Pentagon Exit Hole

[Bonobo]

Just wondering if anyone could explain the "exit hole" in the Pentagon.

Do you think it was from the nose cone of the airplane?



Below is a picture of a hole created by an explosive charge (breaching device)



Below is a picture of what happens to nose cones when they hit things. Even birds.

[wildbilln864]

1. hell no it's not! nt

:eyes:

[hack89]

2. Lets cut to the chase

do you think that hole was caused by a shaped charge? How did it get there - on a missile?

[Bonobo]

3. That is not cutting to the chase.

The proper order of a scientific enquiry into the issue would be to ask "could that hole have been caused by the nose cone?" If the answer is yes, then that's the end.
On the other hand, if the answer is "no", then you must being to look for alternate theories.

At this point, I definitely CANNOT say that it was an explosive charge. I have no evidence other than some similarities in how they look.

HOWEVER, it seems equally obvious to me that it was not the nose cone of an airplane. That is where I am at.

[hack89]

4. Who said it was the nose cone?

could have been an engine or any one of many big heavy chunks of metal from a 757. Or what about a mass of building debris being pushed ahead of a 757 as it plowed through the Pentagon? Or a combination of several things? It was a violent, chaotic event - why are you expecting a simple answer?

The arguments against it being a shaped charged are many - but having researched the subject I am sure you are aware of that.

[Bonobo]

7. My reply.

As I said, I think it would be backwards to argue against an explosive charge. The first order of business is to examine the forensics of the flight path, structural damage in the flight path, examination of debris spread pattern, etc, etc.

I don't expect a simple answer, but neither would I expect a perfectly round hole punched out like that with no reasonable explanation. Some said nose cone, others, like Rumsfeld tossed off the question and said it was a hole made to help victims get out.

Anyway, I repeat, the onus is upon the official explanation to deal with the enormous number of problems this "exit hole" brings up.

This link shows what a bird did to the nose cone of a huge airplane.
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/066.html

[hack89]

11. The only enormous problem is in the imagination of the truth movement.

I think you don't understand - the onus is on the truth movement to present some real evidence if their doubts are to be taken seriously. This "just asking questions" is a transparent ruse that fools no one.

[Bonobo]

13. I disagree.

Evidence that there is no reasonable explanation exists. Have you tried to read it?

Willful ignorance is what characterizes your position.

Asking questions is a central beginning to the scientific process of enquiry. To describe it as a "transparent ruse" is entirely ridiculous and betrays you if that is truly representative of your thinking.

No reasonable discussion could ever be had with that attitude either.

[Realityhack]

50. I disagree.

Asking honest informed questions is at the center of scientific inquiry.

You might start with open conjecture. But it has been YEARS since the attacks. Conjecture is immediately followed by seeing if it fits with available known facts. Much (not all but much) of the truth movement doesn't bother with that step before presenting their conjecture.

'Just asking questions' is in my experience a huge red flag. This typically indicates one of the following:
- A person 'asking a question' to which they think they already know the answer, even though they didn't bother to read anyting about the subject.
- A person asking a question about a detail that does not in any way fit with the overall pattern (ie. did x do this where x is ruled out by 50 other facts they don't get into)
- A person presenting a question that assumes an unsubstantiated (and often ruled out) conjecture that does not fit the other surrounding facts.
- A person asking completely irrelevant questions on a confirmation bias fishing trip.

'just asking questions' is virtually a code phrase around here for loony 9-11 theories that are hardly worth answering...

'did anyone check for radiation?' - just asking questions
'Why didn't the intercept the planes?' - just asking questions
'where was Bush senior during the attack?' - Just asking questions.

[End Of The Road]

56. " 'just asking questions' is a code phrase around here...

...for loony 9-11 theories that are hardly worth answering..."

Then why bother yourself by coming here? Rest assured, you won't be changing anyone's opinions.

[Kaleko]

42. hack - you're living up to your name with posts like that.

[Pharaoh]

67. I'm still wondering

Where the fuck all the wreckage bodies seats etc are............

[AZCat]

68. Photos of the victims are not allowed to be posted here.

They are available, and can be found using google.

[Pharaoh]

71. send me a link

[AZCat]

72. Some photos of victims were included in the Moussaoi trial as exhibits.

You can view them here. Scroll down to the "images" section - they're part of the way down. These are graphic images of dead people.

[Pharaoh]

77. sorry

but I just don't see any photos of plane wreckage at the pentagon.

[AZCat]

78. Then that's your fucking problem.

Willful ignorance seems to be common among the adherents to 9/11 conspiracy theories.

[Pharaoh]

81. Well one would think

that if there were pictures of a major airliner wreckage at the pentagon on 911 that the government would really really want to show it to us, just to shut us the fuck up. But they don't. And you can google about it all day long and you will still not find any pictures of jumbo jet wreckage at the pentagon on 911. So I don't know why your so defensive.

[AZCat]

82. Why am I defensive? I'm not.

I just don't have any patience with those who willfully ignore what is clearly evident. No-planers are the worst of the bunch.

[Pharaoh]

84. Anyone with any brains

Would see the government is covering up a whole lot of shit. But you are free to believe what you choose. Just believe what the TV and the government tell you and go back to sleep.

[AZCat]

156. You are conflating multiple issues.

Just because the government (if we truly can refer to the sprawling mass of people, property and equipment that is the U.S. Government as a single entity) is lying about one thing does not mean it is lying about another.

Oh, and I don't have a TV. I guess you'll have to come up with another rationalization for your willful ignorance.

[Realityhack]

89. Couple of issues.

First of there ARE pictures of airliner wreckage at the pentagon. You can pull them up with google.

Secondly the government doesn't give a shit what you or I think. We are babbling on an internet forum. They don't feel any need to shut you up, and they couldn't 'shut up' most 'truthers' even if they made every single government document and archive public domain including those not related to 9-11, so why would they try?

BTW as far as i can tell AZCat isn't being defensive. He is just responding to your willful ignorance.

[Pharaoh]

90. Lol............

Join the club.............:rofl:

[Pharaoh]

93. Well post something

to convince me and quit blowing hot air.....



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x167822

[Realityhack]

101. Try...

www.google.com

oh wait, I guess you must have failed at that:

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Pentagon_debris

[Pharaoh]

103. nice try.....

:toast:

[William Seger]

123. "Nice try?"

You made a foolish statement and were proved wrong. What exactly does "nice try" mean?

[Pharaoh]

137. Figure it out Einstein......

:think:

[William Seger]

143. Oh, I see

"...post something to convince me." You're not wrong as long as RsalityHack can't convince you that you're wrong? Even though you're wrong?

[Pharaoh]

144. Lol...........nevermind..

I was just funning with you guys. I'm not about to change you minds about anything so I was just poking ya between the eyes a bit O8)

[William Seger]

145. By saying stupid stuff?

Ouch, quit poking me. :eyes:

[Realityhack]

142. Nice try?

Ok. whatever.

We have limited photographic evidence for that crash site and what we have does show identifiable aircraft wreckage. I am sure their are photos of wreckage not on that page (I seem to recall seeing some when I used google) but if evidence won't satisfy you... whatever.

[mudesi]

5. Why not?

What is it about the hole that makes you think a nose cone could not have caused it?

[Bonobo]

8. Many things.

I do not think a nose cone could have made it through 3 huge walls as they suggest.

On the one hand, we are to believe there is very little wreckage because the airplane vaporized or something. On the other hand, we are to believe that a nose cone penetrated like some sort of DU missile?

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/066.html
The above shows the impact of a bird on a airplane's nose cone.

[hack89]

23. Except the hole is way too big for a DU missile

a cruise missile is only 20 inches wide - the penetrator would be even smaller.

Here's a question for you - what is the primary strength member of the fuselage of a 757? Think about that for a second and you will understand why your fixation on the nose cone is misguided. You should even figure out just why the hole reminds you of a heavy metal kinetic energy penetrator.

[Bonobo]

27. But that perfect hole?

The plane was coming in at an angle. Why would a perfect circular hole be punched unless we were talking about straight angles?

[hack89]

28. Same logic applies to a missile

don't see your point.

[Bonobo]

29. Well, I never said missile.

[hack89]

31. Here's how you figure it out

You have fixated on this one part of the damage - if all the other damage is consistent with a 757 then logic would dictate that the hole was caused by a 757. You may never know exactly what part did the damage but a 757 would be a reasonable guess if a 757 did all the other damage.

So why don't you broaden your horizons and look at all the damage as a whole. If you cannot attribute the damage to anything other than a 757 then your quest is over.

[Bonobo]

38. That is a reasonable suggestion.

But the reason I am loathe to do so is that the damage does NOT seem to be consistent with a 757.

I am troubled by the fact that the plane came in so low and parallel to the ground -without leaving any marks on the grass. Also, the roof of the Pentagon caved in where the hole was -it was undamaged. This indicates that the plane did not come in on a downward angle. That's some driving all right. Highly unlikely given the flying record of this individual.

Also, there are no marks on the buildings made by the wings? And where is the rest of the plane? Lockerbie had an almost complete plane AFTER retrieving it from under the ocean AFTER it had been blown apart.

[hack89]

47. Well, lets take a look at your points

1. The plane was not flying low and parallel to the ground. It was in a shallow dive and impacted the wall. If it was in fact flying low and parallel to the ground it would have hit the Navy Annex. What is so hard about pointing the nose of the plane at a building and hitting it when you start several thousand feet in the air?

2. Reread chapter 5 of the ASCE report (I am assuming you have already read the entire thing before) It talks about the damage to the facade due to the wings. This report is powerful one - you read it and tell me how a missile could have done that damage.

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

3. No wreckage? Well - the skin of a 757 melts at approx 1000 F. Considering the wreckage sat in a burning building for a long time why would you expect to find much wreckage at all? The Lockerbie wreckage was intact because it was not exposed to prolonged high temperature.

http://www.tennalum.com/td2024.htm

Here are some pictures of 757 wreckage.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

[Realityhack]

51. Another falicy here (not yours hack)

A lot of 9-11 report critics babble about how hard it would be to come in at just that hight etc.

That is a post hoc statistics fallacy. If I flip a coin and it comes up (H=Heads T=Tails) HTTHHTTHTTHTHTHHHTHT the probability of that series is very low. But that does NOT mean I must not have gotten those numbers.

If the plane didn't hit the ground it does NOT mean the pilot was 'that good'. If he did it again he might bounce off the ground and then hit the wall. We are talking about a single data point. And it doesn't matter to the attacker if the plane bounces, or hits the third story. It still makes the point they are trying to make. Hitting the pentagon.

[Greyhound]

6. Hey Bobo, hope you are well.

The more time passes and the more answers that are not forthcoming, the more I question the whole "official story".

But hey, people have been calling me crazy for years and years, even as everything I tried to warn them about has come to pass.
:shrug:
:hug:

[Bonobo]

9. Hey man.

Hanging in there, trying to age gracefully.

Stay cool.

[givemebackmycountry]

10. A 757 is a big ass plane...

Where's the plane debris?
Usually when a plane crashes into a building at 600 mph there's some plane parts laying around.
And they are easily identified because they don't look like anything else.
Anybody see anything that could be identified as a plane part?

[hack89]

12. Show me all the other pictures of the crash site

and then we can answer the question. Don't you think a single picture is a shaky foundation for a CT?

[Bonobo]

14. There are many photos. Many. There is some debris yes. Less than most would expect though.

Anway, can we please focus on the hole. If the hole cannot be explained by a nose cone, how can it be explained. It is not MY responsibility to explain it. it IS my responsibility to question it if the explanation is impossible.

[hack89]

25. Research how the fuselage of a plane is designed

and I think you will find your answer.

[Bonobo]

30. Could you be a little more specific?

What about fuselage design would explain that hole?

[hack89]

33. I know you are "just asking questions"

but why do truthers never feel obligated to research and try to answer their own question. Don't you think a little knowledge of how airplanes are build might go a long way towards explaining why the damage looks the way it does. How can you even question the hole in the wall without this knowledge?

[Bonobo]

35. Well... I have done my own research.

And my research leads me to believe that that perfect 9 foot hole was not caused by the front part of the airplane. I am not sure of this, so I ask questions.

WRT airplane construction, you are correct. It is an issue I have not researched. Thank you for bringing it up. I will see what I can out.


HOWEVER..... I think we ALL need to keep our minds open. Mine is.

[hack89]

36. Look at the floor - drop your fixation on the nose

and also consider that the plane is pushing a shit-ton of debris in front of it. You are looking for an impossible simplicity in an incredibly complex, violent and chaotic event.

And you still have to address rest of the damage - if it is consistent with a 757 crash then it is reasonable to assume that the hole was caused by a 757.

[vincent_vega_lives]

17. No one here say anything

The people at the Pentagon that day saw plenty of plane parts.

[jberryhill]

41. "Usually when a plane crashes into a building at 600 mph"

Can you let us know where you live. If that is a "usual" thing in your area, I'd like to avoid going there.

[Realityhack]

45. Yes, yes they did.

and if you bothered to do about 13seconds of research on google you would know that.

IMO it is dishonest to ask that question given how obvious the answer is and the time elapsed.

[bdf]

15. Hell no

But this has been covered in far more detail elsewhere. To summarize:

A novice pilot flew the aircraft in tight manoeuvres that a trained pilot would have difficulty performing.

The aircraft flew very close to the ground yet managed not only not to scrape the lawn bit missed two large metallic cable reels.

The entrance hole is circular and smaller than the outside engine to outside engine width of the aircraft. Those engines are large, tough and have a lot of mass - therefore a hell of a lot of linear momentum. Wings are weak and it's barely possible they might have folded on impact, but if they did the engines would detach and carry on in a straight line. Compare to the impact hole on the North Tower (WTC 1).

The fuselage is weak and crumples easily even in a full-frontal impact (in which it would have most strength. Its contents (mainly seats, passengers and the like, have relatively little mass which is diffuse, not concentrated as with the engines, yet it went through not one wall, not two walls, but five of them (whereas the engines didn't go through even the first wall and simply evaporated).

But this exercise, appealing to physics and logic, won't get you far except amongst those who already believe. It's something Joe Six-pack can't follow, therefore he can't tell if you're right or wrong, and therefore he sticks with the assumption that the official explanation is true. You need to present truly compelling evidence that even Joe can understand, in order to overcome his very strong reluctance to believe that a President, or Vice President of the US, could be so utterly fucking evil as to do such a thing. Remember, Joe also knows little of history and wouldn't know what a Reichstag fire was if he was trapped in it.

I believe the correct approach is to show means, motive and opportunity. To show that when it comes to "Cui Bono" Cheney had his wet dream of 1992 come true, and all because this administration was so incompetent as to ignore all warnings (really they were very competent at stealing wealth and power and ignored those warnings deliberately). To show that Cheney ran the interference that stopped the planes being hijacked that day. These are things that Joe can understand because Joe understands human motivations a lot better than he understands physics and engineering.

Well, that's my opinion. I hope I'm right that exposing the means, motive and opportunity will succeed because the geeky stuff has been around for over six years and hasn't gotten us anywhere. 9-11 is the issue, of all the Bush maladministration outrages, that should be dealt with because all the others stem from it. OTOH, anything that gets the fuckers indicted and/or impeached is fine by me.

[Bonobo]

18. Actually I think "Joe" has his best chance from this kind of common sense angle.

Joe has no enthusiasm for listening to boring talk about "pre-buy options" or "money trails".

The hole is so weird and looks so intentionally made that it should get people talking. Hell! Most people don't even know anything about there BEING an "exit hole".

[bdf]

21. Those are technical issues too

Really. That monetary stuff is too technical for Joe. OK, I'm abusing the word "technical" a little, but it's fucking complicated. Joe cain't handle that.

So let me give you a rough outline of what I think Joe might be able to understand.

Back in 1992, Secretary of Defence Richard B Cheney asked Assistant Secretary of Defence for Policy Paul Wolfowitz to come up with a strategy policy. With political and military euphemisms boiled down to plain English, the policy said "We're the sole remaining superpower, so nobody can stop us doing whatever the fuck we want. So let's invade Iraq and steal its oil. And use it as a forward base to invade the surrounding countries and steal their oil." That policy was somehow leaked to the NYT and there was a major shitstorm, so Darth and the Wolfman said that it was a joke, and they'd never do anything like that in a gazillion years, and all the other things politicians say when they've been caught out.

In 1995 the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) was formed. Its members were all of the neocons you love to hate (the ones that refer to themselves as "vulcans" after a god of volcanoes and war and the ones most Washington insiders refer to as "the crazies"). Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Abram, Feith, etc. Essentially the Bush war cabinet in waiting.

In 1998 (9? I can't be arsed checking) PNAC wrote to Bill Clinton urging him to invade Iraq and steal its oil. Bill treated the suggestion with the contempt it deserved.

In 2000, PNAC issued a policy "white paper" (still on their website, last time I checked) reiterating the 1992 Cheney/Wolfowitz ideas. And expanding upon them. The US would act as the world's policeman, enforcing a Pax Americana (cf Pax Romana where Imperial Rome justified its rape of the known world as a peacekeeping exercise). It wanted to transform the US military into a gang of pillaging thugs stealing the world's resources, primarily oil.

Osama was incredibly lucky on 9-11. His hijacked planes gallivanted around the sky for (in one case) over an hour. Prior to the Bush maladministration they would have had a USAF fighter alongside them within 10 minutes, and the pilot could on his own initiative shoot down a plane he considered likely to harm people or property (it's a no-brainer - if the plane is about to crash into a building the plane and the people on it are fucked whether you shoot it down or not). Rummy change the rules. First, the USAF response is not automatic, it has to be specifically authorized from high up the command chain ("Can you patch me through to the General, I think we might have a problem"). Second, the pilot has to get authority for a shoot-down from the pResident ("Hi, can you patch me through to the pResident and wake him from his nap, because I think... oh fuck...sorry for bothering you, it doesn't matter now). Prior to the Rumsfeld orders, intercepts were 3 a month (all of them turned out to be honest mistakes, apart from the rare occasion when an explosive decompression led to the death of all aboard and the plane was flying on autopilot). Post-Rumsfeld the intercept rate was zero.

But that is only a minor part of it. On 9-11, two military exercises normally held months apart were held on the same day. One put half of the USAF over the border in Canada dealing with a simulated attack by Russia over the North Pole. You may have read accounts saying USAF interceptors were not available that day because of cutbacks, but the real reason is that military exercise. The second exercise simulated what Condi Lies 'R' Us stated was unthinkable: hijacked aircraft being used as missiles. Air Traffic Control, NORAD and the USAF were confused as to which aircraft were part of the exercise and which aircraft were really hijacked. Wasn't Osama incredibly fucking lucky he chose that day to attack instead of any other day when the hijacked aircraft would have been shot down? OK, maybe the first one would have got through, because the pilots trailing it would not have believed it would be used that way, but the other three would be shot down.

Who was running those two exercises? Some USAF generals? No. Above them are the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but they weren't in charge either. Above them is the SecDef, and Rummy is famous for micromanaging the Iraq war, but it wasn't him. Above Rummy is Dubya, with a known penchant for playing dress-up, but it wasn't him. In charge was Richard B Cheney.

I now give you a chilling quote from the PNAC white paper of 2000, talking of the need to transform the US Military into a gang of marauding thugs:

...the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor."

9-11 has, for several reasons, been widely compared to Pearl Harbor.

You think Joe could grasp that?

BTW. although I've said this in other threads and elsewhere, I've rarely credited the brilliant DU poster Bernard Weiner (damn, I can't seem to find a link to his blog here at my current level of alcohol intoxication) for the PNAC details. I infer (and prepare to stand corrected) that Bernard said implicitly what I'm saying explicitly: Cheney fucking did it

[cherokeeprogressive]

57. Just pointing out that the hole WAS intentionally made.

By a 757 intentionally crashed into the Pentagon.

[vincent_vega_lives]

16. No it was not the "nose cone"

It was perhapse the nose.

[greyl]

19. It was perhaps made with a sledgehammer by rescue workers/cleanup crew. nt

[Flatulo]

20. The pellets from a shotgun blast do not form a contiguous mass, yet

they make a very big, nasty hole in things.

If Flight 77 was reduced to very small debris, the debris was still going close to 500 MPH. The sum of the kinetic energy of each piece of debris would equal the energy of the airplane, minus whatever energy was expended in breaching the numerous barries and columns.

[Bonobo]

22. Shotgun blasts also spread out wide over long distances.

Not to mention how they quickly lose energy.

[hack89]

24. Considering the length of a 757

we are not talking long distances here.

[jberryhill]

26. Which is no substitute for an actual analysis...

The point is that you are assuming the hole was produced by a single object, which is not necessary to produce a hole in a brick wall.

That was Flatulo's point by analogy to a shotgun blast.

Saying that, yes, an actual shotgun blast consists of little pellets which eventually succumb to wind resistance misses the point that the entire kinetic energy of the plane and it's fuel had to go somewhere, and we are talking about a hell of a lot of energy.

So, if you shred an airplane and send that debris flying into, for example, the face of Dick Cheney's hunting partner, he's going to need more than a few days of observation in a hospital.

If the point is that the hole was caused by a missile, then short of doing a finite-element-analysis of the situation, could you at least draw a diagram of the forest of columns within the Pentagon, and sketch what you believe to be a straight-line missile trajectory which dodges all of the columns and remains intact to produce the hole?

Because I don't see the problem of "how did a nose cone make the hole" to be much different from "how did a missile make the hole". IMHO, the answer is neither.

[biermeister]

32. let us not forget that the pentagon facade was

being upgraded and was basically a hardened target. Whatever hit it that day hit an area that was already upgraded so I find it interesting that a "plane" traveling 500 mph could have penetrated through the three levels of the building. It looks more like a bunker buster type weapon to me but what do I know. I have to go and adjust my tin foil hat now.......

[hack89]

34. A bunker buster would have left a tiny hole in the wall

that's how they work. What did all the external damage to the building - which coincidentally happens to be the same width as the distance between the engines on a 757.

[Realityhack]

44. More specifics...

you might want to be a bit more specific when you say 'three levels'. I am not sure what you are talking about.

[biermeister]

46. I believe the photos show a hole through

both sides of the A, B & C rings.

[AZCat]

48. The A-C rings were connected...

on the first (and maybe the second - I don't remember) floors. There were only two exterior walls penetrated.

[Realityhack]

49. Yep.

I think it was up to the 2nd or 3rd floor. Anyway the 'punched through both sides' thing is a myth. There where no exterior grade walls in there. Just light plasterboard and cubicles and things. IIRC you can find some fairly good info that mentions a little bit of wall for separation of classified areas but it was a fairly unobstructed shot.

This is exactly the kind of thing I was brining up in my '9-11 myths' thread and previous 'doing the research' thread. It has been quite a few years. People who actually pay attention to facts have looked at these things. It would be useful therefore to look up what is known about (for example) how/what formed a hole rather than just speculating right off the bat.

[tetedur]

52. Diagrams of the first floor show

Thirteen rows of columns, elevator shafts, interior walls.





For really helpful info on the exit hole see:
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/exit.html

That web site also discusses the path of maximum force and a misrepresentation
of the 5N column damage.

[Realityhack]

55. Good post.

It helps to see the actual models.

I think this really points out how different the truth is from the busting through multiple outside walls myth. Interior walls, spaced out columns etc. are very different from outside wall construction and you can see where the columns where not all destroyed etc.

[Fainter]

53. Hey jberry, If You're Gonna Say All The Explosions At The WTC...

that the witnesses heard were caused by failing electrical substations within the complex and the like, could you please draw us a diagram detailing the physical proximity of said power plants to said witnesses? Or is it the case that you believe only 9-11 skeptics should be subject to nuts and bolts forensic analysis? I've asked you to do this kind of analysis for months, if not years, and you ALWAYS duck the question. BTW, I've never said you're wrong in alleging that the witnesses merely heard exploding transformers, etc., I've simply said that you've provided no evidence for your claim. Put up or remain silent.

[jberryhill]

54. First off, my name is John

...it's a pretty simple matter, it's in every post I write.

Secondly, the claim that people heard things go "bang" during a fire is not unusual and can include such sources as electrical transformer explosions, which are common. It can also include things like... gee... stuff falling off of a 100 story building.

How about if you provide a list of people who heard something, where they were and when they heard it, that would be a great starting point.

But the generalized assertion that people heard things go bang, as evidence of controlled demolition is nonsense.

You fail to distinguish between a general claim that alleged explosions had something to do with controlled demolition on the one hand, and a general response that lots of things can go bang during a fire. Do I know what any particular individual heard? No. But what it absolutely clear is that nobody heard a sequence of explosions of the type associated with the initiation of a CD.

Things that go "bang" can include transformers, aerosol cans, backup batteries for emergency lighting systems, fire extinguishers, and a host of other things. I do not dispute that people heard things go "bang", "boom" or "pop", and any other explosive sound you want to characterize. What nobody in the "explosion sound = explosive" camp ever does is to provide any indication that the explosive noise in question did not originate with any of dozens of other sources of explosive sounds that may occur during a fire. Hell, there was a fair quantity of live ammunition stored in WTC6. You think none of that went off?

[Fainter]

58. Uh John, "jberryhill" Is At The Top Of Every Post You Write...

I make no such generalized assertion. If things going bang can never be evidence of CD, then things going bang cannot be automatically assumed to be evidence of innocent causes either, especially given the sequence of hinky events on 9/11.

If you don't know what any particular witness heard on 9/11, then you don't know what any witness heard on 9/11. How you get from this admission to your certitude that absolutely no one heard a sequence of explosions of the type associated with the initiation of CD in the space of two sentences is laughable.

In the absence of proper forensic investigation John, you too are reduced to speaking in generalities with all your subjunctive "cans" and "mays". You sound as much like a Shakespeare biographer as any CT'er on this board.

Again I note, your belief in innocent explanations for the explosions may be correct, but you have no more forensic evidence to bolster this belief than I do mine.

[Bolo Boffin]

37. I don't think this was from the nose cone of the plane, and furthermore,

neither does anyone I know of make that claim. Those who do are quite silly.

The nose cone did indeed lose its integrity upon striking the outside wall of the Pentagon. This can also be seen in how the five unmatched sets of remains were discovered closer to the initial impact, in the D ring. The larger part of the remains were found in and around the bulk of the plane, just inside that hole. However, part of the remains of at least one identified passenger of Flight 77 was discovered on the roof of the Pentagon.

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200318.html

A quote from the recent excellent book on the Pentagon attack, Firefight, pp. 29-30:

As the mass traveled through the building, it began to resemble a shaped charge, a form of explosive that funnels its force into a small, directed area -- like a beam of energy -- in order to punch holes through armor or other strong material. With the front of the mass boring through the walls and columns of the Pentagon, the trailing portion of Flight 77 passed through the hole that was being creating.

...The Pentagon finally arrested the forward motion of Flight 77. The mass plowed through the C Ring and blew a round hole, about 12 feet in diameter, through the ring's inner wall. ...Decelerating from 530 miles per hour to a dead stop in that distance produced a gravitation force of 30 g's, more than three times the force that fighter pilots are trained to withstand in the cockpit. From the moment of impact, the entire event had taken place in eight-tenths of a second.

That is what punched the hole in the A-E Drive. The mass of the plane decelerating from 530 mph to 0 mph in .8 of a second over the distance of twice the length of the plane.

Count off a single second. In less time that that, the plane had punched that hole out and come to a stop.

Please cease this foolishness.

[Bonobo]

39. Thanks.

But I don't appreciate the :cease this foolishness" remark.

Obviously, if I thought it was foolish, I would not be asking questions. Some people say there are no stupid questions. On an issue of this importance, I would agree -particularly since there are so many odd aspects to that day.

Why, for example, did the FBI confiscate all photographic evidence and never release it?

[Bolo Boffin]

40. You're welcome.

And the FBI didn't confiscate all photographic evidence, and they have released what seems to me to be a great deal of it. Check out the Moussaoui evidence, at the link where you can download the Flash presentation about the damage to the Pentagon. Plenty of photographic evidence there about the Pentagon.

[Realityhack]

43. Did they now? n/t

[Bleeding Cubbie Blue]

69. Your reference explains nothing.

"A quote from the recent excellent book on the Pentagon attack, Firefight..."

An "excellent" book by what subjective standards? First of all, the primary focus of this book is on firefighting operations - which is fine, but references such as your quote are pure speculation and assumption. It's quite easy to say that this or that caused a particular event (or portion thereof), but without empirical data... it's nothing but an unsupported assertion.

Second, consider the source and it's related authority on a given subject. Hmmm, let's see... the authors - Patrick Creed. U.S. Army Major having served as Special Ops Civil Affairs in Iraq. That's great, but does this not indicate a bias, if not an agenda? Also, how does this qualify one to speak on matters of physics and/or forensics? The other author is a journalist (U.S. News & World Report). Ummm... okay.

I've seen your modus operandi in this forum, bolo (I've been reading DU for years). What's truly amazing is that you will offer up things like this as gospel, while scoffing at references to supported data from authoritative and unbiased sources. When you so vehemently defend everything about the status quo story, you should not be surprised when people accuse you of being a 'shill' or 'troll'.

As for the aircraft and the Pentagon... well, no - I'm not aware of who claims the "nose cone" penetrated the innermost wall. However, as a mechanical engineer, I would ask for an explanation as to how several tons of titanium (engines) simply evaporated. Good physics trick, that.

[AZCat]

70. Then as a mechanical engineer, you would understand your strawman is ridiculous.

Nobody but the "truth movement" is claiming the engines "evaporated". God that's fucking stupid.

[Bleeding Cubbie Blue]

74. LOL...

Kinda slow on the rhetorical uptake there, Kitty? (hey - one bad Ad Hom deserves another, right?)

Let me spell it out for you in layman's terms. Qualified physicists, engineers, and metallurgists have asked what happened to the engines and their rotors during this particular event. So pick your preferred term, be it evaporate, vaporize, vanish... semantics. What happened to them? No - kinetic energy does not explain this, nor do temperatures. BTW, I'm not suggesting any alternative scenarios for the Pentagon event - only asking what happened to these engines (though I'll await the standard disingenuous vitriol of evading the question and yelling "crazy conspiracy" :eyes: )

[AZCat]

75. Ad hom? You don't even know what the fuck that is.

You made a stupid statement and now you're trying to save face. Fucking pathetic.

I don't give a shit what you claim "qualified physicists, engineers, and metallurgists" have done - anybody who thinks they evaporated, vaporized, or vanished is not qualified to tie my shoelaces. Do you even know how many buckets the engines on AA 77 had?

[Bleeding Cubbie Blue]

85. Unbelievable.

Not real quick on the comprehension skills, are you? Oops... sorry - let me reword that in language you understand... Not real fucking quick on the fuckin' comprehension, are ya? Blah blah idiot blah blah moron. :eyes:

Now then, in spite of your complete destruction of context and avoidance of the query, let's try one last attempt at what was a sardonic, rhetorical question. Nowhere did I imply that any qualified physicists, engineers, or metallurgists claim that anything evaporated. How you would comprehend what I said in that way is beyond me. In fact, it's just the opposite that's in question. The 'official' story claims most of this aircraft (including the titanium parts of the engines) were completely destroyed. According to the government reports, these parts were never found (this is where you may choose the semantics of your choice - be it evaporate, vanish, whatever). Just gone.

My reference to those who have studied this is that they've concluded that none of the forces/physics involved in this event could have completely destroyed these parts to the point of complete annihilation. This begs the question of what happened to these parts. I didn't think that was such a tough question to understand without having to repeat it as if I was addressing a third-grader. Yeesh. Then again, I suspect even if you do understand it now, there will still be no answer beyond throwing a tantrum, swearing, and insulting my chosen profession.

[LARED]

86. Really? Please provide a link

The 'official' story claims most of this aircraft (including the titanium parts of the engines) were completely destroyed. According to the government reports, these parts were never found (this is where you may choose the semantics of your choice - be it evaporate, vanish, whatever). Just gone.

Are you surprised titanium parts were completely destroyed? Do you think "completely destroyed means vanished"?

[AZCat]

148. Apparently this "mechanical engineer"...

missed out on a few critical classes. :eyes:

[LARED]

83. What do you think happened to the engines?

Here's a clue. The bits and pieces of the engines were removed during the clean-up. Shocking.

Why do you think they are missing?

[Bleeding Cubbie Blue]

87. Were they accounted for?

According to the Commission Report, the plane was nearly completely destroyed. As for what's available to the public - just aluminum skin scraps and a small rotor which the manufacturer states could not have come from a 757. Now, during a simple murder investigation they catalog and perform extensive forensic investigation on mouse shit found in the basement of the crime scene. To public knowledge, the explanation for what is arguably the most heinous crime in the US in modern history is... "it's mostly destroyed, and the rest hauled away"? So LARED, if these parts were not identified, are not available, and do not exist, why do you think they *aren't* missing? If you believe they did/do exist, then what forensics were performed on them, and where are they now? Why would no independent investigation be allowed on the mystery parts? Or is it simply that we should be good little peasants and believe what we're told without any proof at all? Wait... isn't that what the bible's for? :eyes:

[Realityhack]

88. Too much CSI?

"during a simple murder investigation they catalog and perform extensive forensic investigation on mouse shit found in the basement of the crime scene."
On what planet?

Look, why would they try to piece together the engine? What forensic tests do you propose they do on it? WHY?

On what basis would you need to do that? To satisfy a handful of people who will NEVER believe no matter what that you are telling the truth?

[BeachBaby]

91. Ummm.....

Fwiw, I've worked in criminal defense for several years. YES - they catalog EVERYTHING at a crime scene. Pics taken, notes written, evidence carefully collected. I've seen everything from dirty diapers, to sawdust, to bubble gum wrappers, to twisty-ties - and while I can't say I've ever gotten to see mouse droppings, I have seen the test results of urine found at a crime scene. If it's there, it's potential evidence. Furthermore, the "CSI" television series bases its shows on how real-life criminal investigations are conducted.

As for your question as to why they would piece together an engine....it's quite common, in plane crashes, to retrieve all parts of the plane and put it back together, ala TWA Flight 800, amongst others.

I've seen the photos provided to us on the ONE engine they found - and remember, there are TWO engines on a 757. The engine photos clearly show us that the engine is not that of a 757. And IIRC (I don't have the time right now to look all of this up), Pratt & Whitney confirmed that the engine found at the Pentagon was not the engine of a 757.

[Bleeding Cubbie Blue]

92. And...

Rolls Royce also said, "not ours" - as did Honeywell (with the APU). But hey, what do they know?

[Realityhack]

102. I must have missed that.

Do you have a link?

[LARED]

95. Is this another Internet myth?

Pratt & Whitney confirmed that the engine found at the Pentagon was not the engine of a 757.


please back up that statement.

[Realityhack]

108. Um..

"it's quite common, in plane crashes, to retrieve all parts of the plane and put it back together"
And the reason would be...
oh thats right. To figure out WTF happened.

But we have a fairly good idea of what caused the crash. No need to determine what component failed, or wither it was bombed. It crashed strait into a building, and the cause of said crash is straightforward.

As far as the engine goes, I am no expert on the engines. I did find some information here:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml that seems to indicate that the claims that the engine wasn't the right size and that the manufacturers said it was not theirs were mistaken.

I have no idea how credible that is or isn't. It's worth pointing out that we have extremely limited photographic evidence for the pentagon site.

[LARED]

94. Link please

a small rotor which the manufacturer states could not have come from a 757

Also this idea that an investigation should have taken place where all the pieces of the plane were accounted for as best a possible is a convenient distraction CT'ers toss out like it means something. It's not necessary because everyone knows why the plane crashed. There is no mystery about that. The only malfunction was in the hijacker brain.

Speaking of malfunctioning brains, are you a no-planer?

[Bleeding Cubbie Blue]

96. linky

(link removed)

Four years since that article, and still no positive ID has been made.

[LARED]

98. Wow, talk about zero credibility -AFP

You provide a link from Christopher Bollyn writing for AFP? Scraping the bottom of the CT barrel hardly describes the odor of desperation filling the air.

First off AFP is a banned site on DU. It is antisemitic, and Bollyn is a known historical revisionist. The fact that you would even consider AFP as a source for information, tells me gullibility is your middle name.

[BeachBaby]

104. Well no matter who wrote the article....

he is quoting Mark Sullivan, spokesman for Pratt and Whitney. Unless you have something that shows Mark Sullivan contradicting or retracting what someone else quotes him as saying, or a libel suit filed by Pratt and Whitney against AFP, his statement stands.

[LARED]

105. Here's what Boylln says Sullivan said

Just because Boylln puts quotes around words is meaningless. Bollyn is a certified liar.


“If the aircraft that struck the Pentagon was a Boeing 757-200 owned by American Airlines, then it would have to be a Rolls Royce engine,” Mark Sullivan, spokesman for Pratt & Whitney, told AFP.

This proves what is your mind?

[BeachBaby]

110. Gotcha.

Quotes mean nothing. So if I were to subscribe to your way of thinking....

W is a liar, so nothing he says should be taken at face value.

Dick is a liar, so nothing he says should be taken at face value.

Rummy is a liar, so nothing he says should be taken at face value.

The same three people who told us the 9/11 fairy tale are all liars, so nothing they've told us should be taken at face value.

The FBI's own Rex Tomb told us we don't have a case against Bin Laden, and yet people like you will fight people like me to the death.

Hey - you believe your fairy tale while I sort out the truth from the lies, okay? Obviously you're quite content with the intelligence-insulting 9/11 Holy Bible.

Oh - and for the record:

American Free Press contacted Pratt & Whitney and Rolls Royce, manufacturers of the 757’s turbofan jet engines to try and identify the piece.

“If the aircraft that struck the Pentagon was a Boeing 757-200 owned by American Airlines, then it would have to be a Rolls Royce engine,” Mark Sullivan, spokesman for Pratt & Whitney, told AFP.

John W. Brown, spokesman for Rolls Royce (Indianapolis), had previously told AFP: “It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I’m familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy.”

[LARED]

114. Wow, you got me. I'm deeply considering whether

to LMAO or ROTFLMAO.

That's quite a convincing argument you have. The Bush crowd are liars, Boylln is a liar so I should believe Bollyn because you seem to think I believe Bush. At least the Bush crowd are not anti-Semites.

If you would bother to engage your brain the quotes provide by Boylln are meaningless. That provide zero material evidence about the Pentagon engines. But listen if you want to use the AFP as a source, have fun.

edit to clarify

[BeachBaby]

119. Soooo, LARED....

I see you have thrown around the "anti-semite" accusation twice now in this sub-thread.

I would like you to tell me what anti-semitism has to do with the plane parts found at the Pentagon. I'm absolutely mystified as to what one has to do with the other.

[LARED]

120. It has to do with Boylln your source. He is an anti-Semite -nt

[BeachBaby]

121. That doesn't answer my question. n/t

[LARED]

124. I think using an anti-Semite and historical revisionist

as the source for your story makes it's veracity highly suspect. Don't you?

[BeachBaby]

125. I don't think you're understanding me.

I want to know what it is about a so-called "anti-semite" reporter that makes any investigations he does, and any evidence he gleans regarding the plane remnants found at the Pentagon (which, btw, was never argued, corrected or retracted by Pratt and Whitney, nor Rolls Royce) not credible.

[LARED]

131. You're right, one can be an anti-Semitc and be able to tell the truth

on other issues.

The parts you seem to ignore is

1. Boylln is a historical revisionist. He writes for AFP, a anti-semetic entity. He is tied in with the Barnes Review and Spotlight;
Willis Carto nonsense. He has no journalistic credibility.

2. The "evidence" you think he uncovered is not evidence. There is nothing there. There is nothing to retract. Even if there was why would anyone waste money on lawyers clearing up such nonsense?

[BeachBaby]

134. As for the evidence he acquired....

the photo was from FEMA. I'm sure it's evidence in your eyes, too.

As for what could be retracted, I was referring to the statements made by the spokesmen for Pratt and Whitney, and Rolls Royce. How long ago were these statements made? I think it's safe to say that if Boylln misquoted, these statements would have been retracted or corrected by now. (Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure I actually saw that interview on video - but don't quote me on that just yet)

Journalists spin interviews and stories all the time; but they are simply not allowed to misquote. Just think about how many people have filed suit on the media for taking things out of context, or for taking quotes and twisting them to fit a certain agenda. If that was the case here, P&W and RR would have had something to say about it.

And so I will continue to believe their direct quotes to be credible.

[Realityhack]

138. and if they where correct and you missinterpreted them? BTW...

"Journalists spin interviews and stories all the time; but they are simply not allowed to misquote. Just think about how many people have filed suit on the media for taking things out of context, or for taking quotes and twisting them to fit a certain agenda. If that was the case here, P&W and RR would have had something to say about it."

Actually misquoting people is very common. The only issue here is that a large company is involved. But individuals are constantly misquoted with little to no result. The costs of doing so are enormous.

Just because some creationist SAYS a scientist said X doesn't mean they did. Nor does it mean the context etc. is correct.
Lared is being fairly rational in taking the statements (including quotes) of a person working for a rather questionable operation with a grain of salt.

However, the entire discussion is pointless as I do not think the quotes affect anything.

[LARED]

152. You're missing the point about the quotes

Even if the quotes are correct they are meaningless as evidence for your postion.

From the link I and others posted earlier

The article describes John Brown as a spokesman for Rolls-Royce in Indianapolis, Indiana. This location is home to the Allison Engine factory that builds the AE3007H turbofan used aboard the Global Hawk. Brown's quote regarding the mystery wreckage states that, "It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I'm familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy." Furthermore, the article correctly notes that the RB211 is not built in Indianapolis but at the Rolls-Royce plant in Derby, England. Since Brown is a spokesman for Allison Engines, which was an independent company that only became a subsidary of Rolls-Royce in 1995, it stands to reason that an engine built in the United Kingdom would be one he's not "familiar with." The article even goes on to point out that Brown could not identify specific parts from one engine or another since he is not an engineer or assembly line technician who would be familiar with the internal components of turbine engines.

Murry stated

“If the aircraft that struck the Pentagon was a Boeing 757-200 owned by American Airlines, then it would have to be a Rolls Royce engine,” Mark Sullivan, spokesman for Pratt & Whitney, told AFP.


I fail to see how you find either quote even remotely convincing of something amiss.

[William Seger]

128. WTF?

Sullivan and Brown are both correct: It was a Rolls Royce RB211; and it wasn't the small "AE 3007H made here in Indy.” What exactly are you trying to argue?

[LARED]

107. Try this link

It's a bit more credible. It tells you you are wrong, but at least it not from an antisemitic site, fill with loonies.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

[Bolo Boffin]

115. Fantastic article, LARED. The pieces found at the Pentagon being from a Rolls engine is beyond doubt

Well, reasonable doubt, that is. The zombies and the cheerleaders will keep up the charade.

[LARED]

117. Well thank you

Who knew playing charades with zombies could be so much fun :)

[Bleeding Cubbie Blue]

129. bookmarked.

As I have better things to do on a Saturday night than piss match on a message board, I will re-read this (I've seen it before) and reply in due time. Let's just hope I don't find the author/website to be racist, antisemitic, or Canadian... that may render everything he says incorrect, right? :shrug:

[William Seger]

150. You've seen that article before...

... and yet you claimed, "Four years since that article, and still no positive ID has been made?"

You really don't want that engine identified, do you? Why is that?

[Realityhack]

126. I thought the engines where RR?

If not P&W who cares what P&W think?

[BeachBaby]

127. See post #110. n/t

[Realityhack]

132. Wrong engine.

Care to explain WTF an engine from that plant would be doing on that aircraft?

[BeachBaby]

136. Why do *I* need to explain that?

Is it my responsibility that P&W and RR have contracts to manufacture parts for 757s? Ask THEM.

And as fun as all this has been, I am leaving this all behind for tonight - the Phillies game is on. :)

[Realityhack]

140. ah. I take it you haven't read the link someone nicely posted.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

Relevant section:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml
The article describes John Brown as a spokesman for Rolls-Royce in Indianapolis, Indiana. This location is home to the Allison Engine factory that builds the AE3007H turbofan used aboard the Global Hawk. Brown's quote regarding the mystery wreckage states that, "It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I'm familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy." Furthermore, the article correctly notes that the RB211 is not built in Indianapolis but at the Rolls-Royce plant in Derby, England. Since Brown is a spokesman for Allison Engines, which was an independent company that only became a subsidary of Rolls-Royce in 1995, it stands to reason that an engine built in the United Kingdom would be one he's not "familiar with." The article even goes on to point out that Brown could not identify specific parts from one engine or another since he is not an engineer or assembly line technician who would be familiar with the internal components of turbine engines.

For what it's worth (and it isn't worth much, given the author's apparent lack of journalistic skill), the Bollyn article actually supports the evidence assembled on this site. The article provides quotes from Honeywell Aerospace indicating that the piece did not come from an APU, from Allison Engines suggesting that it is not a component found in the turbofan used on Global Hawk, and from Teledyne Continental Motors indicating that it is not part of a cruise missile engine. All of these conclusions match those explained above.

So yes. If you could explain why you think a global hawk engine is something we would expect at the pentagon crash site...

Enjoy the game BTW.

[Bleeding Cubbie Blue]

106. Wow, talk about an internet drama queen...

I removed the link, just in the interest that you won't have to go cry to Mommy about it. :eyes:

Let's try it this way... show me documented evidence which positively identifies the one engine part allegedly found as being that of a 757. Really, I promise not to throw a hissy fit and call you Hitler if you post a link. :eyes:

Further, are you really being serious in bringing up any issues of credibility? Really? Your position is that a closed investigation by a Bushco appointed commission and their laughingly incomplete and, in parts, ludicrous report (completely lacking in supporting empirical data) is somehow credible? And you would imply you're not gullible? Please.

[LARED]

111. Wow, you have a pretty high standard

show me documented evidence which positively identifies the one engine part allegedly found as being that of a 757.

Documented by whom? The same people that you seem to believe are under the control of the Bush administration?

Why would anyone document and verify the plane part anyway. It's pointless. They know what plane hit the Pentagon. It's not a secret you know. Lot's of people saw the plane crash. The plane is still in pieces. The people on the flight are dead. Does anyone document the sun rising?

Here's a link to amuse yourself anyway.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

[Realityhack]

133. Read my lips... it is a BANNED site here....

"I removed the link, just in the interest that you won't have to go cry to Mommy about it."

Lared was nice enough to let you know you had broken a rule you apparently were not aware of. He could have just hit alert and at a minimum your entire post would be deleted.

No need to try to make fun of him about it.

[Bleeding Cubbie Blue]

139. Is that right?

"No need to try to make fun of him about it."

And if you want to pull that crap, perhaps you should read this thread in it's entirety, and in context. Then, read the sticky for this forum. Tell me, hack, just who are the worst offenders around here for attacking, name calling, and making fun? Pot kettle? FWIW, I could have hit that same button a dozen times before this even came up. Or do you resident OCT Posse folks have a special double standard that applies to yourselves?

Now, I wonder what this little ignore thingy does...

[Realityhack]

141. BCB if I am not on ignore yet.

Yes. Insults fly back and forth and lots of things could be reported but aren't. My point was that as a new poster you linked to a hate site that is banned here. Then when someone pointed this out you made it sound like they where crying home to mama for pointing that out.
I don't understand what your issue with that was.

[AZCat]

149. You do realize...

that somebody other than a "Busco appointed commission" looked at the Pentagon, right? You have heard of ASCE, right? You wouldn't go around making unwarranted claims, right?

[LARED]

100. After clicking on your link, my computer

needed a bath. The stench of AFP was scrambling it's RAM. My computer is part Jewish and is kinda sensitive about Jew hating sites.

[William Seger]

109. Wrong

> "Four years since that article, and still no positive ID has been made."

You need to catch up on your reading. It's been identifed as an RB211:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

(Edit: Sorry LARED, didn't see your post.)

[LARED]

122. No problem - it's worth repeating - nt

[Bleeding Cubbie Blue]

97. No

"are you a no-planer?"

No, and I'm not presenting any alternative theories on anything. The "official", status quo story simply doesn't satisfy my curiosity. Without support, it makes little more sense to me than the bible. Take that for what it's worth...

[LARED]

99. So you're agnostic regarding whether a plane hit the Pentagon

Yes?

[BeachBaby]

112. I read this sub-thread 5 times....

and I can't figure out for the life of me how you consider him to be "agnostic" to a "plane" hitting the Pentagon.

All I see BCB saying is that the "remnants" found at the Pentagon don't match the specs of a 757 - a particular type of plane.

[LARED]

116. There are some pure souls that believe plane parts were planted

He/she might be one of them.

Let's see if he responds

[Realityhack]

130. What do you mean without support?

You do realize how long ago this happened right? Have you done any reading since then? We are not talking about wild speculation when we talk about an airliner hitting the pentagon. This is hardly taking the governments word for everything.

You are not coming off as a well informed truth seeker.

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Flatulo]

160. Link to which experts have been asking what happened to the engine parts?

"Qualified physicists, engineers, and metallurgists have asked what happened to the engines and their rotors during this particular event."

I wasn't aware that this was an inssue that was in serious contention. I know the Pilots for 9/11 Truth have questioned the Flight Data Recorder records, but who is asking where the engine parts are?

I thought that the exhibits shown at the Moussaoui trial were pretty compelling.

[Realityhack]

73. Wow... all that effort to evaluate the strength of the quote...

and you just make shit up about engines being 'evaporated'.

I think you need to address your confirmation bias issues and even out your criteria for accepting 'facts'.

[AZCat]

76. But-but-but he's a mechanical engineer!

Surely that means he can't be promoting claptrap! :eyes:

[Bleeding Cubbie Blue]

79. Goofs.

Shit fucking blah blah blah. There. Feel better now that someone is speaking your language?

Very predictable responses from the usual suspects. *yawn*

[AZCat]

80. is this post intended to convey the idea you know what you are talking about?

Because it doesn't. Claiming you are a mechanical engineer is a far cry from displaying the sort of approach I would expect from a member of that profession. You have done the former - not the latter.

[Bolo Boffin]

113. To you, perhaps.

The engines didn't evaporate. 30 fucking G's happened to them.

Can we get some zombie repellent in here?

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Realityhack]

135. IIRC calculated from estemated speed and stopping distance.

I imagine the actual forces where far in excess of that as individual impacts would cause much higher 'spikes'. IIRC the calculation was not for the engine but the entire plane. Wall to wall distance.

[Bolo Boffin]

146. Wow. It's not every day that someone pooh-poohs 30 g's.

The authors source for this number is Math.

[Bleeding Cubbie Blue]

161. "Math" isn't a source... the variables are.

Let me see if I'm understanding this correctly... an assertion is made here (or to be accurate, said assertion was parroted here), and somehow you want to place the burden of proof for YOUR assertion on ME? LOL! Shouldn't you be asking bolo's Army Major author for the variables and their source(s)? Or is it easier for you guys to just accept numbers pulled out of one's ass as valid? Be that as it may, I'll tell you what... provide me with the black box data, the confiscated videos, and the uncensored portions of the reports. I'd be more than happy to do the calculations. Short of that, provide anything verifying the person making the assertion had access to this data. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke up your own asses. As usual.

[LARED]

166. As an mechanical engineer you must have the skills

to estimate the G force without requiring black box data, the confiscated videos, and the uncensored portions of the reports.

All that is needed is the estimated velocity change, time to stop, and distances covered. That information is available all over the Internet and if you make some simple assumptions you will arrive at a reasonable estimate of G force.

Of course that depends on you being an engineer.

[Flatulo]

147. An engineer should be able to calculate this. nt

[LARED]

153. An average HS physics student should knock it out in about 3 minutes

Let's see if BCB can figure it out.

Are we starting a pool?

[AZCat]

155. If we are..

I'll put $20 on "never".

[Bleeding Cubbie Blue]

163. See post 161.

And I'll raise you $20 that none of you can provide the necessary data for the variables.

[William Seger]

164. You lose

Bolo gave the necessary variables in the earlier post:

"The mass of the plane decelerating from 530 mph to 0 mph in .8 of a second over the distance of twice the length of the plane."

[Bleeding Cubbie Blue]

167. Ridiculous.

a) I did not make the unsupported assertion, bolo did (or rather, he quoted one). None of you have made even the slightest attempt at providing reference for this data, but instead attempt to shift the burden of proof for YOUR assertion to me? Good one.

b) G force, in and of itself, is not the sole determining factor in regards to impact force, but a specific part of the larger equation. Trusting that this G-force statement, supported or not, and by itself, is intellectually lazy and disingenuous. Mr Army Ops author guy might want to finish the equation to include kinetic energy, but perhaps he couldn't be bothered, as the book is about firefighting, not the physics of impact.

c) In spite of the fact that so many here are quite fond of Ad Hom attacks on my own abilities within my chosen career, it's clear to me that the extent of scientific understanding around here is ridiculously limited. To suggest that the event impact of the Pentagon is akin to a 3 minute high school physics equation is ludicrous, as is the meme that having access to verified, specific data is irrelevant. That would be like asking an engineer to design a bridge with the information, "it's about 300' across and the water is something like 20' deep. Have at it, and don't worry about wind load".

d) Further to the above point, while certainly not the superior physics authority over Mr Army guy, The Purdue report involved (their quote):

"It was a laborious process. Creating just one tenth of a second of the simulation took about 95 hours of computation time on a supercomputer."

Maybe they could have saved some time by visiting the local high school? :eyes:

e) Both the ASCE and Purdue reports state that there is notable margin of error with their conclusions, based on the fact that the available data is/was incomplete.

"The report (ASCE), which was finished several months earlier, admits “the volume of information concerning the aircraft crash… is rather limited,”

But according to the attack posse here, having accurate data is somehow irrelevant, so I guess this is a moot point?

I entered this sub thread simply challenging for support of bolo's quote's assertion. The end result? Not one person has answered this with anything more than Ad Hom attacks, attempts to shift the burden of proof, and some twisted posse approach to shouting down anything which may be out of lock-step with their hard-line beliefs. Be that as it may, and seeing as the sticky "rules" for this particular forum have little to do with the reality of what goes on here, I'm sure my ability to use the ignore feature will be of significant use here.

[AZCat]

168. Another example of "willful ignorance".

It would help if you read our posts (because it appears you haven't been doing so, otherwise you wouldn't be posting such mistakes). It saddens me to see a "mechanical engineer" failing to live up to the lowest expectations of the profession. I sincerely hope you haven't a job where people's lives depend on your ability to use logic or engineering methods.

In other words, "get a fucking clue."

[LARED]

170. That's a lot of typing to say

see you later. I'm backpedaling my bike outta here.

The reality is few believe you are a Mechanical engineer. That's why the challenge was tossed out. It is a simple matter to estimate the G force. You are building straw men to deflect the true nature of the request you won't or can't answer. No one is trusting in the G force statement as proof of anything, but if you really know what you are talking about, 30 G's is hardly trivial and you know that it is enough to tear most things to pieces especially when connected to a jumbo jet.

Of course you are not even willing to state a commercial airliner hit the Pentagon, so spare me the comments about being intellectually lazy and disingenuous

[William Seger]

182. You owe Bolo $20

> "And I'll raise you $20 that none of you can provide the necessary data for the variables."

Bolo had already provided the data that the calculation was apparently based on, so you lost the bet. If you had meant to say "none of you can provide data I'm willing to accept" then you should have said so -- and don't be so chintzy, why not make it a $million? But the context of the bet was that you were questioning if the author had just pulled the 30G number out of his ass, and implied that none of us here would even know what variables such a calculation should be based on. It would appear that you had the shoe on the wrong foot, which is rather strange for someone claiming to be a mechanical engineer.

> "b) G force, in and of itself, is not the sole determining factor in regards to impact force, but a specific part of the larger equation. Trusting that this G-force statement, supported or not, and by itself, is intellectually lazy and disingenuous. Mr Army Ops author guy might want to finish the equation to include kinetic energy, but perhaps he couldn't be bothered, as the book is about firefighting, not the physics of impact."

I don't think the 30G "average" number is very meaningful, either, because it understates what really happened. It seems to assume a smooth deceleration from 530 MPH to 0 over that time or distance, but that's certainly not what happened. In fact, the deceleration happened as a series of collisions, while debris flying through the air between collisions wouldn't experience any significant deceleration. The "average" of that wouldn't really tell you much about the collisions. The impact force of the nose, and then the engines, in breaking through that strongly reinforced outer wall would have dumped a lot of velocity very quickly. Some plane parts (such as the engines!) probably sustained several thousand Gs deceleration right there, for an instant. It isn't necessary to bring mass and energy into the calculation to know that at those rates, metals shatter rather than bend, because they can't deform fast enough to distribute the stress. And to remind you of the context of this sub-thread, the issue was your disbelief that the engines should have destroyed, and your poo-pooing the 30G number. Specific numbers aside, I wouldn't expect a mechanical engineer to be mystified by airplane engines being destroyed in airplane crashes, yet you are asking us to accept your doubt as a good reason to suspect a 757 didn't crash into the Pentagon.

As for burden of proof: Out here in the real world, it is taken as a well-substantiated fact -- not a "theory" -- that AA77 flew into the side of the Pentagon on 9/11. Certain elements in the "truth movement" are saying, wait, that shouldn't be taken as a fact because there are a lot of things about the crash that are very "suspicious," so it's reasonable to think it wasn't AA77. Okay, like what? In the OP, Bonobo seems to be baffled by the exit hole. A 90K-ton 757 going 530 MPH flew into the other side of the building, and I'm supposed to mystified by a hole in the opposite wall? Why? But Bonobo is also suspicious because the hole in that simple masonry wall looks a lot like a hole punched in a simple masonry wall with explosives, but seems to have left out the part where he explains why a hole punched by fast-moving plane parts should look much different.

Then we get all sorts of other "suspicious" stuff to consider: claims that there wasn't any plane debris -- easily disproved; claims that the parts weren't from a 757 -- arguments from ignorance and refuted anyway; and claims that there just isn't "enough" plane debris -- another argument from ignorance, but it also doesn't offer any credible alternative explanation for all that debris in the photos that certainly looks to me like it could be 757 debris. (E.g. look at the top photo in the OP, even.)

So, sorry, but yes: If you want to argue that we should be suspicious because the engines shouldn't have been destroyed, the burden of proof is on you.

Hey, Bolo, do you take PayPal?

[William Seger]

183. On second thought, I think I was wrong

Actually, you were calling AZCat's $20 "never" bet, and raising him (not Bolo) $20. So, really, you now owe AZCat $40, right?

[AZCat]

185. That's right - cha-ching, baby!

That'll cover my poker losses last night. :)

[Flatulo]

195. I'm not sure why we're even discussing G forces...

> b) G force, in and of itself, is not the sole determining factor in regards to impact force, but a specific part
> of the larger equation.

I think I understand what you're saying (crash and deformation mechanics are incredibly complex), but for the purposes of discussing survivability of a crash, the average G force on a human occupant is a pretty good metric.

Fighter pilots can survive 9-10 Gs for a few seconds, and if the Gs are transverse (as opposed to parallel to the spine), even higher Gs are survivable since there is no acceleration induced movment of blood into or out of the brain.

Race car drivers have survived 200 Gs for just a few milliseconds with the advent of carbon fiber monocoques.

But does anyone here truly believe that it is possible for passengers to survive a 530 MPH head-on impact between an aircraft and a more-or-less rigid object?

I used to have a human factors handbook (which I'm damned if I can find) but I recall that the maximum acceleration that a human can survive is about 24 Gs. If the acceleration is in the form of a shock pulse (like a half-sine wave of only a few milliseconds period) then the value goes way up. But in a more-or-less constant acceleration, 30 Gs is fatal.

[Realityhack]

196. Yes the G forces are irrelevent

You have to follow the whole thread. They came up because of one of the links quoted 30 Gs. Of course that value isn't quite correct because it assumes a constant deceleration which this crash would not be.

The figure is really only being discussed at this point in reference to wither particular posters know how to calculate it and/or have the data to do so.

[Bleeding Cubbie Blue]

200. Hello Flatulo,

I don't recall human survivability and G forces being an issue (at least in this thread), but in context to impact force and damage to both the 757 and the building.

[Flatulo]

203. Ah, I took your earlier reply to mean that 30 Gs was not so

very much.

Mea Culpa.

[Realityhack]

197. um.

a) I believe reference data is in at LEAST one of the links that was posted.
b) Not shit. We are well aware of that.
c) Straw man. Nobody made that claim. Your abilities are under question because of straw men like this. They show you either have very low comprehension skills or are purposefully being dishonest in your argumentation.
d) Straw man.
e) Not shit.
Below e) Straw man, nobody claimed accurate data is irrelevant.

Yes ignoring all the posters who have any idea WTF they are talking about will be of use... if you only want to hear confirmation of various conspiracy theories and other bullshit. I like that this is in the same paragraph as you accusing people of 'shutting down debate'.

[Bleeding Cubbie Blue]

201. Brilliant refutation!

>> "a) I believe reference data is in at LEAST one of the links that was posted."

So I guess I am to assume (as no sources have been given) that 530 mph airspeed is from the NTSB FDR files? Okay, and where did the .8 second figure originate? I guess we'll just have to extrapolate that number, as the FDR data ends 1 second before impact. So we're working with airspeed and .8 second as variables to calculate G's to arrive at damage assessment of impact. Is this correct? I believe this is what bolo stated:

"That is what punched the hole in the A-E Drive. The mass of the plane decelerating from 530 mph to 0 mph in .8 of a second over the distance of twice the length of the plane."

Who would have thought that the forensic engineering for such an event would be so simple? Huh. Two variables = G? And therefore G = X level of destruction? Wow, we don't even need to introduce kinetic energy into the equation... or material densities? Awesome.

Here's another question for ya in regards to data:

"Why do the current G Forces for the last minute of data correspond to the changes in vertical speed, yet at end of data :44-:45 it shows an increase in vertical speed never accounting for any type of level off to be level with the lawn as shown in the DoD video?"

http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

Yes, I'm aware that any link not having a .gov domain is supposed to be rejected out of hand, but what about the question? Should this discrepancy simply be ignored as part of the equation? Let's hope the answer is not simply another ad hom distraction about my engineering abilities. :eyes:

>> "b) Not shit. We are well aware of that."

Not shit? Um, what kind of non-answer is that? Does this mean you agree that G's alone do not = damage assessment?

>> "c) Straw man. Nobody made that claim. Your abilities are under question because of straw men like this. They show you either have very low comprehension skills or are purposefully being dishonest in your argumentation."

What? See posts 153 and 155. Then we can evaluate who is being purposefully dishonest and discuss comprehension skills. Unreal.

>> "d) Straw man."

Do you even know what a 'Straw man' is? As I just pointed out (re: "c"), it was suggested that calculating impact force and it's resulting damage assessment would require 3 minutes of high school physics. How is pointing out that Purdue required 95 hours on a supercomputer a 'straw man'?

>> e) Not shit.

'Not shit' again? So... ASCE and Purdue noting that the data they had to work with was incomplete, and that there's a significant margin of error is irrelevant? (see "Below e" next). I'm not discounting the results of either study, but acknowledging that there are problems with accuracy. Funny, you guys enjoy bashing my abilities as an engineer, yet you want to be taken seriously while calling missing data and margins of error "not shit"? 'Close enough' only works in horseshoes and hand grenades.

>> "Below e) Straw man, nobody claimed accurate data is irrelevant."

"Why would anyone document and verify the plane part anyway. It's pointless. They know what plane hit the Pentagon. It's not a secret you know. Lot's of people saw the plane crash. The plane is still in pieces. The people on the flight are dead. Does anyone document the sun rising?" (post 111)

So in a discussion involving damage assessment, that which is damaged is "pointless"? Huh.

By the way, just for the record, I'm not a no-planer, nuker, LIHOP, MIHOP, or any other specifically categorized acronym. True, I have questions about claims made in the official reports, yet I've not once implied any sort of alternative theory (I would need more than circumstantial evidence to do so). In other words, criticism of an assertion and/or query as to how a particular damage occured doesn't automatically equate to belief in a "CT". It seems there's a specific clique here that would have anyone with any question whatsoever about any of the official reports classified within their own broad generalization of mental illness. It's kind of like someone questioning the validity of a passage in the bible, and subsequently being accused of being into voodoo, even though they're an atheist.

Be that as it may, there is at least some consensus here (by a few) that the G-force subject as introduced at the beginning of this sub-thread is not the be-all-end-all explanation related to impact damage analysis, and that the deceleration component has problems, as well. Beyond that, I'm reasonably certain that a discussion regarding the forces involved in destroying a majority of the titanium in a 757, or any sort of verification that said titanium exists/existed, or that these forces used said components in the process of damaging the building while simultaneously destroying themselves... cannot be discussed at this time without obfuscation and vitriol. Perhaps another day and thread. I'm done with this one.

[Realityhack]

202. Lets see if I remember this correctly

You made a comment about as a mechanical engineer wanting to know how the engines evaporated.
Bolo made an offhand comment about 30 fucking Gs happening to them.
You questioned the figure.
An argument broke out about wither you could solve a deceleration problem and wither people had the evidence for the G force problem.

No NOWHERE in their do I think ANYONE (you or anyone else) make the claim that 30 Gs was the sole factor to be considered in the damage done. It is therefore a straw man to claim someone did.

OF COURSE I agree that that is no way to analyze the impact.

However, claiming that the engines 'evaporated' when we have (within the very limited information available) pictures of engine parts is dishonest.

You also seem to think that their is some reason to put the plane back together. I don't see the need for this. Perhaps you could elaborate on what you think that would have told us.

'some consensus by a few that the G-force is not the end all be all explanation of the damage'?
Name ONE person who makes the claim that it is. I don't think their is one. Therefore attacking that position is a straw man.

[Bleeding Cubbie Blue]

204. Must I explain this yet again?

"Name ONE person who makes the claim that it is. I don't think their is one. Therefore attacking that position is a straw man."

Post # 37 (boloboffin) :

"That is what punched the hole in the A-E Drive. The mass of the plane decelerating from 530 mph to 0 mph in .8 of a second over the distance of twice the length of the plane."

This statement was based on the book quote, and was offered up as answer to the OP's question about damage assessment. Funny how you guys wish to take me to task for questioning the assertion, yet will side-step bolo's use of it in the first place as an "offhand comment". And much as you seem to enjoy using the "straw man" term, it clearly doesn't apply here. Just as it didn't apply to your use of it trying to claim nobody used the "3 minute high school equation" bit. I didn't make these things up to knock them down - they're still here in this thread. See, this is why the notion of a "serious debate" in this forum is dubious, at best. I have little interest in spending so much time explaining basic concepts like the meaning of "straw man" and irony to those who consistently misuse the terms (or don't understand them at all).

So unlike Brett Favre, who keeps returning for one more season, I'm retiring from this thread. Feel free, however, to continue obfuscating my posts with semantics and selective context. Good day.

[Realityhack]

205. I think you are misinterpreting Boloboffin's position

I don't think he was trying to simplify the problem to just 30gs of constant deceleration. The book quote seems to acknowledge at least something beyond that as well.

I think that their has been quite a bit of misunderstanding between you and other posters in both directions (just an observation).

[Realityhack]

159. 3 MIN! Three full minuites omg we really are failing at education. n/t

[leftofthedial]

59. you wack jobs just need to shut up ...

and believe whatever george bush and his people tell you.

why do you hate Amurka?

[LARED]

60. Interesting, you believe all those people that saw a

commercial airliner impact the Pentagon are just telling you what Bush tells them to say.

[leftofthedial]

61. thank you for being a great American

and sticking up for what is right

[LARED]

62. Why thank you. LARED superhero fighting

illogic and delusion for truth, justice, and the American way is at your service

[leftofthedial]

63. it's a bird! it's a no-plane wacko theory!

No! It's LARED man!

[AZCat]

64. Please correct your post.

It's LARED SUPERman.

[LARED]

65. LOL - nt

[William Seger]

66. Bush?

My parents have a neighbor who saw AA77 hit the Pentagon. He was driving past the south parking lot, just about perpendicular to the plane's path, so he was in a perfect position to see the "flyover" that the Pentacon clowns claim. When I told him that those idiots think the plane just flew into the fireball and fooled everyone, he said, "They're full of shit."

Next time I see him, I ask him about your "george bush and his people" theory, and I'll let you know what he says.

Why do you hate reality?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

151. George Bush or "no planes"

How's that for a false dichotomy?

[BeachBaby]

157. I don't understand the attacking going on here.

I think it's beyond rude.

This so reminds me of my growing up years. I was raised fundamental Baptist - and I was told, day in and day out, that the Bible is the truth. Anytime I questioned it, I was lambasted, punished, told I was evil, etc. Virgin mother, walking on water, Noah's ark, people turning into salt, on and on and on. My common sense and critical thinking got me in trouble with my parents, my church, my school - ALL because I wanted proof. And the so-called proof was the Bible. Biased "proof". It's what the writers WANTED me to believe.

It seems that this forum is no different. If someone questions the official story, they get slaughtered in here. Don't question the government! Don't question the final report! These are experts - what they say is truth!!! You're just a stupid moron who doesn't understand!!!

I imagine that if there was a strict rule in here of "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all", this forum would be eerily quiet.

I definitely see the pattern in here, where someone will post something that questions or discredits a certain aspect of the story - and then like flies to shit, a certain sect of posters go into a full attack mode....complete with name-calling and insults to their intelligence.

You all know who you are - and if you don't like our questions or our opinions, then why are you here? Are you really that bored with your lives that you have nothing better to do than sit around waiting for your next victim? If that's the case, I truly pity you.

[Bolo Boffin]

158. Amazing.

The OP asks for proof, we provide it, we get attacked, we fight back, JGD scolds us for defending ourselves (not to mention, the actual facts of what happened at the Pentagon).

Get over yourself. I'm glad you were able to reason your way out of the Bible. Reasoning your way out of the 9/11 CTs should be a cinch for you.

[Realityhack]

162. Look...

when you broke out of bible mode, you probably had to learn some stuff to understand the world around you right? Like how evolution works, geology, something?

Anyway, look at it this way. Someone comes in and claims creation is true to a bunch of scientists, then says they can prove it because bananas fit in your hand (or whatever). They are going to get trounced. They didn't do the research, and they didn't ask first, they attacked with ignorant hollow arguments that have already been disproved a hundred times.

Similar thing here. Someone new comes in acting like they are the high holy inquisitor of 9-11 and have discovered what all of us failed to see... then proceed to pull out BS arguments that where proven to be BS years ago and... um... well... they don't get a warm reception.

If you want to talk about the finer points of evolution you better have some idea what has happened in the last 5 years, or be willing to start by asking genuine questions without preconceived answers.
Same here.

[LARED]

165. Do you always whine this much?

It seems that this forum is no different. If someone questions the official story, they get slaughtered in here.

No they don't. When someone posts idiotic crap from trashy sites that has been dismissed dozens of times, and people point out the problems with the CT, it called getting an education. When someone continues to defend the illogical and is willfully ignorant of simply ascertained facts, they are koolaid drinkers.

Don't question the government!

There is not a person posting on this board that holds that position. You're making it up.

Don't question the final report! These are experts - what they say is truth!!!

No one holds that position either.

BTW, I will continue to bash AFP and Boylln at every single opportunity.

I am sorry if that hurts your feelings

[BeachBaby]

172. "Whine"?

LOL. And I find it more than amusing that I didn't specify one particular person or persons, and yet.....HERE YOU ARE!!!! :rofl:

Now THAT is freaking hilarious.

It's not "whining", LARED. It's calling you and others out on your immature ad hominem attacks on anyone who doesn't fall in line to your indoctrination.

Let's see here....

"When someone posts idiotic crap from trashy sites that has been dismissed dozens of times, and people point out the problems with the CT, it called getting an education. When someone continues to defend the illogical and is willfully ignorant of simply ascertained facts, they are koolaid drinkers."

Yeah, you're right - you're just trying to explain your position on the 9/11 event here. No attacking going on. :sarcasm:

"I will continue to bash AFP and Boylln at every single opportunity."

Of COURSE you will!

Another thing I noticed - you may want to look into where the "koolaid drinker" term originated from.

And believe me, LARED - my feelings haven't been hurt. Like I said, I pity those of you who don't understand the concept of productive discussion. Okey-dokey? Have a nice day. :)

[LARED]

173. I love a productive discussion

Unfortunately when discussing the Pentagon hole with folks that choose willful ignorance and link to revisionist rags like AFP it is not possible.

[whatchamacallit]

174. Just out of curiosity

In your opinion has anyone challenging the official story ever posted something you didn't consider "idiotic crap"? If so, could you please point me to it?

[LARED]

175. Sure

When someone challenges the so called "official report" regarding the lack of identifying issues like accountability and incompetence I'm on their side.

When someone defends the Bush administration justification of going into Iraq is based on the Saddam - OBL "connection" I'm on their side.

[whatchamacallit]

176. Cool, do you have any opinions on why NOBODY was held accountable

for the criminal lapses in procedure and protocol leading up to, on, and after 911? Cuz I do.

[LARED]

178. Were there criminal lapses in procedure and protocol ?

I missed those.

[AZCat]

169. This is what happens when you don't actually read our posts.

If you'd read them, you would realize our problem is not with those who question, but those who form conclusions based on imaginary bullshit and then insult us because we don't share their opinions. There is plenty of that in this thread (and elsewhere). It is your fucking movement that has no evidence or substantive theories but demands respect nonetheless. That's what I pity - those who take to 9/11 conspiracy theories as if they were a religion (that would be your side, not mine). After all, who gets all defensive when we ask simple fucking questions about the supposed "evidence" that discredits the "official story"?

[BeachBaby]

177. Oh my!

Let's see - there's so many things to acknowledge in this post, I don't know where to start.

Hmmmm. Lots of profanity used to get your point across. Very effective. :thumbsup:

You and your little peanut gallery are the ones asking questions? Huh. Okay.

And apparently I now belong to some sort of movement. What - because I don't believe for a single second that 9/11 was planned, orchestrated, and performed by 19 twenty-something Saudis who don't know how to fly, I belong to a movement?

Oh wait! I get it! You are implying that I belong to the "truth" movement! With all due respect - since I am the one who apparently doesn't have a clue, and YOU know the "truth", then wouldn't it be more accurate to say that YOU are of the truth movement? You're a twoofer!!!! Congrats! :party:

[Bleeding Cubbie Blue]

181. Impressive, isn't it?

"Hmmmm. Lots of profanity used to get your point across. Very effective. :thumbsup:"

Ya gotta love the eloquent linguistic skills. :hi:

[Name removed]

184. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[whatchamacallit]

171. Welcome to the Gang Bang

There are two main groups here; one group, "the CT", is manifold, and the other, "the OCT", is monolithic. The CT are essentially random, unaffiliated, people who find themselves here because their bullshit detectors have been pegged since 9/11. Contrary to what some would have you believe, the CT have no consensus about what happened, just a shared skepticism about they've been told. On this board they rarely, if ever, act in concert, and most have no agenda other than learning the truth. Contrast this with the OCT who believe and defend pretty much any and all official explanations of the myriad events of 9/11. I don't know if they are affiliated in any way, but because they are of "one mind" their responses have a uniformity that can seem like organized attacks. They often use words like "us", "we", and "our", referring to themselves as a cohesive unit. Add to this the false certainty they derive from *having* a consensus, and they sometimes behave like sharks circling chum.

Dungeon rule of thumb: Although the OCT present the same raw information, opinion, and conjecture as everyone else, theirs is "fact" and yours is crazy bullshit. Get used to it.

[BeachBaby]

179. LOL.

Thanks for the heads-up, RB - but I've known about this little sewing circle for a long time. I used to post here quite often, but then life took over for a bit. And besides, it's hard to have discussions with people who have closed minds.

Guess I got bored yesterday and thought I'd jump in for a bit - and after watching the hens pecking away at people who disagree with the official report, I thought I'd express my disappointment in the temper tantrums being displayed here.

One day I'll learn that some things never change. :)

[whatchamacallit]

180. : )

:hi:

[AZCat]

186. Disagree with the official report?!

They haven't even fucking read it! The only people with closed minds are those who formed conclusions without looking at the fucking evidence!

Fucking pathetic.

[BeachBaby]

188. Fuckin' A.

*just trying to dumb myself down so you understand me better*

Who is "they"? Are you telling me that you have personally asked each poster in this forum if they've read the 9/11 Commission Report?

As for me....I *did* read the report. I remember it well....it came out the same week I was on vacation. So while my kids played in the pool, I laid poolside in my bikini and read the whole damned thing. If something is "fucking pathetic", THAT would be it.

But let's stop talking about the report for a minute, okay? I wanna talk about YOU. I'm concerned, AZCat. I'm concerned about your obvious distress and anger issues. Ever heard of Xanax? The evidence shows that it works wonders. You should try it.

[AZCat]

189. Have YOU been making stupid fucking claims?

Then I think it's pretty easy to sort you into one group or the other.

On the other hand, this forum is full of people who are too fucking lazy to even do the simplest research before making a dumb-ass claim. If you can't see that, you're just as guilty of willful ignorance as they are.

Xanax is good shit. It has helped a lot of people throughout the years. I'm glad to see you don't shun modern medicine's solutions for problems. Maybe there's hope for you yet.

Oh, and I'd love to see anything that supports your claim of some correlation between incidence of profanity and intelligence. Because I'd hate to think you'd make an unsupported claim just to fit your personal agenda.

[BeachBaby]

190. Uh, no. I haven't been making

"stupid fucking claims". But you addressed your post to me, so I answered.

As for YOUR claim that people don't do research....people are gonna do what they're gonna do. And people are gonna believe what they wanna believe.

If you were ever to see the years of research I've put into 9/11, you would NOT be speaking to me like this. Granted, I don't focus on the specifics of G-force and fuel temps - I focus on who is actually responsible. But I digress.

As for the Xanax....believe me, sweetheart - I don't need anti-depressants or anti-anxiety drugs. I'm a happy chick - which is why I'm so concerned about you, AZCat. You're obviously a disgruntled, angry person. You need to seek help for that.

A "correlation between incidence of profanity and intelligence"? Are you serious? That very topic has been discussed for decades. The consensus is that people who use profanity profusely are emotionally immature people who lack intelligence and have a poor vocabulary. Oh - and since you want to see "support" for this claim, here's just a couple:

http://ezinearticles.com/?Vocabulary-It-Does-Matter&id=237016
http://www.wisegeek.com/how-can-i-avoid-using-profanity.htm

Btw....I've worked directly with many a criminal psychologist - and they've drawn the same conclusions as well. Just sayin'.

[AZCat]

191. If you've actually done that much research...

it doesn't fucking show. Just because people have the right to believe something doesn't mean I have to sit idly by while they promote their bullshit.

On profanity: So I should believe a fucking "Chief Strategy Officer"? What the fuck kind of basis is there for his or your claims? Neither of your goddamn links has any merit. If it "has been discussed for decades" you ought to be able to produce some scholarly articles that support your point. Can you, or are you merely making shit up?

As for me being "obviously a disgruntled, angry person" who the fuck are you to make such a diagnosis? You're name isn't "Dr. Frist" by any chance?

[BeachBaby]

193. Me thinks your post just diagnosed yourself.

You need no help from me.

Now take some deep cleansing breaths and call your doc in the mornin'. 'Night, sweetie.

[AZCat]

194. And that's why your opinion isn't worth shit around here.

Diagnosing people over the internet - what's next? Promoting Alex Jones?

[Bleeding Cubbie Blue]

192. .

:popcorn:

[Realityhack]

199. Um to be fair

Their are also other reports (ex. NIST). Yes some posters have admitted they have not read them. Others have shown they have not (or did not understand what they read) by misrepresenting the content, asking if they covered X, etc.

If you look around here for a bit you will see that the arguments are mostly over people making retarded claims like it's "obvious" the WTC where demolished with explosives because they look like it (according to some random poster with no clue what they are talking about).

Furthermore, the people you have accused of having closed minds have admitted they have problems with the report. Unfortunately, attempts to discuss these issues are interrupted by people who seem to think that incomplete data or other problems with the report 'prove' their where no planes, nukes were used, demolitions charges where used, or whatever other pet theory they have.

VERY few people here ask honest questions looking for information rather than trying to create a gap they can insert some pet conspiracy theory into.

We also have a great many claims made that have been demonstrated conclusively to be false years ago. This tends to result in it being pointed out to them that given the time lapse and the ease of looking things up that they should have done at least some small amount of research before clamming such incorrect information supports their pet theories.

[AZCat]

187. That's some pretty crappy framing.

I'd love it if someone from the "truth movement" would actually present some "raw information" instead of making up shit just to support their preconceived notions - then maybe we could have productive conversations. But until then, you can continue to expect me (and others) to call people out on their bullshit. If this is a "gang bang" then you have a fucked up perspective of logic and reason.

[Realityhack]

198. LOL

"CT have no consensus about what happened, just a shared skepticism about they've been told."
No they have no consensus. But they are hardly 'just skeptical'. BS claims of nuclear bombs at the WTC are hardly on par with the NIST analysis in terms of credibility.

If your 'bullshit detector' is pegged. Try asking some intelligent questions instead of just attacking people yourself.