion (external occipital protuberance) which juts out at the center of the lower part of the back of the skull. The second head wound measured approximately 5 inches (13 centimeters) in its greatest diameter, but it was difficult to measure accurately because multiple crisscross fractures radiated from the large defect.280 During the autopsy examination, Federal agents brought the surgeons three pieces of bone recovered from Elm Street and the Presidential automobile. When put together, these fragments accounted for approximately three-quarters of the missing portion of the skull.281 The surgeons observed, through X-ray analysis, 30 or 40 tiny dustlike fragments of metal running in a line from the wound in the rear of the President's head toward the front part of the skull, with a sizable metal fragment lying just above the right eye.282 From this head wound two small irregularly shaped fragments of metal were recovered and turned over to the FBI.283
RIGHT Rear Entry wound, Massive FRONT exit wound.
Very consistent with a rear entry shot and the resultant jet spray, which pushes the head backward.
$29 was worth quite a bit more in 63.
Are you saying the gun didn't have the accuracy? It did.
Are you saying it couldn't be fired fast enough? It could
Are you saying the rounds it fired weren't lethal at that range? They were.
It was in fact a highly reliable fire arm, not expensive, just effective.
As I recall the whole motorcade trip route and jag around Dealey plaza was kind of a last minute thing. Could be a conspiracy, could have just been lucky for Oswald.
From what I can tell, the SS wasn't nearly as proactive protective in those days.
He was moving, AT A WALK and just barely changing angle to the shooter, it was an EASY shot. All of them were.
His wife went over the trunk because that's where the closest SS agent was and Connally, in the jump seat FORWARD had been shot as well. I'd have gone over the trunk.
Kennedy and Connally were hit with the same NON magic bullet whose trajectory exactly matches the rear neck entry to Kennedy, the exit through the neck and then into Connally's back, out his chest and into his hand then barely into his thigh.
Magic bullet as shown in "conspiracy" books.
Magic bullet as shown from OTHER angle:
Also, the amount of damage inflicted upon Connally's wrist and thigh indicates that its energy had been "partially expended elsewhere" -- not merely on the Governor's chest wound, expert testimony indicates, but also on the President's neck.
Dr. John K. Lattimer independently conducted a series of tests stringently simulating the velocity of the bullet for each separate bullet strike, the trajectory of each flight path, and the obstructive force of each wound. The results verify that the condition of the recovered bullet is absolutely consistent with the conditions present in Dealey Plaza.
Researcher John Cahill, a veteran sportsman and gun aficionado, writes, "The long, heavy 6.5 [Mannlicher-Carcano] has often been described as a ballistic overachiever, with 'killing power' far greater than one would think, given its diminutive size and modest velocity."(3)
Cahill also notes that the type of ammunition used for the assassination was favored by turn-of-the-century elephant hunters.(4) Any bullet capable of penetrating elephant hide can be expected to inflict considerable damage upon a human being without suffering excessive mutilation of its own.
So, about those inconsistencies?
OK, SAY there WAS a second gunman.
Who Oswald doesn't give up.
So?
He and Oswald could have planned it together, with the #2 setting Oswald up for the fall.
So?
Does this make it a conspiracy?
No.
The point being there was no one caught on the Grassy knoll.
Ever been to Dealey plaza? I have, went there a few years after the assassination.
Hadn't changed much.
Behind the grassy knoll was a empty rail yard, with no way to get away without being seen. If you drove up (which would have been both tricky and obvious) your car would have been seen driving away. If you walked up, easier to be less obvious, you would have a long hike in the open carrying a rifle.
The grassy knoll fails the test that any sniper would use, concealment.
Sheesh.
By the way, I take it we shot down the Pan Am 747 on its way to Paris with a missile as well, right?
But did the US and not Libyans plant the bomb in the 747 in Scotland?
Any other nefarious acts that I probably believe the "fairy tale" version of?
Arthur
Hi again guys. Sorry I haven't registered yet, feel slightly initmidated and such. My bag is Computer Science - lapsed.
My apologies to the poster, whose name I''ve forgotten, who chipped in with the firefighters spraying water on a jet fuel fuel fire observation. Beautiful!
I would like to post this great photo of the Pentagon aftermath. May I draw your attention to the very top right hand corner of the picture. We can see a bunch of guys doing damage assesment.
What would a casual observer glean from this photo?
Click for a blow up! Very Large Photo - Excellent quality!
My apologies to the poster, whose name I''ve forgotten, who chipped in with the firefighters spraying water on a jet fuel fuel fire observation. Beautiful!
I would like to post this great photo of the Pentagon aftermath. May I draw your attention to the very top right hand corner of the picture. We can see a bunch of guys doing damage assesment.
What would a casual observer glean from this photo?
Click for a blow up! Very Large Photo - Excellent quality!
Hi Temp,
I checked the photo of the pentagon that you posted &, as you say, at the top right hand corner, there are a bunch of guys ‘working’ in this area of the Pentagon, which appears to be an open ‘courtyard’ area, and which has been subject to a fire – there certainly are the remnants (black, burnt material) of a previous combustion.
It is interesting that this is away from the trajectory line of the plane/missile (delete as appropriate – I’m leaving the plane option in for Arthur).
What is your explanation of this aspect of the photograph or why the workers might be there?
Best Regards & stick to the Physics,
Sinclair
I checked the photo of the pentagon that you posted &, as you say, at the top right hand corner, there are a bunch of guys ‘working’ in this area of the Pentagon, which appears to be an open ‘courtyard’ area, and which has been subject to a fire – there certainly are the remnants (black, burnt material) of a previous combustion.
It is interesting that this is away from the trajectory line of the plane/missile (delete as appropriate – I’m leaving the plane option in for Arthur).
What is your explanation of this aspect of the photograph or why the workers might be there?
Best Regards & stick to the Physics,
Sinclair
Take a closer look!
They are on the ROOF of that section of the Pentagon.
Notice the wood stairs that are used to get around on the roof and down the pitch.
It would appear that they are working/inspecting the area, as it HAS been damaged.
Other things though are noticeable in this picture.
Notice the bottom right.
See the HUGE generator that has been turned TOWARDS the Pentagon, it was hit by the right engine on the way in.
Notice the severely mangled metal shed in front of that.
Note the two bent posts of the fence, lying on the ground, just above the green tent, and just in front of the hole the engine tore through the fence before hitting the generator.
Notice the Grey Steel Wire Spools, one in the fence compound the other two knocked out of it and severely bent.
Notice the plainly ROUND marking on the facing where the left engine hit, and notice that this area is being braced by makeshift braces since the columns were almost completely destroyed.
Notice that the facade is gone from the FIVE columns to the left of the engine where the left wing hit.
Global Hawk, my butt.
Arthur
PS The ASCE has an extensive issue devoted to the Pentagon Crash.
http://ascelibrary.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY...lume=19&Issue=3
Anybody sprung for the cost and care to share, but I BET it doesn't at all support your contention that this was not a 757.
They are on the ROOF of that section of the Pentagon.
Notice the wood stairs that are used to get around on the roof and down the pitch.
It would appear that they are working/inspecting the area, as it HAS been damaged.
Other things though are noticeable in this picture.
Notice the bottom right.
See the HUGE generator that has been turned TOWARDS the Pentagon, it was hit by the right engine on the way in.
Notice the severely mangled metal shed in front of that.
Note the two bent posts of the fence, lying on the ground, just above the green tent, and just in front of the hole the engine tore through the fence before hitting the generator.
Notice the Grey Steel Wire Spools, one in the fence compound the other two knocked out of it and severely bent.
Notice the plainly ROUND marking on the facing where the left engine hit, and notice that this area is being braced by makeshift braces since the columns were almost completely destroyed.
Notice that the facade is gone from the FIVE columns to the left of the engine where the left wing hit.
Global Hawk, my butt.
Arthur
PS The ASCE has an extensive issue devoted to the Pentagon Crash.
http://ascelibrary.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY...lume=19&Issue=3
Anybody sprung for the cost and care to share, but I BET it doesn't at all support your contention that this was not a 757.
Arthur,
You are correct, the men working(?!) ARE on the roof. But what are your thoughts as to why there is damage over in that area, which appears at a location almost perpendicular to the agreed trajectory of the plane/missile that hit,
The generator that you say has been turned TOWARDS the Pentagon, if it was hit by the right engine on the way in, then why are the fence posts immediately in front of it still standing? The severely mangled metal shed that you mention appears not to be as tall as the fenceposts!
I would have expected more than just 2 of the fence posts to have been disturbed, don;t you think? & the generator & shed are well behind the trajectory path of the 2 knocked over fenceposts..
With regard to the Grey Steel Wire Spools, ...the other two have been moved from their original position by a digger/machine (or they are JUST in the process of being moved!)
I can't see the plainly ROUND markings that you speak of & the buildong facing has obstacles in front of it & some VERY makeshift suppots. This is the Pentagon we're talking about here. Surely RMD/temporary jacking props would be needed, not a couple of bits of pakket/wood!
If the facade has gone from the FIVE columns to the left, & as you suggest, the left wing took these off, then where is the wing?? it's remains (the facade panel remains are there) should be lying in front of that elevation section of the building
I'd be interested in your comments.
Sinclair
You are correct, the men working(?!) ARE on the roof. But what are your thoughts as to why there is damage over in that area, which appears at a location almost perpendicular to the agreed trajectory of the plane/missile that hit,
The generator that you say has been turned TOWARDS the Pentagon, if it was hit by the right engine on the way in, then why are the fence posts immediately in front of it still standing? The severely mangled metal shed that you mention appears not to be as tall as the fenceposts!
I would have expected more than just 2 of the fence posts to have been disturbed, don;t you think? & the generator & shed are well behind the trajectory path of the 2 knocked over fenceposts..
With regard to the Grey Steel Wire Spools, ...the other two have been moved from their original position by a digger/machine (or they are JUST in the process of being moved!)
I can't see the plainly ROUND markings that you speak of & the buildong facing has obstacles in front of it & some VERY makeshift suppots. This is the Pentagon we're talking about here. Surely RMD/temporary jacking props would be needed, not a couple of bits of pakket/wood!
If the facade has gone from the FIVE columns to the left, & as you suggest, the left wing took these off, then where is the wing?? it's remains (the facade panel remains are there) should be lying in front of that elevation section of the building
I'd be interested in your comments.
Sinclair
Arthur,
You are correct, the men working(?!) ARE on the roof. But what are your thoughts as to why there is damage over in that area, which appears at a location almost perpendicular to the agreed trajectory of the plane/missile that hit,
==> If you will notice between each of the sections of the Pentagon are open areas, it appears that fires in these open areas reached the roof. Notice the burnt areas, notice one of the wood walkways near the area in question has almost completely burnt up. It appears that the roofing was at least marginally flammable, notice the light blue vs black areas. It would appear that the area in question, is at a corner and an outside area and thus flames must have made it to the top as most of its roof is burnt. It may have burnt more, simply because it would have been the furthest from fire suppression. This burnt area is also why it was appropriate to use water, as by the time the fire crews arrived the majority of the fire would have been secondary materials.
The generator that you say has been turned TOWARDS the Pentagon, if it was hit by the right engine on the way in, then why are the fence posts immediately in front of it still standing? The severely mangled metal shed that you mention appears not to be as tall as the fenceposts!
==> The jet came in at a steep angle (~60 or so degrees as I recall) to the face, you can see that it just hit the corner of the generator and I would guess only the bottom of the engine shroud hit just those two posts. The plane was almost on the ground but still flying.
I would have expected more than just 2 of the fence posts to have been disturbed, don;t you think? & the generator & shed are well behind the trajectory path of the 2 knocked over fenceposts..
==> Not based on the angle of flight.
With regard to the Grey Steel Wire Spools, ...the other two have been moved from their original position by a digger/machine (or they are JUST in the process of being moved!)
==> I don't know where exactly they ended up, though you can probably find them in other more timely photos, they were originally by the generator though, and they are not now, and they are clearly banged up in a major way.
I can't see the plainly ROUND markings that you speak of & the buildong facing has obstacles in front of it & some VERY makeshift suppots. This is the Pentagon we're talking about here. Surely RMD/temporary jacking props would be needed, not a couple of bits of pakket/wood!
==> Ok, find the wood H shape, bottom left, note the cinder block cut in a nice circular shape. Now follow that circular shape around and you can see it in the remaining facade, ending where the first reddish steel temp support meets the Pentagon. Those ARE STEEL braces and they are anything but wimpy. Besides these are the two we can see, no telling what they have put inside the structure.
If the facade has gone from the FIVE columns to the left, & as you suggest, the left wing took these off, then where is the wing?? it's remains (the facade panel remains are there) should be lying in front of that elevation section of the building
===>The facade IS gone, look to the left of the 5 columns, past the door with yellow streamers, now compare the windows here with the ones that were struck. Notice the ones to the left have quite a ledge compared to the ones to the right. This is where the Limestone Facade USED to be. Now you can see cinder blocks on the right vs Limestone on the right. I believe what parts of the wing didn't go into the building is in what appears to be a scrap pile of aluminum, by all those workers in white. The area in front of the pentagon has obviously been swept clear of debris so people can work. Those light brown rectangles appear to be plywood sheets.
What is also a bit less obvious is the round impact mark of the Right Engine, just to the right of the collapsed area and a bit higher than the left engine. The wing appears to have struck at a angle with the wingtip tilted about 35 d or so, not the smashed facade to the right and above where the engine struck. I suspect it lost the outer part of the wing when it hit the generator as there is no apparent strike mark for this section.
I'd be willing to bet money that the distance between these two round marks will MATCH that of a 757.
Anyone up for a little wager?
Arthur
I'd be interested in your comments.
Sinclair
You are correct, the men working(?!) ARE on the roof. But what are your thoughts as to why there is damage over in that area, which appears at a location almost perpendicular to the agreed trajectory of the plane/missile that hit,
==> If you will notice between each of the sections of the Pentagon are open areas, it appears that fires in these open areas reached the roof. Notice the burnt areas, notice one of the wood walkways near the area in question has almost completely burnt up. It appears that the roofing was at least marginally flammable, notice the light blue vs black areas. It would appear that the area in question, is at a corner and an outside area and thus flames must have made it to the top as most of its roof is burnt. It may have burnt more, simply because it would have been the furthest from fire suppression. This burnt area is also why it was appropriate to use water, as by the time the fire crews arrived the majority of the fire would have been secondary materials.
The generator that you say has been turned TOWARDS the Pentagon, if it was hit by the right engine on the way in, then why are the fence posts immediately in front of it still standing? The severely mangled metal shed that you mention appears not to be as tall as the fenceposts!
==> The jet came in at a steep angle (~60 or so degrees as I recall) to the face, you can see that it just hit the corner of the generator and I would guess only the bottom of the engine shroud hit just those two posts. The plane was almost on the ground but still flying.
I would have expected more than just 2 of the fence posts to have been disturbed, don;t you think? & the generator & shed are well behind the trajectory path of the 2 knocked over fenceposts..
==> Not based on the angle of flight.
With regard to the Grey Steel Wire Spools, ...the other two have been moved from their original position by a digger/machine (or they are JUST in the process of being moved!)
==> I don't know where exactly they ended up, though you can probably find them in other more timely photos, they were originally by the generator though, and they are not now, and they are clearly banged up in a major way.
I can't see the plainly ROUND markings that you speak of & the buildong facing has obstacles in front of it & some VERY makeshift suppots. This is the Pentagon we're talking about here. Surely RMD/temporary jacking props would be needed, not a couple of bits of pakket/wood!
==> Ok, find the wood H shape, bottom left, note the cinder block cut in a nice circular shape. Now follow that circular shape around and you can see it in the remaining facade, ending where the first reddish steel temp support meets the Pentagon. Those ARE STEEL braces and they are anything but wimpy. Besides these are the two we can see, no telling what they have put inside the structure.
If the facade has gone from the FIVE columns to the left, & as you suggest, the left wing took these off, then where is the wing?? it's remains (the facade panel remains are there) should be lying in front of that elevation section of the building
===>The facade IS gone, look to the left of the 5 columns, past the door with yellow streamers, now compare the windows here with the ones that were struck. Notice the ones to the left have quite a ledge compared to the ones to the right. This is where the Limestone Facade USED to be. Now you can see cinder blocks on the right vs Limestone on the right. I believe what parts of the wing didn't go into the building is in what appears to be a scrap pile of aluminum, by all those workers in white. The area in front of the pentagon has obviously been swept clear of debris so people can work. Those light brown rectangles appear to be plywood sheets.
What is also a bit less obvious is the round impact mark of the Right Engine, just to the right of the collapsed area and a bit higher than the left engine. The wing appears to have struck at a angle with the wingtip tilted about 35 d or so, not the smashed facade to the right and above where the engine struck. I suspect it lost the outer part of the wing when it hit the generator as there is no apparent strike mark for this section.
I'd be willing to bet money that the distance between these two round marks will MATCH that of a 757.
Anyone up for a little wager?
Arthur
I'd be interested in your comments.
Sinclair
Arthur,
I agree that the area is on the roof, I don't understand the remainder of your reply. You have to agree that the area is perpendicular to the trajectory & there is an area of 'not so much' damage in between this area & the main damage along the line of the trajectory.
I agree that the area is on the roof, I don't understand the remainder of your reply. You have to agree that the area is perpendicular to the trajectory & there is an area of 'not so much' damage in between this area & the main damage along the line of the trajectory.
The jet came in at a steep angle (~60 or so degrees as I recall) to the face, you can see that it just hit the corner of the generator and I would guess only the bottom of the engine shroud hit just those two posts. The plane was almost on the ground but still flying.
You mean a highly skewed angle (steep I take as referring to the vertical inclination - we were told that it was almost horizontal). The security video stills released do not show such a highly skewd angle - buth their resolution is very poor (conveniently). As stated, I would have expected more than just 2 of the fence posts to have been disturbed & the generator & mangled shed are well away from the trajectory path of the 2 knocked over fenceposts..
==> Not based on the angle of flight.? A skew angle of 60 degrees would make MORE fenceposts subject to damage, surely. Your reasoning doesn't make sense.
If the left wing took out that series of columns, then the front elevation in this location should have deflected or fallen. I still cannot see any distinctive circular engine mark. I would postulate thata mark may have been subsequently created at the required distance (i.e. to MATCH that of a 757). Indeed the whole photo looks like a Set Piece - very clear resolution - I'll bet yo that it was from a DoD source.
If the left wing took out that series of columns, then the front elevation in this location should have deflected or fallen. I still cannot see any distinctive circular engine mark. I would postulate thata mark may have been subsequently created at the required distance (i.e. to MATCH that of a 757). Indeed the whole photo looks like a Set Piece - very clear resolution - I'll bet yo that it was from a DoD source.
===>The facade IS gone, look to the left of the 5 columns, past the door with yellow streamers, now compare the windows here with the ones that were struck. Notice the ones to the left have quite a ledge compared to the ones to the right. This is where the Limestone Facade USED to be. Now you can see cinder blocks on the right vs Limestone on the right. I believe what parts of the wing didn't go into the building is in what appears to be a scrap pile of aluminum, by all those workers in white. The area in front of the pentagon has obviously been swept clear of debris so people can work. Those light brown rectangles appear to be plywood sheets.
I am getting tired responding to this now..............
REALLY Tired.........
REALLY Tired.........
I'd be willing to bet money that the distance between these two round marks will MATCH that of a 757.
As I said, you're probably right, because the stage production manager would have made sure of it.
OK, I'll leave others to comment, but I reckon this is my last post on this thread.
Go to www.pentagonstrike.co.uk for a something to think about & post your arguments against what it says in the SWF presentation, here.
G'Night
No
Arthur
QUOTE
It may have burnt more, simply because it would have been the furthest from fire suppression. This burnt area is also why it was appropriate to use water, as by the time the fire crews arrived the majority of the fire would have been secondary materials.
I agree that the area is on the roof, I don't understand the remainder of your reply. You have to agree that the area is perpendicular to the trajectory & there is an area of 'not so much' damage in between this area & the main damage along the line of the trajectory.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It may have burnt more, simply because it would have been the furthest from fire suppression. This burnt area is also why it was appropriate to use water, as by the time the fire crews arrived the majority of the fire would have been secondary materials. |
I agree that the area is on the roof, I don't understand the remainder of your reply. You have to agree that the area is perpendicular to the trajectory & there is an area of 'not so much' damage in between this area & the main damage along the line of the trajectory.
The jet came in at a steep angle (~60 or so degrees as I recall) to the face, you can see that it just hit the corner of the generator and I would guess only the bottom of the engine shroud hit just those two posts. The plane was almost on the ground but still flying.
You mean a highly skewed angle (steep I take as referring to the vertical inclination - we were told that it was almost horizontal). The security video stills released do not show such a highly skewd angle - buth their resolution is very poor (conveniently). As stated, I would have expected more than just 2 of the fence posts to have been disturbed & the generator & mangled shed are well away from the trajectory path of the 2 knocked over fenceposts..
==> Not based on the angle of flight.? A skew angle of 60 degrees would make MORE fenceposts subject to damage, surely. Your reasoning doesn't make sense.
QUOTE
==> Ok, find the wood H shape, bottom left, note the cinder block cut in a nice circular shape. Now follow that circular shape around and you can see it in the remaining facade, ending where the first reddish steel temp support meets the Pentagon. Those ARE STEEL braces and they are anything but wimpy. Besides these are the two we can see, no telling what they have put inside the structure.
If the left wing took out that series of columns, then the front elevation in this location should have deflected or fallen. I still cannot see any distinctive circular engine mark. I would postulate thata mark may have been subsequently created at the required distance (i.e. to MATCH that of a 757). Indeed the whole photo looks like a Set Piece - very clear resolution - I'll bet yo that it was from a DoD source.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ==> Ok, find the wood H shape, bottom left, note the cinder block cut in a nice circular shape. Now follow that circular shape around and you can see it in the remaining facade, ending where the first reddish steel temp support meets the Pentagon. Those ARE STEEL braces and they are anything but wimpy. Besides these are the two we can see, no telling what they have put inside the structure. |
If the left wing took out that series of columns, then the front elevation in this location should have deflected or fallen. I still cannot see any distinctive circular engine mark. I would postulate thata mark may have been subsequently created at the required distance (i.e. to MATCH that of a 757). Indeed the whole photo looks like a Set Piece - very clear resolution - I'll bet yo that it was from a DoD source.
===>The facade IS gone, look to the left of the 5 columns, past the door with yellow streamers, now compare the windows here with the ones that were struck. Notice the ones to the left have quite a ledge compared to the ones to the right. This is where the Limestone Facade USED to be. Now you can see cinder blocks on the right vs Limestone on the right. I believe what parts of the wing didn't go into the building is in what appears to be a scrap pile of aluminum, by all those workers in white. The area in front of the pentagon has obviously been swept clear of debris so people can work. Those light brown rectangles appear to be plywood sheets.
I am getting tired responding to this now..............
QUOTE
What is also a bit less obvious is the round impact mark of the Right Engine, just to the right of the collapsed area and a bit higher than the left engine. The wing appears to have struck at a angle with the wingtip tilted about 35 d or so, not the smashed facade to the right and above where the engine struck. I suspect it lost the outer part of the wing when it hit the generator as there is no apparent strike mark for this section.
REALLY Tired.........
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What is also a bit less obvious is the round impact mark of the Right Engine, just to the right of the collapsed area and a bit higher than the left engine. The wing appears to have struck at a angle with the wingtip tilted about 35 d or so, not the smashed facade to the right and above where the engine struck. I suspect it lost the outer part of the wing when it hit the generator as there is no apparent strike mark for this section. |
REALLY Tired.........
I'd be willing to bet money that the distance between these two round marks will MATCH that of a 757.
As I said, you're probably right, because the stage production manager would have made sure of it.
OK, I'll leave others to comment, but I reckon this is my last post on this thread.
Go to www.pentagonstrike.co.uk for a something to think about & post your arguments against what it says in the SWF presentation, here.
G'Night
Fire: Note there are OPEN spaces between the RINGS of the Pentagon.
The WALLS were damaged.
A LOT of fuel was sprayed into this area, so no there was not a lot of physical damage in the area in question, there WAS fire damage.
Fires burning in the open areas could obviously make it to the roof line, as evidenced by the charred roofing and the still blue areas where they were protected by the RINGS.
The corner was particularly open due to its geometry, thus fire spread there more than most areas.
If you actually look at this picture all of this is pretty obvious.
Bent poles.
Agree that the poles are bent?
Agree that two are missing,
Based on their location the skew angle is actually pretty obvious., however the clipped light posts also show the angle, so it is pretty well established, as is the offset damage inside, it is at the same angle as the impact.
Now notice that the back fence corner is also gone entirely, though a few poles can be seen at odd angles. The engine most likely hit the fence very near the top, since the bottom of the engine is rounded, the fact that it only took out two posts is quite logical.
However both the engine and wing took quite a lick when they hit that generator, those things are massive.
You CAN draw a STRAIGHT line from the round mark I mention on the wall through the damage to the fence, and actually see both the flight path and the skew angle.
Failure of Left side.
It does not appear that those two columns failed, though they were obviously damaged quite a bit. I believe the wood lattice around it is new bracing, plus the steel supports that have been added. Without detailed engineering drawings and damage assessments, one can't say it SHOULD have done anything that it didn't actually do.
If you can't see the circular mark you aren't really looking for it. It is pretty obvious. I've shown it to several family members (who aren't at all interested in this sort of thing), and they could all see it.
So now its a cover up because they took a CLEAR picture. Hmmm, don't you think a cover up is better served by fuzzy pictures?
Set piece. RIGHT.
Oh, so NOW they MADE the engine marks, got any photos of people measuring distances and chiseling round holes? Bet not.
Oh, so now they have a stage production manager.
How far will you go to support this absurdness?
Of course you are "getting tired" answering these rational explanations, they kind of put a damper to your whole theory.
Sorry.
No, you won't find me posting at www.absurdtheoryofnoplanehitthepentagon.com or any other such site. I'm not going to waste my time, nor indirectly support them by visiting their sites. They want answers, tell them to come here, a legitimate site with generally rational people who don't spend their time engaged in mental masturbation about absurd alternate realities.
Though you might notice, even on this site, you can't get many people to even rise to the bait. Obviously most are dismissing your claims outright, not finding them worthy of a response.
Arthur
The WALLS were damaged.
A LOT of fuel was sprayed into this area, so no there was not a lot of physical damage in the area in question, there WAS fire damage.
Fires burning in the open areas could obviously make it to the roof line, as evidenced by the charred roofing and the still blue areas where they were protected by the RINGS.
The corner was particularly open due to its geometry, thus fire spread there more than most areas.
If you actually look at this picture all of this is pretty obvious.
Bent poles.
Agree that the poles are bent?
Agree that two are missing,
Based on their location the skew angle is actually pretty obvious., however the clipped light posts also show the angle, so it is pretty well established, as is the offset damage inside, it is at the same angle as the impact.
Now notice that the back fence corner is also gone entirely, though a few poles can be seen at odd angles. The engine most likely hit the fence very near the top, since the bottom of the engine is rounded, the fact that it only took out two posts is quite logical.
However both the engine and wing took quite a lick when they hit that generator, those things are massive.
You CAN draw a STRAIGHT line from the round mark I mention on the wall through the damage to the fence, and actually see both the flight path and the skew angle.
Failure of Left side.
It does not appear that those two columns failed, though they were obviously damaged quite a bit. I believe the wood lattice around it is new bracing, plus the steel supports that have been added. Without detailed engineering drawings and damage assessments, one can't say it SHOULD have done anything that it didn't actually do.
If you can't see the circular mark you aren't really looking for it. It is pretty obvious. I've shown it to several family members (who aren't at all interested in this sort of thing), and they could all see it.
So now its a cover up because they took a CLEAR picture. Hmmm, don't you think a cover up is better served by fuzzy pictures?
Set piece. RIGHT.
Oh, so NOW they MADE the engine marks, got any photos of people measuring distances and chiseling round holes? Bet not.
Oh, so now they have a stage production manager.
How far will you go to support this absurdness?
Of course you are "getting tired" answering these rational explanations, they kind of put a damper to your whole theory.
Sorry.
No, you won't find me posting at www.absurdtheoryofnoplanehitthepentagon.com or any other such site. I'm not going to waste my time, nor indirectly support them by visiting their sites. They want answers, tell them to come here, a legitimate site with generally rational people who don't spend their time engaged in mental masturbation about absurd alternate realities.
Though you might notice, even on this site, you can't get many people to even rise to the bait. Obviously most are dismissing your claims outright, not finding them worthy of a response.
Arthur
QUOTE
Notice something missing in the photos?
No
Arthur
physical evidence of the "official" script
Punchout Hole
Photo of Puncture in C-Ring
These photos show the most prominent puncture in the C-ring wall.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evide...s/punchout.html
Damage
Photos of Pentagon Facade and Lawn During and After Fire Suppression
These photographs show the facade and lawn of the Pentagon's west block during and following the successful fire suppression effort.
They were taken by Geoff Metcalf, whose site contains the the complete set.
SOME OF THESE THESE IMAGES ARE HI-RESOLUTION. (RIGHT CLICK EACH IMAGE AND DOWNLOAD TO VIEW BETTER)
There is a VPP TECHNOLOGIES SPYWARE sucking information ..... and sending it to http://agentq.vpptechnologies.com/
(although Directory Listing Denied This Virtual Directory does not allow contents to be listed)
link here
Photo of Puncture in C-Ring
These photos show the most prominent puncture in the C-ring wall.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evide...s/punchout.html
Damage
Photos of Pentagon Facade and Lawn During and After Fire Suppression
These photographs show the facade and lawn of the Pentagon's west block during and following the successful fire suppression effort.
They were taken by Geoff Metcalf, whose site contains the the complete set.
SOME OF THESE THESE IMAGES ARE HI-RESOLUTION. (RIGHT CLICK EACH IMAGE AND DOWNLOAD TO VIEW BETTER)
There is a VPP TECHNOLOGIES SPYWARE sucking information ..... and sending it to http://agentq.vpptechnologies.com/
(although Directory Listing Denied This Virtual Directory does not allow contents to be listed)
QUOTE
tems found in C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\drivers\etc\hosts\HOSTS
127.0.0.1 download1.shopathomeselect.com #[ADW_SAHAGENT.A]
127.0.0.1 www.shopathomeselect.com #[Adware.SAHAgent]
127.0.0.1 web-nexus.net #[Adw.Web-Nexus.WebNexusAdServer]
127.0.0.1 dl.web-nexus.net #[eTrust.Win32.Qoologic]
127.0.0.1 dl.web-nexus.net #[eTrust.Win32.Qoologic]
127.0.0.1 stech.web-nexus.net
127.0.0.1 www.web-nexus.net
127.0.0.1 agentq.vpptechnologies.com
127.0.0.1 main.vpptechnologies.com #[IE-SpyAd]
127.0.0.1 media-0.vpptechnologies.com
127.0.0.1 media-1.vpptechnologies.com
127.0.0.1 media-4.vpptechnologies.com
127.0.0.1 media-5.vpptechnologies.com
127.0.0.1 media-6.vpptechnologies.com
127.0.0.1 media-a.vpptechnologies.com
127.0.0.1 media-b.vpptechnologies.com
127.0.0.1 media-c.vpptechnologies.com
127.0.0.1 media-d.vpptechnologies.com
127.0.0.1 media-e.vpptechnologies.com
127.0.0.1 media-f.vpptechnologies.com
127.0.0.1 msxml.vpptechnologies.com
127.0.0.1 static.vpptechnologies.com #[hotsearchbar.com]
127.0.0.1 thumbs.vpptechnologies.com
127.0.0.1 xml.vpptechnologies.com #[BlazeFind]
127.0.0.1 ad-w-a-r-e.com #[Win32.Canbede]
127.0.0.1 www.ad-w-a-r-e.com #[AdWare.Win32.Look2Me.ab]
127.0.0.1 abetterinternet.com #[Downloader.Stubby.A][Adware.Aurora]
127.0.0.1 belt.abetterinternet.com
127.0.0.1 c.abetterinternet.com #[Adware-BetterInet application]
127.0.0.1 download.abetterinternet.com #[Adware.StopPopupAdsNow]
127.0.0.1 download2.abetterinternet.com #[Parasite.Transponder]
127.0.0.1 s.abetterinternet.com
127.0.0.1 st.abetterinternet.com
127.0.0.1 static.abetterinternet.com
127.0.0.1 thinstall.abetterinternet.com
127.0.0.1 www.abetterinternet.com #[Trojan-Downloader.Win32.Stubby.d]
127.0.0.1 download1.shopathomeselect.com #[ADW_SAHAGENT.A]
127.0.0.1 www.shopathomeselect.com #[Adware.SAHAgent]
127.0.0.1 web-nexus.net #[Adw.Web-Nexus.WebNexusAdServer]
127.0.0.1 dl.web-nexus.net #[eTrust.Win32.Qoologic]
127.0.0.1 dl.web-nexus.net #[eTrust.Win32.Qoologic]
127.0.0.1 stech.web-nexus.net
127.0.0.1 www.web-nexus.net
127.0.0.1 agentq.vpptechnologies.com
127.0.0.1 main.vpptechnologies.com #[IE-SpyAd]
127.0.0.1 media-0.vpptechnologies.com
127.0.0.1 media-1.vpptechnologies.com
127.0.0.1 media-4.vpptechnologies.com
127.0.0.1 media-5.vpptechnologies.com
127.0.0.1 media-6.vpptechnologies.com
127.0.0.1 media-a.vpptechnologies.com
127.0.0.1 media-b.vpptechnologies.com
127.0.0.1 media-c.vpptechnologies.com
127.0.0.1 media-d.vpptechnologies.com
127.0.0.1 media-e.vpptechnologies.com
127.0.0.1 media-f.vpptechnologies.com
127.0.0.1 msxml.vpptechnologies.com
127.0.0.1 static.vpptechnologies.com #[hotsearchbar.com]
127.0.0.1 thumbs.vpptechnologies.com
127.0.0.1 xml.vpptechnologies.com #[BlazeFind]
127.0.0.1 ad-w-a-r-e.com #[Win32.Canbede]
127.0.0.1 www.ad-w-a-r-e.com #[AdWare.Win32.Look2Me.ab]
127.0.0.1 abetterinternet.com #[Downloader.Stubby.A][Adware.Aurora]
127.0.0.1 belt.abetterinternet.com
127.0.0.1 c.abetterinternet.com #[Adware-BetterInet application]
127.0.0.1 download.abetterinternet.com #[Adware.StopPopupAdsNow]
127.0.0.1 download2.abetterinternet.com #[Parasite.Transponder]
127.0.0.1 s.abetterinternet.com
127.0.0.1 st.abetterinternet.com
127.0.0.1 static.abetterinternet.com
127.0.0.1 thinstall.abetterinternet.com
127.0.0.1 www.abetterinternet.com #[Trojan-Downloader.Win32.Stubby.d]
link here
Thanks for these pictures, since the confirm that it was a large twin engine jet, dare I say a 757, that caused them.
The markings are pretty distinct, once you look for them.
I thought the right wing hadn't left that much of an impression, but I was wrong, its point of impact is plainly seen.
Since the damage can be seen in the foam covered pictures it is also obvious that none of this was "stage managed" as alluded to in an earlier post.
What is OBVIOUS, is that a large twin engine jet hit the pentagon at about 30 or so degrees off of perpendicular.
On its approach the right engine clipped a fence and smashed into a large generator, some spools of wire and a metal shed.
The plane was in a very shallow dive, left wing low attitude. Because jets have diheadrel, the left wing was approx level with the ground, with the left engine almost at ground level, it may have even contacted the ground just before impact.
The left wing took out 5 columns worth of facade to the left of the point the engine impacted.
The Right wing, for the same reasons was canted upward at twice the dihederal angle. The right engine took out column 16 (its at a ~45 degree angle) and the wing root made a nice size dent in the facade to the above right of where the engine hit.
The damage pattern pretty much exactly matches what one would expect from the impact of a 757.
Why didn't we do this sooner?
Arthur
The markings are pretty distinct, once you look for them.
I thought the right wing hadn't left that much of an impression, but I was wrong, its point of impact is plainly seen.
Since the damage can be seen in the foam covered pictures it is also obvious that none of this was "stage managed" as alluded to in an earlier post.
What is OBVIOUS, is that a large twin engine jet hit the pentagon at about 30 or so degrees off of perpendicular.
On its approach the right engine clipped a fence and smashed into a large generator, some spools of wire and a metal shed.
The plane was in a very shallow dive, left wing low attitude. Because jets have diheadrel, the left wing was approx level with the ground, with the left engine almost at ground level, it may have even contacted the ground just before impact.
The left wing took out 5 columns worth of facade to the left of the point the engine impacted.
The Right wing, for the same reasons was canted upward at twice the dihederal angle. The right engine took out column 16 (its at a ~45 degree angle) and the wing root made a nice size dent in the facade to the above right of where the engine hit.
The damage pattern pretty much exactly matches what one would expect from the impact of a 757.
Why didn't we do this sooner?
Arthur
(QUOTE=zoktoberfest)
I just thought that re-recording a commercial 757 from the same locations with similar equipment, on similar flight paths, through the (now) air space of WTCs footprints and then computer processing in the acoustical effects of the missing architecture, could yield clues as to the pedigree of those planes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[QUOTE=adoucette,Oct 26 2005, 05:34 PM]You won't get anyone to do it because the planes were most likely past Vne (well past manuevering speed, into the red arc on the ASI) for the altitude they were at.
Which might account for the the noise you hear sounding different. You would never here a normal passenger plane flying at those speeds at that altitude.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTHUR;
Thank you for contributing that short but sweet expose' of a massive aircraft, lumbering beyond the threshold of normal manueverability. So, marginally trained, inexperienced pilots, fly through a complicated urban corridor at "Doctor Strangelove" altitudes and hit their targets dead-on, with aircraft pushed far into operational compromise? In the referenced movie, a ground hugging B-52 evades soviet air defenses because of the combined skills of a highly competent SAC flight crew. Arthur, the improbable version of reality you are working so hard to promote, needs a stiff dosage of "The Right Stuff" to fly. If aviation insignificants can thread the needle three times in one day, think what an evil doing, certified pilot could have done. Lets see; how about commandeering the shuttle and flying it into space. Then de-orbiting our satellites and as a suicidal finale, crashing into the space station. All before lunch. Works for me.
I just thought that re-recording a commercial 757 from the same locations with similar equipment, on similar flight paths, through the (now) air space of WTCs footprints and then computer processing in the acoustical effects of the missing architecture, could yield clues as to the pedigree of those planes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[QUOTE=adoucette,Oct 26 2005, 05:34 PM]You won't get anyone to do it because the planes were most likely past Vne (well past manuevering speed, into the red arc on the ASI) for the altitude they were at.
Which might account for the the noise you hear sounding different. You would never here a normal passenger plane flying at those speeds at that altitude.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTHUR;
Thank you for contributing that short but sweet expose' of a massive aircraft, lumbering beyond the threshold of normal manueverability. So, marginally trained, inexperienced pilots, fly through a complicated urban corridor at "Doctor Strangelove" altitudes and hit their targets dead-on, with aircraft pushed far into operational compromise? In the referenced movie, a ground hugging B-52 evades soviet air defenses because of the combined skills of a highly competent SAC flight crew. Arthur, the improbable version of reality you are working so hard to promote, needs a stiff dosage of "The Right Stuff" to fly. If aviation insignificants can thread the needle three times in one day, think what an evil doing, certified pilot could have done. Lets see; how about commandeering the shuttle and flying it into space. Then de-orbiting our satellites and as a suicidal finale, crashing into the space station. All before lunch. Works for me.
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 27 2005, 03:06 AM)
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Oct 26 2005, 09:38 PM)
The anniversary of the assassination of JFK is approaching (22 nov. 1963). After that day of infamy, or more likely many months before, an official story was concocted that, like the one we're debating now, also stretched the limits of plausibility to the breaking point.
Oh PLEASE.
Lets see now... [INSERT "OFFICIAL" JFK LINE HERE]
Arthur
Is anyone surprised that our friend adoucette is a professional JFK debunker in addition to being a professional 9/11 debunker? And all of this being apparently written from memory (since no attributions are given) would seem to indicate years of reseach on his part.
Just as with the more complex arguments on the 9/11 scenario which always get instantaneously debunked, it seems that adoucette is a veritable well of knowledge on these conspiracy subjects! I'm surprised he hasn't authored a book or two about "conspiracy theories" - when not busy writing software or flying airplanes, that is.
Oh PLEASE.
Lets see now... [INSERT "OFFICIAL" JFK LINE HERE]
Arthur
Is anyone surprised that our friend adoucette is a professional JFK debunker in addition to being a professional 9/11 debunker? And all of this being apparently written from memory (since no attributions are given) would seem to indicate years of reseach on his part.
Just as with the more complex arguments on the 9/11 scenario which always get instantaneously debunked, it seems that adoucette is a veritable well of knowledge on these conspiracy subjects! I'm surprised he hasn't authored a book or two about "conspiracy theories" - when not busy writing software or flying airplanes, that is.
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Nov 6 2005, 08:01 AM)
(QUOTE=zoktoberfest)
While reviewing available videos of the planes hitting the WTCs, I was wondering if any comparative audio analysis of the engine noise was done. Although highly subjective, and based on my experience of living in the flight path of an airport, they don't sound right. The pitch is too low. Too much growl not enough shhhhh. I know this would be almost impossible considering the multitude of variables involved. Obviously, the myriads of acoustical transformations, do to the extensive cityscape, would stretch the concept of differential acoustical analysis to its' present limits. I just thought that re-recording a commercial 757 from the same locations with similar equipment, on similar flight paths, through the (now) air space of WTCs footprints and then computer processing in the acoustical effects of the missing architecture, could yield clues as to the pedigree of those planes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While reviewing available videos of the planes hitting the WTCs, I was wondering if any comparative audio analysis of the engine noise was done. Although highly subjective, and based on my experience of living in the flight path of an airport, they don't sound right. The pitch is too low. Too much growl not enough shhhhh. I know this would be almost impossible considering the multitude of variables involved. Obviously, the myriads of acoustical transformations, do to the extensive cityscape, would stretch the concept of differential acoustical analysis to its' present limits. I just thought that re-recording a commercial 757 from the same locations with similar equipment, on similar flight paths, through the (now) air space of WTCs footprints and then computer processing in the acoustical effects of the missing architecture, could yield clues as to the pedigree of those planes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 26 2005, 05:34 PM)
You won't get anyone to do it because the planes were most likely past Vne (well past manuevering speed, into the red arc on the ASI) for the altitude they were at.
Which might account for the the noise you hear sounding different. You would never here a normal passenger plane flying at those speeds at that altitude.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTHUR;
You took the bait! My post was just a throw-away, what if?..., mind play. Yours, however, was a short but sweet expose' of a massive aircraft, lumbering beyond the threshold of normal manueverability . Yet, marginally trained, inexperienced pilots, fly through a complicated urban corridor at "Doctor Strangelove" altitudes and hit their targets dead-on, with aircraft pushed far into operational compromise. In the referenced movie, a B-52 evades soviet air defenses, on one engine, because of the combined skills of a highly competent SAC flight crew. Arthur, the improbable version of reality you are working so hard to promote, needs a stiff dosage of "The Right Stuff" to fly. If aviation insignificants can thread the needle three times in one day, think what an evil doing, certified pilot could have done. Lets see; how about commandeering the shuttle and flying it into space. Then de-orbiting our satellites and as a suicidal finale, crashing into the space station. All before lunch. Works for me.
Well actually a plane is NO MORE DIFFICULT to fly when near or even past VNE, and in fact the way Boeing builds Aircraft and the FAA regulations pretty much insure the plane is going to stay together, though surfaces might be deformed if you over control it.
So, while I don't think you are going to get anyone to put a 767 at risk by doing so, flying near or above VNE, does not require hot shot piloting skills.
As far as hitting a tower the size of the WTC on a clear, calm air day, that also is not a difficult piloting skill. These guys had a decent amount of flight training and before you can solo you HAVE to be able to make a plane go where you want it to go.
Your typical runway is MUCH narrower than the WTC and to land a plane you have to manage directional control in 2 dimensions, using 3 axis of control, while at the same time managing your airspeed from cruise down to stall.
Thus, landing a plane is a lot harder than running it into a building the size of the WTC, particularly if where you hit it isn't all that important.
Arthur
Which might account for the the noise you hear sounding different. You would never here a normal passenger plane flying at those speeds at that altitude.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTHUR;
You took the bait! My post was just a throw-away, what if?..., mind play. Yours, however, was a short but sweet expose' of a massive aircraft, lumbering beyond the threshold of normal manueverability . Yet, marginally trained, inexperienced pilots, fly through a complicated urban corridor at "Doctor Strangelove" altitudes and hit their targets dead-on, with aircraft pushed far into operational compromise. In the referenced movie, a B-52 evades soviet air defenses, on one engine, because of the combined skills of a highly competent SAC flight crew. Arthur, the improbable version of reality you are working so hard to promote, needs a stiff dosage of "The Right Stuff" to fly. If aviation insignificants can thread the needle three times in one day, think what an evil doing, certified pilot could have done. Lets see; how about commandeering the shuttle and flying it into space. Then de-orbiting our satellites and as a suicidal finale, crashing into the space station. All before lunch. Works for me.
Well actually a plane is NO MORE DIFFICULT to fly when near or even past VNE, and in fact the way Boeing builds Aircraft and the FAA regulations pretty much insure the plane is going to stay together, though surfaces might be deformed if you over control it.
So, while I don't think you are going to get anyone to put a 767 at risk by doing so, flying near or above VNE, does not require hot shot piloting skills.
As far as hitting a tower the size of the WTC on a clear, calm air day, that also is not a difficult piloting skill. These guys had a decent amount of flight training and before you can solo you HAVE to be able to make a plane go where you want it to go.
Your typical runway is MUCH narrower than the WTC and to land a plane you have to manage directional control in 2 dimensions, using 3 axis of control, while at the same time managing your airspeed from cruise down to stall.
Thus, landing a plane is a lot harder than running it into a building the size of the WTC, particularly if where you hit it isn't all that important.
Arthur
QUOTE (Piper+Nov 6 2005, 05:30 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 27 2005, 03:06 AM)
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Oct 26 2005, 09:38 PM)
The anniversary of the assassination of JFK is approaching (22 nov. 1963). After that day of infamy, or more likely many months before, an official story was concocted that, like the one we're debating now, also stretched the limits of plausibility to the breaking point.
Oh PLEASE.
Lets see now... [INSERT "OFFICIAL" JFK LINE HERE]
Arthur
Is anyone surprised that our friend adoucette is a professional JFK debunker in addition to being a professional 9/11 debunker? And all of this being apparently written from memory (since no attributions are given) would seem to indicate years of reseach on his part.
Just as with the more complex arguments on the 9/11 scenario which always get instantaneously debunked, it seems that adoucette is a veritable well of knowledge on these conspiracy subjects! I'm surprised he hasn't authored a book or two about "conspiracy theories" - when not busy writing software or flying airplanes, that is.
Since I well remember the day, sitting in health class, as the Principle put the radio on over the building loudspeakers, getting the stunning news that President Kennedy had been shot, and later that he had died. I remember sitting at home with my family, watching our small B&W TV as JFK's coffin was transported to Arlington. I remember everyone in the family crying as John saluted. I remember watching as LHO was shot to death below the Dallas police station.
I read the Warren report. I read for years the controversy or the gunman, the Zapruder film, the 'magic bullet', the grassy knole...
I went to Dealey Plaza (I was in Dallas for other reasons, I didn't take a trip specifically to see it)
I also did my own research. Years ago.
Some of what I wrote was from memory, much was QUICKLY gleaned from the internet, including all of the pictures. If you follow the links to the pictures you can find a number of the pieces I used for the write up.
Something ANYONE could do if they take the 10 or so minutes it took me to put together and know how to search using google.
Which is why I'm not writing any books on the subject, most of this material is not mine, most is freely available on the internet if you simply look for it. I'll try to remember to post links in the future as I'm not trying to take original credit for this stuff.
Arthur
Oh PLEASE.
Lets see now... [INSERT "OFFICIAL" JFK LINE HERE]
Arthur
Is anyone surprised that our friend adoucette is a professional JFK debunker in addition to being a professional 9/11 debunker? And all of this being apparently written from memory (since no attributions are given) would seem to indicate years of reseach on his part.
Just as with the more complex arguments on the 9/11 scenario which always get instantaneously debunked, it seems that adoucette is a veritable well of knowledge on these conspiracy subjects! I'm surprised he hasn't authored a book or two about "conspiracy theories" - when not busy writing software or flying airplanes, that is.
Since I well remember the day, sitting in health class, as the Principle put the radio on over the building loudspeakers, getting the stunning news that President Kennedy had been shot, and later that he had died. I remember sitting at home with my family, watching our small B&W TV as JFK's coffin was transported to Arlington. I remember everyone in the family crying as John saluted. I remember watching as LHO was shot to death below the Dallas police station.
I read the Warren report. I read for years the controversy or the gunman, the Zapruder film, the 'magic bullet', the grassy knole...
I went to Dealey Plaza (I was in Dallas for other reasons, I didn't take a trip specifically to see it)
I also did my own research. Years ago.
Some of what I wrote was from memory, much was QUICKLY gleaned from the internet, including all of the pictures. If you follow the links to the pictures you can find a number of the pieces I used for the write up.
Something ANYONE could do if they take the 10 or so minutes it took me to put together and know how to search using google.
Which is why I'm not writing any books on the subject, most of this material is not mine, most is freely available on the internet if you simply look for it. I'll try to remember to post links in the future as I'm not trying to take original credit for this stuff.
Arthur
The Pentagon was an elaborate hoax nothing more or less.
"American Airlines Flight 77, from Washington to Los Angeles, crashed into the Pentagon with 64 people aboard."
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.cen...77.victims.html
64 People were reported lost, CNN only print 55 names - and no "hijackers".
Here is the BTS Database for all internal flights. Start at this link, select all the intial options.
Airport : Washington Dulles, American Airlines. See the Results for AA77.
http://www.bts.gov/cgi-bin/ntda/oai/Detail...irLevSel=DetSta
Nobody died at the Pentagon, it was evac'd.
http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2001/0.../story23297.asp
"American Airlines Flight 77, from Washington to Los Angeles, crashed into the Pentagon with 64 people aboard."
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.cen...77.victims.html
64 People were reported lost, CNN only print 55 names - and no "hijackers".
Here is the BTS Database for all internal flights. Start at this link, select all the intial options.
Airport : Washington Dulles, American Airlines. See the Results for AA77.
http://www.bts.gov/cgi-bin/ntda/oai/Detail...irLevSel=DetSta
Nobody died at the Pentagon, it was evac'd.
http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2001/0.../story23297.asp
Evidence of flight path damage, attributed to the approach of a winged aircraft does not force the conclusion that said aircraft impacted the Pentagon. On page 4 of this thread, I proposed in an unconventionally formatted post, that a winged aircraft could have been the delivery platform for a bunker buster missile. The plane comes in low, sustains some damage but still delivers it's ordinance just barely flying over the building and on to where ever. The pyrotechnical explosion draws everyones attention to the impact site and away from the plane exiting behind it. Most of the witnessed accounts were from ground level. Right? If the plane continued its' flight only a few feet above the pentagon then none would have had the proper line-of-sight required to notice this . Then there's all that extraneous fire damage on the roof, beyond and off to the side of the line- bore path, which could be attributed to a breached wing tank, hemorrhaging fuel as it pasted over. In the previous photos, the face of C-ring is shown untouched, except for a surgically precise, center punched hole. How could the vector force remain this focused after the 2nd impact event? When the pulverized debris exited through D-ring, under extremely high pressure, why is there no dispersion pattern on the face of C-ring do to the aperture effect??? Remember; the official story requires that the catastrophic damage witnessed on 911 be attributed to foreign hijackers in planes. The resultants had to be unequivocal, cutting to the very bone of our psyche. Penetrating deeply into the center of American military might to generate the ultimate level of vulnerability required something more than a plane. The plane was just a prop to maintain plausible continuity of the official story. The magician knows that distraction is a requisite of the trick.
Post amendment;
Having read more accounts from eye witnesses, I am reconsidering my proposal that an aircraft delivered the ordinance that penetrated the pentagon and then escaped into, through and ultimately behind the pyrotechnic plume unnoticed. Interesting, but it requires an almost mass visual illusion on the part of the witnesses. The plane needed to be above roof altitude. There needs to be an incendiary event preceding the arrival of the aircraft and the missile. The plane flies through it but the mind sees' and hears impact because the released or accompanying missile explodes below it and in time with the unfolding of the events. We extrapolate one plane crash event , even though there were four timed, independent events. It satisfies all conditions. A plane crash but no artifacts and a "bunker buster" signature. "Simplicity is genius" this is not and thats the problem.
Post amendment;
Having read more accounts from eye witnesses, I am reconsidering my proposal that an aircraft delivered the ordinance that penetrated the pentagon and then escaped into, through and ultimately behind the pyrotechnic plume unnoticed. Interesting, but it requires an almost mass visual illusion on the part of the witnesses. The plane needed to be above roof altitude. There needs to be an incendiary event preceding the arrival of the aircraft and the missile. The plane flies through it but the mind sees' and hears impact because the released or accompanying missile explodes below it and in time with the unfolding of the events. We extrapolate one plane crash event , even though there were four timed, independent events. It satisfies all conditions. A plane crash but no artifacts and a "bunker buster" signature. "Simplicity is genius" this is not and thats the problem.
4 photos of facade and lawn immediately after attack
THESE ARE HIGH RESOLUTION. ALSO TO VIEW IN BIG FORMAT GOTO:
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evide...otos/smoke.html
Photo of Fires Before Fire Suppression
This image shows the central region of damage to the Pentagon prior to the commencement of fire suppression efforts. This is an edited version of a photograph taken by Daryl Donley.
THESE ARE HIGH RESOLUTION. ALSO TO VIEW IN BIG FORMAT GOTO:
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evide...otos/smoke.html
Photo of Fires Before Fire Suppression
This image shows the central region of damage to the Pentagon prior to the commencement of fire suppression efforts. This is an edited version of a photograph taken by Daryl Donley.
QUOTE
During the Hearing of the Independent Commission Bernard B. Kerik, Former Commissioner, New York, Policy Department (NYPD) said:
The city, through its OEM (Office of Emergency Management), had coordinated plans for many types of emergencies, and those plans were tested frequently. Not only were drills and tabletop exercises conducted , like the one simulating a biochemical attack in the mass transit system, but actual emergencies like blackouts, building collapses , storms, plane crashes, and a West Nile Virus outbreak, all tested the effectiveness of the city's coordinated response system.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hear..._2004-05-18.htm
The central questions are:
What kind of building collapses had there been excercised?
What kind of plane crashes had been excercised?
How is the evacuation of the WTC to be seen in light of this preparation?
The city, through its OEM (Office of Emergency Management), had coordinated plans for many types of emergencies, and those plans were tested frequently. Not only were drills and tabletop exercises conducted , like the one simulating a biochemical attack in the mass transit system, but actual emergencies like blackouts, building collapses , storms, plane crashes, and a West Nile Virus outbreak, all tested the effectiveness of the city's coordinated response system.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hear..._2004-05-18.htm
The central questions are:
What kind of building collapses had there been excercised?
What kind of plane crashes had been excercised?
How is the evacuation of the WTC to be seen in light of this preparation?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.