Concrete floors

[k-robjoe]

Has this image correctly drawn in the floors?
It seems like there´s three concrete slabs that are "blown away". (A big portion of each.)

Some awful damage. Explosives? Has anyone got the link to the mp3 where you have the sound of the first plane crashing caught on a tape recorder across the street? ( The one with two separate booms. )

[k-robjoe]

1. Found it

This is the one I was thinking of :

http://911digitalarchive.org/sonicmedia//repository/media/child_864.mp3

[tngledwebb]

2. This photo is also very important for what we CAN see.

I can't be certain how the overlay drawing lines up, it looks close.

But where is the plane wreckage, or how did it worm its all the way inside?

Where are the blazing fires and billowing smoke from such a crash, how could what we see here ever become the white-hot inferno that melted internal supports?

[Abe Linkman]

3. Later. Mmaybe they were "Ghost fires" --- like those FL77 "Ghost wings"

I believe the OCT first responders will say: "Oh, that photo was taken long before the fires really heated up". See how easy it is to debunk
even rational questions about the Official Fairy Tale? Piece of cake.
Almost makes you wonder why "they" have to pay people to do it.

[tngledwebb]

4. This photo may be as damning as Pentagon photos.

Again, most of the following noted and discussed elsewhere but for newbies etc:

1. 'Wings' able to cut straight through steel beams and concrete walls, leaving only straight narrow 'slits', as if wings were made of reinforced steel or iron.

2. Plane swallowed up entirely, as if the inner structure of this building was made of tissue, instead of steel beams. Would imagine some small part of tail would be visible.

3. There is simply not enough of an 'opening' for the fuselage of plane, never mind wings or engines.

4. Looney Tune cartoon cut-out silhouette probably created by demo charges, as seen on Naudet footage showing several discrete WHITE smoke puffs, and not showing orange/red exploding fireball as in second hit footage.

5. Very similar hole in second hit shows reveals 'imagination failure' of demo installers?

[LARED]

5. For newbies

1. 'Wings' able to cut straight through steel beams and concrete walls, leaving only straight narrow 'slits', as if wings were made of reinforced steel or iron.

First of all the was no concrete in the walls of the WTC towers.
And anything harder than jello traveling at 400 to 500 miles per hour will cut through the facade and walls of the WTC. One only has to look at the image to see there are no narrow slits. Most of the perimeter columns where the slits are are bent back. That happens when really large objects impact a steel frame at several hundreds of miles per hour.

2. Plane swallowed up entirely, as if the inner structure of this building was made of tissue, instead of steel beams. Would imagine some small part of tail would be visible.

The WTC tower 1 and 2 were DESIGNED to have maximum floor space, In fact the area between the core structure and the perimeter structure was completely open. Meaning once the jets breeched the perimeter walls the building would appear to "swallow" it up, because the core structure is in the center of the building.

3. There is simply not enough of an 'opening' for the fuselage of plane, never mind wings or engines.

Various report from the offical investigation sites and CT sites have superimposed the 767 cross section over the hole. It fits just fine.

4. Looney Tune cartoon cut-out silhouette probably created by demo charges, as seen on Naudet footage showing several discrete WHITE smoke puffs, and not showing orange/red exploding fireball as in second hit footage.

Just a recommendation, never start a sentence like that with the word looney as the rest of it might give someone the wrong impression. Frankly the Naudet film is almost useless because it is so distorted. And go to any web site that hosts video of the second towers hit to watch orange/red exploding fireballs.

5. Very similar hole in second hit shows reveals 'imagination failure' of demo installers?

Lets see, two jets hit two towers and leave a similar footprint from the impact. Yet because this is true it show a failure of imagination of the demo installer? Most people would take this at face value to mean similiar event have similair outcomes.

[Abe Linkman]

6. So, thin aluminum wings CAN cut thru steel beams? You sure, "lared"?

What's the scientific basis for THAT claim?

[MercutioATC]

7. The beams are clearly bent IN, not OUT, Abe.

How do you propose that charges inside the building pulled the beams in?

[Abe Linkman]

8. Wings are thin aluminum. How do you propose they cut thru steel?

Since you've taken up the rotation suggestion, then YOU answer the question. Your ___ "lared" said that the wings cut thru steel at the WTC, and I asked him what the scientific basis is for making that claim.
Is this another one of those "why, that's easy: the Power of Voodoo. that's how it was done"? Is it your contention that those planes had "Magic Wings" like the ones at the Pentagon? Where do they build those things, and how do they add the magic in?

Imagine: thin aluminum wings that can cut thru steel beams. Wowwee, zowee...gotta get some of that stuff.

[LARED]

10. In reality the wings cutting through the WTC

is a gimme. Pictures don't lie. Millions of people watched it happen on live TV. Tens of thousands watched it happen in New York.

Why not really impress me with your scientific knowledge and explain why it is impossible for the wings to cut through the steel beams of the WTC?

[tngledwebb]

265. I watched David Copperfield disappear the Statue of Liberty.

Millions also saw it on TV, and many saw it happen in New York. Did you?

[MercutioATC]

11. You didn't see the video?

The planes DID fly into the buildings...right through the steel beams.

You missed that?

[MrSammo1]

12. Amazing!

The limestone facing at the Pentagon was stronger than the WTC steel box columns? Gooooo figure?

[LARED]

13. What I'm trying to figure out is why

you believe the limestone facing at the Pentagon was stronger than the WTC steel box columns.

Please explain.

[MrSammo1]

21. I don't

The WTC photos of the jet impacts, show just how strong jet wings can be at high speeds. Apply this to the Pentagon and we see a fatal contradiction.

[LARED]

22. And the fatal contradiction is

what?????????

Please tell me.

[MrSammo1]

30. What????

That the vertical stabilizer of a jet would clearly leave it's mark on steel columns with aluminum facing, but not on a brick and mortor wall with a limestone facing.

[MercutioATC]

17. The limestone facing wasnt. The reinforced wall behind it was.

120' of the limestone facing was damaged. The breach in the wall at the Pentagon was much smaller than that.

In order of "strength":

Limestone facing
Steel box columns
Reinforced concrete wall

Questions?

[MrSammo1]

31. But you forget

The breach at the Pentagon had to be bigger than the size of the jet. (if we are to assume that it hit on an angle) Plus as the WTC impacts clearly shows, the vertical stabilizer leaves it's mark. This didn't happen at the Pentagon. Hence no jet hit the Pentagon. Physical impossibilities don't happen. Except on 911 that is!

[vincent_vega_lives]

85. Plenty big

The initial hole was 15' x 15'. Plenty big to accomodate a 757 with a fuselage diameter of 12'. The wing damage was 100' along the facade of the building at a height of about 10'. The wingspan of the 757 is 124', so the tips did not penetrate the facade.

[Sweet Pea]

26. Wow!

So he's an aircraft structural engineer, as well! "Thin aluminum wings"?

Not trying to be flippant....but seriously.

Ever heard of titanium? 10% of an aircraft like a Triple-7 is titanium. Wing box beams, struts and engine mounts are made of titanium. Tell you what. Let's make a bet. You set up a steel grid, vertically oriented, and I'll accelerate an object with a titanium frame surrounded by aluminum up to 350 knots at it and let's see what happens. Deal?

[DulceDecorum]

32. WOW wee

Boeing-built planes are just not that strong.
The plane that hit the Pentagon is a classic example.
Peeled itself like a banana
and practically VANISHED.

The renovation project built strength into the 60-year-old limestone exterior with a web of steel beams and columns.
"You have these steel tubes and, again, they go from the first floor and go all the way to the fifth floor," says Evey. "We have everything bolted together in A STRONG STEEL MATRIX. It supports and encases the windows and provides tremendous additional strength to the wall."
When the plane hit at 350 miles an hour, the limestone layer shattered. But inside, those shards of stone were caught by a shield of cloth that lines the entire section of the building.
It is a special cloth that helps prevent masonry from fragmenting and turning into shrapnel. The cloth is also used to make bullet-resistant vests.
All of this, ESPECIALLY THE STEEL, held up the third, fourth and fifth floors. They stayed up for 35 minutes. You can see them through the smoke, suspended over the hole gouged by the jet. Only after the evacuation did the heat melt the new steel away. Evey says that without the reconstruction, the floors might have collapsed immediately.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/11/28/60II/main319383.shtml

The plane approached the Pentagon about six feet off the ground, clipping a light pole, a car antenna, a construction trailer and an emergency generator before slicing into the building, said Lee Evey, the manager of the Pentagon's ongoing billion-dollar renovation.
The plane penetrated three of the Pentagon's five rings, but was probably stopped from going farther by hundreds of concrete columns. THE PLANE PEELED BACK AS IT ENTERED, leaving pieces of the front of the plane near the outside of the building and pieces from the rear of the aircraft farther inside, Evey said.
The plane hit part of the Pentagon that had already been renovated with blast-resistant windows, a special reinforced steel construction, a sprinkler system and fire-resistant Kevlar cloth.
The floors just above the impact remained intact for about 35 minutes after the crash, allowing many people in those offices to escape, Evey said.
But then the building collapsed, leaving a deep gash resembling a macabre dollhouse -- a cross-section of former offices now filled with mangled steel and fractured concrete, with wiring springing out at odd angles and jagged strips of insulation hanging from ceilings. Makeshift columns built from stacks of wood on the first floor are the only supports holding up the four floors above the impact site.
http://www.detnews.com/2001/nation/0110/06/nation-312016.htm

[Sweet Pea]

51. Good post

"Peeled itself like a banana
and practically VANISHED"

as would be expected of an aircraft impacting such a structure at such a speed.

Strong support for the fact that there wasn't much left of the aircraft when it finally came to a stop in the C ring.

[DulceDecorum]

175. WHERDY GO?

According to Sweet Pea:
there wasn't much left of the aircraft when it finally came to a stop in the C ring.

Sure enough.
But what about the E ring?
Did the plane leave debris OUTSIDE the E-ring?

But what about the D ring?
Did the plane leave debris BETWEEN the E-ring and the D-ring?

But what about the C ring?
Did the plane leave debris D-ring and the C-ring?

But what about the B ring?
Did the plane leave debris C-ring and the B-ring?


Damage to one of the inside rings of the Pentagon caused by a hijacked commercial airliner that crashed into the Pentagon on Sep. 11.

WHERDY GO?

[Sweet Pea]

292. Over a month late...

but just getting around to this post.

No, Dulce, there was no aircraft wreckage OUTSIDE the E-ring.
NOR BETWEEN the E-ring and the D-ring.
NOR BETWEEN the D-ring and the C-ring
NOR BETWEEN the C-ring and the B-ring.

Why?

BECAUSE THERE IS NO "BETWEEN" the E and the D and the C rings. It is all one enclosed space.

As was mentioned elsewhere by me and others before, the first two floors of the outer 3 rings in Wedge 1 are enclosed - no alley or road between the rings. Nothing but sheetrock walls and the occasional secure briefing/conference room to keep a mess of aircraft wreckage moving at a rapidly slowing but initial 45,000 feet per minute.

The image you posted shows this....3 floors of windows. WHERDY other 2 floors go? Underneath the surface of the roof that can be seen at the bottom of the image.

My office is on the 5th floor on the outside of the A ring. I can look out and see the A-E drive. If my office were on the 5th floor of the C or D or E rings, I'd look outside and see the roof of the 2nd floor - NOT any sort of road or alley.

But of course you know this.....Google Ranger and all.

[vincent_vega_lives]

72. thin aluminum

and filled with fuel. figure out the mass and do the math.

[MercutioATC]

78. Mass disappears when the pieces get smaller.

Didn't you get the memo?

:crazy:

[tngledwebb]

38. Not the question...

Steel beams were sliced clean thru. How? Could someone find that Purdue U study diagram that shows how the supports inside the P-gon sliced up the whole of Flight 77, like a hard-boiled egg on a mandolin?

[Abe Linkman]

42. Well, see, it's all "Magic". n/t

n/t

[tngledwebb]

43. Black magic, yes.

n/t

[LARED]

9. I'm positive

Shoot, under the right conditions water can cut steel.

It won't be fruitful talking about science with you so let me just post a picture.

[Abe Linkman]

14. "lared's" Amazing "Magic Aluminum" Cuts Thru Steel. Have some. Today.

What's the science there, "lared". Please explain how thin aluminum airplane wings can cut thru steel beams.

This ought to be interesting.

[LARED]

15. The science is the transfer of energy

The pictures tell the whole story. Just like water having the ability to cut through steel, wings moving at 500 mph cut through steel columns. If you really want to get into the nuts and bolts of the science just explain why you believe the wing could not have cut through the columns and I will respond.

I humbly await my lesson.

[Abe Linkman]

16. Thin aluminum cuts thru steel beams, you say?

Got any research papers from Drexel to back that up? Did a professor there tell you that thin aluminum wings can cut thru steel beams? And, would you explain what happened at the Pentagon?

Does Osama have access to some "Magical Aluminum"? Did he get it from his CIA contacts?

[MercutioATC]

18. So what DID cut through the steel columns, Abe?

And don't say charges inside the building unless you're prepared to explain how a charge INSIDE the building bent steel beams INWARD.

[MercutioATC]

23. **crickets** Well, Abe?

You're quick to make claims about what's physically possible or impossible.

Isn't there ANYTHING you can cite that'll support your claims?

(Yes, that's a rhetorical question. I'm thinking if you had the slightest idea what you were talking about, you'd have posted some "proof" a LONG time ago)

[Abe Linkman]

24. Support your OWN claims, Mercurious. Without resorting to Magic or Voodoo

The most obvious lies about 9/11 concern very basic things.
The only answers you've provided require MAGIC to explain them.
WHERE are the 757 engines, M-ATC?
WHERE is the MUSH, M-ATC?
HOW did confetti create a nine foot circular hole, M-ATC?
EXACTLY HOW did the attack plane come into contact with the Pentagon, M-ATC? Was it nose up, nose down, two feet off the ground in a horizontal strike? WHAT?
WHY wasn't even a single body or body part found on the Pentalawn, M-ATC?
IF the alleged piece of aluminum "found" on the Pentalawn came from FL 77, why was it "found" on the opposite side of the Pentalawn from where it should have been, M-ATC?
HOW did a young M.E. man who couldn't even fly a Cessna perform aeronautical maneuvers that only an experienced expert could perform?
WHY weren't Pentagon windows broken where the wings would have had to hit them if a 757 had crashed into the Pentagon?
HOW could a 757 penetrate the Pentagon's reinforced walls and continue moving thru another group of walls WITHOUT coming apart and leaving visible pieces?
WHERE is the LUGGAGE from the passengers on FL 77, M-ATC? Why are there NO photos of ANY luggage?
WHY didn't the 6,000 gallons (or ever how many there were) cause fire damage to the Pentagon offices directly above where the "inferno" would have to have been...if a 757 had crashed into the building?
TED OLSEN lied about having gotten cell phone calls from FL 77. If the Solicitor General of the United States would lie so easily, and if the Administration would lie about WMD and put out fake Osama tapes, then you are going to have to provide a lot more CREDIBLE, FACTUAL information than you have thus far if your purpose here is to be an objective participant interested in the truth.

No one has ever provided credible answers to any of the above. Every time YOU have been pressed to answer these kinds of questions... all you've ever done is cite a propaganda piece and CLAIM that it answers them.

There are many good, intelligent, knowledgeable, reasonable, objective people here at DU who are very interested in learning the truth about what really happened on 9/11. You cannot cite even ONE person who will confirm that you have given a credible answer to just one of the above questions, let alone more than one.

Three years later, and the Official conspiracy theory is as bogus as ever. Three years later, and no one has ever given a credible answer to any of the questions and contradictions about the Conspiracy theory that the Gov't has promulgated, and that you support.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[MercutioATC]

49. I'll take that as a refusal to answer.

Abe, I don't believe planes can fly at all. Look at them...they're big and heavy. There's no way they can fly.

I also don't care that there is actual footage of planes flying.

Further, any evidence of planes flying is obviously planted.

...oh, and aeronautical engineers are all wrong. I won't explain why, but they are and any OBJECTIVE person knows it because planes are too heavy to fly.

It's all a conspiracy.




Damn! It IS easy to "prove" a conspiracy theory!

[Abe Linkman]

52. Obvious lies, "Magic", and other OCT nonsense.

The most obvious lies about 9/11 concern very basic things.
The only answers you've provided require MAGIC to explain them.
WHERE are the 757 engines, M-ATC?
WHERE is the MUSH, M-ATC?
HOW did confetti create a nine foot circular hole, M-ATC?
EXACTLY HOW did the attack plane come into contact with the Pentagon, M-ATC? Was it nose up, nose down, two feet off the ground in a horizontal strike? WHAT?
WHY wasn't even a single body or body part found on the Pentalawn, M-ATC?
IF the alleged piece of aluminum "found" on the Pentalawn came from FL 77, why was it "found" on the opposite side of the Pentalawn from where it should have been, M-ATC?
HOW did a young M.E. man who couldn't even fly a Cessna perform aeronautical maneuvers that only an experienced expert could perform?
WHY weren't Pentagon windows broken where the wings would have had to hit them if a 757 had crashed into the Pentagon?
HOW could a 757 penetrate the Pentagon's reinforced walls and continue moving thru another group of walls WITHOUT coming apart and leaving visible pieces?
WHERE is the LUGGAGE from the passengers on FL 77, M-ATC? Why are there NO photos of ANY luggage?
WHY didn't the 6,000 gallons (or ever how many there were) cause fire damage to the Pentagon offices directly above where the "inferno" would have to have been...if a 757 had crashed into the building?
TED OLSEN lied about having gotten cell phone calls from FL 77. If the Solicitor General of the United States would lie so easily, and if the Administration would lie about WMD and put out fake Osama tapes, then you are going to have to provide a lot more CREDIBLE, FACTUAL information than you have thus far if your purpose here is to be an objective participant interested in the truth.

No one has ever provided credible answers to any of the above. Every time YOU have been pressed to answer these kinds of questions... all you've ever done is cite a propaganda piece and CLAIM that it answers them.

There are many good, intelligent, knowledgeable, reasonable, objective people here at DU who are very interested in learning the truth about what really happened on 9/11. You cannot cite even ONE person who will confirm that you have given a credible answer to just one of the above questions, let alone more than one.

Three years later, and the Official conspiracy theory is as bogus as ever. Three years later, and no one has ever given a credible answer to any of the questions and contradictions about the Conspiracy theory that the Gov't has promulgated, and that you support.

[MercutioATC]

60. Congratulations! You've mastered the art of "cut and paste"!

Again, it's hardly my fault if you can't understand scientific (and logical) explanations.

Since you obviously have a star, why not work on mastering the search function next? I've answered your questions dozens of times.

[Abe Linkman]

73. Your ONLY response is to cite an IRRELEVANT propaganda piece

If the Official Conspiracy Theory wasn't a Fairy Tale, it wouldn't be necessary to have to resort to diversions and propaganda.

[MercutioATC]

77. So bring me a "real" report.

I keep asking and you keep declining to produce it. Are you telling me that the "truth" is SO obvious and no qualified engineers are willing to say anything?

Surely, if the ASCE engineers all lied, there must be a couple of engineers out there with similar qualifications who disagree....

[Abe Linkman]

79. The ASCE agents only measured bldg. damage. Now, kindly answer these...

The most obvious lies about 9/11 concern very basic things.
The only answers you've provided require MAGIC to explain them.
WHERE are the 757 engines, M-ATC?
WHERE is the MUSH, M-ATC?
HOW did confetti create a nine foot circular hole, M-ATC?
EXACTLY HOW did the attack plane come into contact with the Pentagon, M-ATC? Was it nose up, nose down, two feet off the ground in a horizontal strike? WHAT?
WHY wasn't even a single body or body part found on the Pentalawn, M-ATC?
IF the alleged piece of aluminum "found" on the Pentalawn came from FL 77, why was it "found" on the opposite side of the Pentalawn from where it should have been, M-ATC?
HOW did a young M.E. man who couldn't even fly a Cessna perform aeronautical maneuvers that only an experienced expert could perform?
WHY weren't Pentagon windows broken where the wings would have had to hit them if a 757 had crashed into the Pentagon?
HOW could a 757 penetrate the Pentagon's reinforced walls and continue moving thru another group of walls WITHOUT coming apart and leaving visible pieces?
WHERE is the LUGGAGE from the passengers on FL 77, M-ATC? Why are there NO photos of ANY luggage?
WHY didn't the 6,000 gallons (or ever how many there were) cause fire damage to the Pentagon offices directly above where the "inferno" would have to have been...if a 757 had crashed into the building?
TED OLSEN lied about having gotten cell phone calls from FL 77. If the Solicitor General of the United States would lie so easily, and if the Administration would lie about WMD and put out fake Osama tapes, then you are going to have to provide a lot more CREDIBLE, FACTUAL information than you have thus far if your purpose here is to be an objective participant interested in the truth.

No one has ever provided credible answers to any of the above. Every time YOU have been pressed to answer these kinds of questions... all you've ever done is cite a propaganda piece and CLAIM that it answers them.

There are many good, intelligent, knowledgeable, reasonable, objective people here at DU who are very interested in learning the truth about what really happened on 9/11. You cannot cite even ONE person who will confirm that you have given a credible answer to just one of the above questions, let alone more than one.

Three years later, and the Official conspiracy theory is as bogus as ever. Three years later, and no one has ever given a credible answer to any of the questions and contradictions about the Conspiracy theory that the Gov't has promulgated, and that you support.

[MercutioATC]

80. I already have, Abe. Over and over and over again.

Do you have an expert rebuttal to the ASCE report or not?

[Abe Linkman]

83. No. You have never answered them. You've only said that you have...

and that's not the same thing, is it? The reason you haven't answered them is because you can't. Becuase the truth isn't on your side and you don't have a friendly prosecutor and judge to accept your non-denials.
You don't even have any cop cohorts to lie for you. Only a few fellow OCTheory supporters.

[MercutioATC]

84. Abe, I haven't worked in law enforcement for almost 14 years...

Why all of the recent "cop" references?

[Abe Linkman]

86. Are we going to have to wait 14 years for answers to these reasonable ?s

The most obvious lies about 9/11 concern very basic things.
The only answers you've provided require MAGIC to explain them.
WHERE are the 757 engines, M-ATC?
WHERE is the MUSH, M-ATC?
HOW did confetti create a nine foot circular hole, M-ATC?
EXACTLY HOW did the attack plane come into contact with the Pentagon, M-ATC? Was it nose up, nose down, two feet off the ground in a horizontal strike? WHAT?
WHY wasn't even a single body or body part found on the Pentalawn, M-ATC?
IF the alleged piece of aluminum "found" on the Pentalawn came from FL 77, why was it "found" on the opposite side of the Pentalawn from where it should have been, M-ATC?
HOW did a young M.E. man who couldn't even fly a Cessna perform aeronautical maneuvers that only an experienced expert could perform?
WHY weren't Pentagon windows broken where the wings would have had to hit them if a 757 had crashed into the Pentagon?
HOW could a 757 penetrate the Pentagon's reinforced walls and continue moving thru another group of walls WITHOUT coming apart and leaving visible pieces?
WHERE is the LUGGAGE from the passengers on FL 77, M-ATC? Why are there NO photos of ANY luggage?
WHY didn't the 6,000 gallons (or ever how many there were) cause fire damage to the Pentagon offices directly above where the "inferno" would have to have been...if a 757 had crashed into the building?
TED OLSEN lied about having gotten cell phone calls from FL 77. If the Solicitor General of the United States would lie so easily, and if the Administration would lie about WMD and put out fake Osama tapes, then you are going to have to provide a lot more CREDIBLE, FACTUAL information than you have thus far if your purpose here is to be an objective participant interested in the truth.

No one has ever provided credible answers to any of the above. Every time YOU have been pressed to answer these kinds of questions... all you've ever done is cite a propaganda piece and CLAIM that it answers them.

There are many good, intelligent, knowledgeable, reasonable, objective people here at DU who are very interested in learning the truth about what really happened on 9/11. You cannot cite even ONE person who will confirm that you have given a credible answer to just one of the above questions, let alone more than one.

Three years later, and the Official conspiracy theory is as bogus as ever. Three years later, and no one has ever given a credible answer to any of the questions and contradictions about the Conspiracy theory that the Gov't has promulgated, and that you support.

[MercutioATC]

87. No, only as long as it takes you to use your search function.

The timeframe is entirely up to you...

[Abe Linkman]

94. If you COULD give a substantive response, I think you would.

The most obvious lies about 9/11 concern very basic things.
The only answers you've provided require MAGIC to explain them.
WHERE are the 757 engines, M-ATC?
WHERE is the MUSH, M-ATC?
HOW did confetti create a nine foot circular hole, M-ATC?
EXACTLY HOW did the attack plane come into contact with the Pentagon, M-ATC? Was it nose up, nose down, two feet off the ground in a horizontal strike? WHAT?
WHY wasn't even a single body or body part found on the Pentalawn, M-ATC?
IF the alleged piece of aluminum "found" on the Pentalawn came from FL 77, why was it "found" on the opposite side of the Pentalawn from where it should have been, M-ATC?
HOW did a young M.E. man who couldn't even fly a Cessna perform aeronautical maneuvers that only an experienced expert could perform?
WHY weren't Pentagon windows broken where the wings would have had to hit them if a 757 had crashed into the Pentagon?
HOW could a 757 penetrate the Pentagon's reinforced walls and continue moving thru another group of walls WITHOUT coming apart and leaving visible pieces?
WHERE is the LUGGAGE from the passengers on FL 77, M-ATC? Why are there NO photos of ANY luggage?
WHY didn't the 6,000 gallons (or ever how many there were) cause fire damage to the Pentagon offices directly above where the "inferno" would have to have been...if a 757 had crashed into the building?
TED OLSEN lied about having gotten cell phone calls from FL 77. If the Solicitor General of the United States would lie so easily, and if the Administration would lie about WMD and put out fake Osama tapes, then you are going to have to provide a lot more CREDIBLE, FACTUAL information than you have thus far if your purpose here is to be an objective participant interested in the truth.

No one has ever provided credible answers to any of the above. Every time YOU have been pressed to answer these kinds of questions... all you've ever done is cite a propaganda piece and CLAIM that it answers them.

There are many good, intelligent, knowledgeable, reasonable, objective people here at DU who are very interested in learning the truth about what really happened on 9/11. You cannot cite even ONE person who will confirm that you have given a credible answer to just one of the above questions, let alone more than one.

Three years later, and the Official conspiracy theory is as bogus as ever. Three years later, and no one has ever given a credible answer to any of the questions and contradictions about the Conspiracy theory that the Gov't has promulgated, and that you support.

[AZCat]

88. That would be...

Truth Suppression Techniques 5, 7, and 18.

Or something. "Attacking the messenger" is what I call it, but that's not a listed technique (I might have missed it - the list is long).

[MercutioATC]

89. :)

Good point, AZCat. I hadn't even thought of that.

[vincent_vega_lives]

90. I'm a sucker Abe

WHERE are the 757 engines, M-ATC? I assume you are refering to the mess found in the Pentagon. I have already provided numerous pics, info, posts refering to your refusal to acknowlage that you are looking at a 757 engine in those pics from the Pentagon
WHERE is the MUSH, M-ATC? ???
HOW did confetti create a nine foot circular hole, M-ATC? Confetti did not create a nine foot circular hole, and neither did a "shaped charge".
EXACTLY HOW did the attack plane come into contact with the Pentagon, M-ATC? Was it nose up, nose down, two feet off the ground in a horizontal strike? WHAT? nose level, aprox 10-15' off the ground, at an angle to the building.
WHY wasn't even a single body or body part found on the Pentalawn, M-ATC?Why would there have been. All the bodies were found in the Pentagon. What does not finding any on the lawn have to do with anything?
IF the alleged piece of aluminum "found" on the Pentalawn came from FL 77, why was it "found" on the opposite side of the Pentalawn from where it should have been, M-ATC? What side was that and why "should" it have been found anywhere?
HOW did a young M.E. man who couldn't even fly a Cessna perform aeronautical maneuvers that only an experienced expert could perform?How do you know what he could and could not do? How do you know that the maneuvers he did could only be performed by an "experienced expert"? He did not take off, he did not land. Those are the two most critical and complicated parts of flying. He crashed.
WHY weren't Pentagon windows broken where the wings would have had to hit them if a 757 had crashed into the Pentagon?The walls were smashed in were the wings hit leaving only the I beams, and knocking them out in some cases.
HOW could a 757 penetrate the Pentagon's reinforced walls and continue moving thru another group of walls WITHOUT coming apart and leaving visible pieces? It started coming apart as the moment of impact, hence small peices. The fire would have further destroyed any flamable peices, like aluminum.
WHERE is the LUGGAGE from the passengers on FL 77, M-ATC? Why are there NO photos of ANY luggage?Luggage burns nicely I would imagine.
WHY didn't the 6,000 gallons (or ever how many there were) cause fire damage to the Pentagon offices directly above where the "inferno" would have to have been...if a 757 had crashed into the building?the crash and fire damaged the offices enough to collapse the entire section.
TED OLSEN lied about having gotten cell phone calls from FL 77.How do you figure? If the Solicitor General of the United States would lie so easily, and if the Administration would lie about WMD Call me a freeper but I don't think the administration lied about WMD, no more than Clinton, Kerry, Clark, or Blair did.and put out fake Osama tapes,I don't think the government put out fake Osama tapes. then you are going to have to provide a lot more CREDIBLE, FACTUAL information than you have thus far if your purpose here is to be an objective participant interested in the truth.

[DulceDecorum]

128. Re: the sucker

vincent_vega_lives says:
Call me a freeper but I don't think the administration lied about WMD, no more than Clinton, Kerry, Clark, or Blair did.

The Top Ten Conservative Idiots (No. 112)
June 2, 2003
OMG WMD SNAFU Edition
Hey everybody, we've found the weapons of mass destruction! Well, actually we haven't yet. But that doesn't really matter, does it? Top of the list this week is the Bush Administration for the startling revelation that weapons of mass destruction were not the reason that we invaded Iraq! At least, they're not right now because we haven't found any. Or have we? According to George W. Bush (2) we have, but then I'd trust George W. Bush about as far as I could throw Rush Limbaugh.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/03/112.html

The Top Ten Conservative Idiots (No. 117)
July , 2003
The State Of The Union Is Wrong Edition
You know it's a big week for conservative idiocy when Michael Savage gets fired from MSNBC for making homophobic comments, and still only manages fifth place on the list. Yup, with the media finally latching on to the "Bush lied during the State of the Union Address" story, it's been tough to keep up with the idiots this week. In first place we have, of course, Our Great MisLeader and Captain Of Responsibility George W. Bush.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/03/117.html

MODS,
since vincent_vega_lives asked specifically and very politely,
is it still against the rules for us to call him a freeper?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/972389/posts

We ban conservative disruptors who are opposed to the broad goals of this website. If you think overall that George W. Bush is doing a swell job, or if you wish to see Republicans win, or if you are generally supportive of conservative ideals, please do not register to post, as you will likely be banned.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

[vincent_vega_lives]

129. So now rational thought is now a bannable offence?

I don't "overall that George W. Bush is doing a swell job" but I don't think the govenment lied about WMD either. GWB is NOT the US government, only one part of one branch out of three. The congress and the Democratic Leadership saw the same intell available to the POTUS, and came to the same conclusion.

In case you're not up on current events the last two guys I voted for (and most democrats as well) thought there were WMD in Iraq, and only disagreed with the way the current POTUS handled it.

If John Kerry were a member of DU he would be banned as a "conservative disruptor".

[vincent_vega_lives]

131. BTW DD

I notice you did end up calling me a freeper, as I am obviously a huge threat to your agenda, and would like nothing better to have me and other "counteroperatives" or whatever you want to call us, banned from DU.

I also notice you didn't address anything else in my post. Just the one thing I knew would get a response from some sucker.

[DulceDecorum]

186. Oh dear,

perhaps I misunderstood you.

vincent_vega_lives says:
I also notice you didn't address anything else in my post. Just the one thing I knew would get a response from some sucker.

vincent_vega_lives says:
90. I'm a sucker Abe.

[Abe Linkman]

245. Unsupported assertions, evasions etc. & you STILL can't explain...

Why only PARTS of ONE engine from a small jet were found. A B757 has two great big ones. Each weighs, what is it? 12,000 pounds, or is it 20,000 pounds? Fire damage that didn't even destroy an open dictionary certainly couldn't have consumed even ONE 757 engine, much less TWO.

You have failed utterly to acquit yourself of the charge: OCT salesman.
And, no one here is buying. Your only customers are your fellow travelers (three? four?... and one of them may have a multiple personality disorder - on display right here at DU.)

[vincent_vega_lives]

253. I have explained it multiple times

Apparently one of your multiple personnalites can't grasp it.

PARTS of ONE engine from a B757 were PHOTOGRAPHED. The parts MATCH those of a RR RB211-535E4.

No idea what an "OCT salesman" is Abe.

Lay out your claim Abe.

[tngledwebb]

254. They do match?

PROOF?

[Abe Linkman]

255. That photo is NOT of a part from the main engine of a B757.

A B757 engine is about 12ft wide.

Follow the logic, vv:

* DD proved that FL 77 was not scheduled to fly on 9/11.
* DD proved that FL 77 DIDN'T take off on 9/11.
* Therefore, even if any part of a B757 was found at the Pentagon, it wasn't from FL 77.

That's not a claim. That's the reality.

[MercutioATC]

256. Actually, DD did nothing of the sort.

She proved that the BTS database (which gets its information from the airlines themselves on a monthly basis) doesn't show any of the 9/11 flights scheduled that day.

That doesn't mean they didn't take off (in which case they'd still be on the ground). It means the airlines didn't include them in the data.

[Abe Linkman]

259. If you claim the flights were scheduled & took off...provide some proof.

You can't, because the truth is, they weren't scheduled for 9/11.

If you claim otherwise, then provide some proof.

[MercutioATC]

261. DNA of the passengers and crew at the crash sites, perhaps?

It seems that's the most reliable piece of evidence to prove that the planes took off and crashed where they were alleged to have crashed.

[Abe Linkman]

262. You failed to prove FL 77 took off, and you can't, because it didn't.

As many of us have claimed almost from the beginning, FL 77 didn't crash at the Pentagon. How could it? It wasn't scheduled to fly on 9/11 and it didn't.

[MercutioATC]

275. Abe, is the Bureau of Transportation Statistics a government agency?

Why do you put such a great stake in what the BTS has to say? You seem to use THEIR data as "proof" while denying the existance of certain DNA at the crash sites. Both reports come from government agencies.

Why do you have such great trust in the BTA?

[Sweet Pea]

279. You don't mean....

there is SELECTIVE STATISTICAL QUOTING here, do you????

:wow:

[tngledwebb]

267. DNA story is only from 'official' reports, and as has been noted,

official reports are not reliable. WMD's in Iraq were posited by official reports, and even various govt officials of reasonable integrity, such as Colin Powell, for the past two years, as you may recall. Now, the reports and testimony are deemed worthless by most MSM and many pols on both sides of the aisle. Official reports, especially those produced under the present admin, should never be construed as proof, or reliable evidence, at least by rational beings who have been keeping up with current events.

Chronically stating otherwise not only undermines your credibility, but calls into question your grasp of reality.

[AZCat]

268. DNA evidence is one of the things I struggle with...

There are a number of subjects related to September 11th that require a certain "technical sophistication" - either knowledge or instrumentation - that most of us do not have access to. This creates a situation where authorities whose objectivity has been questioned are the only source of information about the subject.

I do not know a good way to deal with this - I don't think it is reason enough to discount any official report because it remains a possibility that the information is not actually a lie. But without a method to double-check the information there doesn't seem to be any way of determining if it can be trusted.

[Abe Linkman]

269. Look at totality of evidence (or lack of), not just discrete claims

You can't prove Commander Bunnypants didn't use massive quanities of illegal substances, impregnated then-15-year-old Robin Lowman (and paid for her abortion), and went AWOL from his military obligation...but people who look at ALL of the known facts AND apply critical reasoning and THINKING skills, are more likely to latch onto the truth, than those who only examine discrete bits and bites of info. And, the less-informed amongst us are much more inclined to lazily accept whatever their "parents" (leaders) tell them.

P.S. When you are bombarded with disinformation every day, that doesn't make it any easier to figure things out correctly. And, most of what you get from MSM IS disinformation and irrelevancies.

[AZCat]

271. I unplugged from the MSM a long time ago precisely because of that

The MSM has long been an active participant in a campaign to promote apathy and incorrect information. I no longer own a television or listen to talk radio (including most of NPR). I still read newspapers occasionally, but I don't subscribe to any. The majority of my news comes from magazines, journals or the internet. I think I fit the profile of someone least likely to be distracted by the MSM (at least compared to other Americans).

Perhaps I am too much of a skeptic, but I do believe that it is important to examine discrete elements rigorously before incorporating them into a theory or discarding them as false or misleading. Maybe I end up not being able to see the proverbial forest but I feel that this is an issue that I cannot shift on - that it is essential to my nature. Criticize me for this if you want, but I don't think I'll ever be able to change.

[tngledwebb]

272. When we get to a court of law, we will subpoena the studies,

the reports, all the experts, and then some. At present the argument turns on the answer to one question: is it possible that this Admin is lying about what happened on 9/11?

Or, more specifically: is it possible that DNA results at the Pentagon site could have been falsified or rigged, or otherwise tampered with?

( Leaving aside the photographic evidence for the moment.)

[AZCat]

273. Yes, it is possible that the DNA results were falsified

You make a good point - it is important to first establish what is possible before working out either the paths by which such events would occur or whether the events are probable.

I believe that the DNA results could have been falsified based on three things (some info from 911 research . net):
1) The government has shown it has the capacity to lie (examples too numerous to list)
2) The FBI was in control of the evidence collection
3) The identification was run by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology and the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory


The three points IMHO prove the possibility that the DNA results were falsified, but determining if it actually happened is more difficult. I will try to post later on that subject - I don't have time right now.

[tngledwebb]

266. How do you know DD's gender?

n/t

[MercutioATC]

276. Because I can read.

It's a skill I learned early.

[vincent_vega_lives]

280. not the whole engine Abe.

Here we go again :eyes:

Abe offers this : "A B757 engine is about 12ft wide."

http://www.rolls-royce.com/media/gallery/civil/lrg_rb211535.htm

Sure the fan cowling is, but the aft compressor casing is not.



Note the part of the engine behind the fan turbine.

[vincent_vega_lives]

294. Crickets Abe

That's all I hear. You make an assertion about a "B757 engine" (very technical for you) and state: "That's not a claim. That's the reality"

In post 280 I present compelling technical evidence that the compressor disk (thats what you call it Abe) CERTAINLY could have come from a "B757 engine". And you have NO answer because it would seem a significant part of your theroy banks on the fact that the engine parts in the photos can't be from a Boeing 757.

BTW I have posted like evidence mulitiple times in the past, to include scans from engine line drawings, but have failed to penetrate your reinforced facade.

[seatnineb]

258. You've explained shit.......

Try this for size.......


Who hit the Pentagon? (Score:1)
by genka (148122) on Tuesday September 11, @11:01PM (#2284207)
(Last Journal: Tuesday March 04, @05:58PM)
I work in DC area. I listened to the radio around noon. They had several eyewitnesses descibing the Pentagon hit. All of them talked about "small commuter plane", not a large jet.

[MercutioATC]

277. Wanna link to that extremely short statement?

Sheesh...I shouldn't have to ask on something this flimsy..

[seatnineb]

278. So.......

Why are you asking?

[vincent_vega_lives]

281. If that's true

does that make you a shit-for-brains?

[seatnineb]

282. Come on Vince............

It took you 4 days..........and that is the best you got to offer........

You see if this is the case:
Several staffers saw a civilian airliner, reflecting white in the bright sunlight, appearing to circle nearby. Perhaps unable to spot the White House, the hijackers at the control of American Airlines Flight 77 dive-bombed the Pentagon instead
http://www.freepressinternational.com/sept10.html.

............then how the hell did this happen.........

WE FIRST HEARD there was a fire at the Pentagon and then there was a really low flying aircraft outside our window that nearly knocked out all the glass. It seemed to be heading straight for congress.
Harriet Anderson, Sheffield, England, but working in Washington D
http://www24.brinkster.com/kazim420/11c/usa/eyewitness.htm

So go ahead Vince.......

Make my day......

[vincent_vega_lives]

290. I take comfort in the fact that you

are not a detective. And I hope you are not an educator.

[seatnineb]

291. Why Vince....from you.....I take that as a compliment.....

.....here is some more testimony for you to trip over...

Perhaps you will care to enlighten us why the majority of your beloved penta eye-witnesses never bothered to mention the helicopter..............


"I was told by one witness, an Air Force enlisted - senior enlisted man, that he was outside when it occurred. He said that he saw a helicopter circle the building. He said it appeared to be a U.S. military helicopter, and that it disappeared behind the building where the helicopter landing zone is - excuse me - and he then saw fireball go into the sky."
CNN.COM



I heard a helicopter landing right outside our window and turned to watch it touchdown ...the helo pad is there and I wondered as I watched him land if this arrival had anything to do with the New York attack realizing it probably did not. I turned back to the computer and began reading the only breaking news report I had found about the attack. I was shocked in realizing what sort of hell must be taking place inside those towers.... Two hits and thousands of lives
snuffed out in seconds....

In that moment, I heard the most sensational noise.... a split second of high pitched whine followed by a booming echoing crash like nothing I have ever witnessed. The next few seconds seemed so much longer and are constantly replayed in my mind... I remember yelling out as I found myself on the floor and somehow being pushed against the wall.... glass and debris rained down on top of me as I came to the stark realization that it was happening to us as well...At that moment, I knew it was coming through and I quickly thought it strange that this might actually be it...The next second I was wondering if I could make it under the desk, and wasn't sure it would make a difference anyway.... And then, it suddenly seemed so quiet ...I simply could not believe that I was still there and not hurt...As I stood and turned however, I was met with the horrific sight of a wall of orange flames consuming the view against the window. I could feel the intensity of the heat... The glass had apparently come from the next office over through the false overhead (although I would only determine this later.)

http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/PentagonPersonalStory.html

[Old and In the Way]

19. Hi-Strength Aluminum alloy is pretty tough stuff

My handy-dandy Ryerson Steel catalog show Aluminum sheet 7075-T6 (aircraft fabrication grade)has a 83KSI rating for stength and ultimate shear of 48KSI. That matches up pretty well with hi-carbon steels....

[LARED]

20. Abe, I expected some answers to explain the pictures?

Not the same old message.

thin aluminum wings can cut thru steel beams

Why not?

Are you up to the task?

[DulceDecorum]

33. Steel wooden cut it.

010912-N-3235P-016 Arlington, Va. (Sep. 12, 2001) -- A piece of debris is embedded in a tree close to the site where a hijacked commercial airliner crashed into the Pentagon. American Airlines FLT 77 was bound for Los Angeles from Washington Dulles with 58 passengers and 6 crew. All aboard the aircraft were killed, along with 125 people in the Pentagon. U.S. Naval photo by Photographer’s Mate 1st Class Michael W. Pendergrass. (RELEASED)

http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=2457

LARED,
we expect some answers
to explain this photo which clearly shows
that Boeing-built thin aluminum wings
CANNOT cut thru a WOODEN PENTA-TREE.

Are you up to the task?

[LARED]

34. I need some answers first

Before even knowing of an answer can be wrought.

What speed did the debris hit the tree?

What material is the debris.

[tngledwebb]

35. A hint- that material is NOT from a Boing.

I know Dulce knew that. In fact I bet even Merc and Lared know that.

Not much of a hint then... sorry.

[LARED]

36. Sorry to dissappoint you

but I don't have a clue where the debris is from.

Why not let me in on the secret.

[tngledwebb]

37. The pics ex-plane themselves.

Pentagon photos are also highly self-ex-plane-a-story.

This particular WTC photo looks very suspicious for the reasons outlined.

There's surely a 'hole' made by something, perhaps a small plane or missile, but NOT by a Boing.

( Demo charges could also have been used, perhaps even set to blow supports inward. Or is that the way demo charges routinely explode?)

Regardless, if any sentient, even somewhat objective observer looks at this photo and still believes a Boing jetliner was completely ingested by this facade (via the clean-cut and painfully thin slits) they should seek pro help, now.

By all means first refer to DU's own soi-disant pro ATC's and pro engineers with links to Drexel U's website...

But you may find yourself hungry for more.

[LARED]

39. Not by a Boeing you say?

How did you figure that out?

[tngledwebb]

44. Simple-

If this Govt says it's true, it's not. Works everytime.

[Abe Linkman]

45. HELLO...you are correcto.

"Whatever it is, I'm against it" G. Marx

[LARED]

46. Simple..............

is appropriate.

[tngledwebb]

47. ROTPLLMAO

N/T

[DulceDecorum]

125. Simple Simon says: EXPLAIN THIS

010912-N-3235P-019 Arlington, Va. (Sep. 12, 2001) --Twisted wreckage and debris litter the grounds of the Pentagon following the deadly Sep. 11 terrorist attack in which a hijacked commercial airliner was crashed into the Pentagon. American Airlines FLT 77 was bound for Los Angeles from Washington Dulles with 58 passengers and 6 crew. All aboard the aircraft were killed, along with 125 people in the Pentagon. U. S. Naval photo by Photographer’s Mate 1st Class Michael W. Pendergrass. (RELEASED)
http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=2459

WHERDY GO?

[LARED]

132. Explain WHAT?????

Is there actually something to explain. Or is this just another obtuse post where everyone get to guess what you're talking about.

[DulceDecorum]

150. In Post Number 5

1. 'Wings' able to cut straight through steel beams and concrete walls, leaving only straight narrow 'slits', as if wings were made of reinforced steel or iron.

LARED said:
First of all the was no concrete in the walls of the WTC towers.
And anything harder than jello traveling at 400 to 500 miles per hour will cut through the facade and walls of the WTC. One only has to look at the image to see there are no narrow slits. Most of the perimeter columns where the slits are are bent back. That happens when really large objects impact a steel frame at several hundreds of miles per hour.



LARED,
Mr. Engineer,
Explain the marks on the walls.
And then tell us once and for all
WHERDY GO?

[LARED]

152. I am sure there is a question somewhere in there

My comment were regarding the WTC. You are showing pictures of the pentagon. They are separated by something like 300 miles. In case you are unaware of this, the building designs were not the same.

Is that picture even part of the impact area? That just might be an important piece of information. What marks have you so confused?

[DulceDecorum]

158. ... but only a question you CANNOT answer.

LARED says:
My comment were regarding the WTC. You are showing pictures of the pentagon. They are separated by something like 300 miles. In case you are unaware of this, the building designs were not the same.

Ahhh, a separation of 300 miles.
so that is why the thin aluminum wings can slice through the WTC
BUT
the thin aluminum wings VANISH when they encounter the MOther Of All Walls.

People,
the thin aluminum wings disappeared so very completely
that LARED himself is saying:
Is that picture even part of the impact area? That just might be an important piece of information. What marks have you so confused?

[vincent_vega_lives]

159. Thin aluminum wings

laiden with 10,000gal (30+ tons) of AVGAS cut through much of the "MOther Of All Walls" due to their inerta (f=m*a) and did indeed disintergrate and burn inside the pentagon. Only about 10' of either tip did not penetrate the Pentagon's 24" facade, and ended up as aluminum foil on the lawn.

[Abe Linkman]

160. PhotoBlocker spray made the 20 ft. "aluminum foil" invisible in photos.

"Only about 10' of either tip did not penetrate the Pentagon's 24" facade, and ended up as aluminum foil on the lawn."

"It's in the water, son. THAT'S what makes it YELLOW. New BearWiz Beer"...from the makers of PhotoBlocker spray and other secret products used by Magicians and 9/11 perps everywhere.

[vincent_vega_lives]

162. plenty of it in these photos

http://criticalthrash.com/terror.html

[Abe Linkman]

165. Plenty of evidence of an explosion, but 757 engine? WHERDY GO?

VVL: are you really saying that the reason why a 757 engine can't be seen in ANY of those photos taken moments after the explosion, is because the engine turned to confetti?

[vincent_vega_lives]

183. Nope

The engines, being the most dense objects on the aircraft penetrated the furthest into the Pentagon, so they would certainly have not been visible in these pics. I said the wingtips turned into the "aluminum foil" that is visible in these picks.

WHERDY GO ABE????? that is such an effective response BTW :eyes:

[DulceDecorum]

188. Touching

vincent_vega_lives
please tell us how the wingtips
damaged the Mother of All Walls
but yet left the windows unscathed.

[MercutioATC]

189. They didn't damage "the Mother of All Walls"...

...they damaged the limestone facing. That's like scratching the paint. The wall was only breached where the fuselage hit.

The windows were over 2 inches thick and weighed 400 pounds each. They were considerably more durable than limestone facing.

[DulceDecorum]

191. Just how hard are airplane windows

and what happens when a cockpit window meets up with a Penta-window?

And since the Penta-windows prevented the wings from entering the Pentagon,
and how come we don't see the Penta-wings lying stunned on the Penta-lawn?

[MercutioATC]

194. Not very hard...bird strikes have been known to break them.

In a contest between a cockpit window and a Pentagon window, the cockpit window would lose.

The wings ARE (partially) on the lawn. They're the aluminum confetti. The rest of them entered the building (but I suspect you knew that).

[vincent_vega_lives]

198. Have to disagree with you here ATC

"The wall was only breached where the fuselage hit."

Not true, the wall was breached where the fuselage hit making about 15' x 15' hole. The wings made a 10' x 100' hole. The area of the wing that did contain fuel DID penetrate the 2' facade.

[tngledwebb]

203. Anyone ever see a photo of the 10 x 100' hole?

Even a good clear photo of the 15' square hole? That oddly symmetrical opening that allowed egress to an entire Boeing, albeit with wings folded neatly back.

[vincent_vega_lives]

204. Well if anyone cares to look

you can see the reminants of the hole post collapse. Just to the left of the collapsed portion, at ground level, and extending just past the collapsed area, at the 2nd story level, on the right.



Ironicly this pic on "Hunt the Boeing" shows it clearly. You can see the part where the facade is undercut to the left, and heavily dammaged to the right of the collapsed area.

[Abe Linkman]

210. Are you sure that's an AA plane?

n/t

[tngledwebb]

217. No, need to see the hole itself, a photo of the hole you referred to.

Got one?

[vincent_vega_lives]

219. You are looking at it.

If you could create a fantasy world where events were neat and tidy, and laid out in front of your face, there would be no smoke, no foam, and no collapsed portion to obscure the "proof" you require. Unfortunately the real world requires critical thinking.




How do think those I beams were knocked out and the facade undercut?

[tngledwebb]

221. 'If only I could put smilies here' comes to mind.

n/t

[tngledwebb]

240. This does not show the 10 x 100' hole.

This was taken the following day, far overhead, after the 'collapse' covered up the 'hole', and with a Boeing super-imposed. It's interesting in other many ways, but surely there are better ones, even on the site you pulled this from.

But newbies, please feel free to 'Hunt the Boeing' yourselves.

[vincent_vega_lives]

197. most of those windows look pretty damaged to me

those windows were blast resistant, so many survived. You can see in the top pic where the wing hit pretty clearly. To the right of the collapsed section, at the second story level. To the right of the collapsed section and 1st story level, you can see where the wings actually penetrated the facade, it is being propped up by stacking 6" pilings. There the I beam supports were knocked out.

In the bottom pic the wing tip hit to the right of the tree, at about 10' in height.

[DulceDecorum]

192. According to your buddy, MercutioATC

They didn't damage "the Mother of All Walls"...
...they damaged the limestone facing. That's like scratching the paint. The wall was only breached where the fuselage hit.
The windows were over 2 inches thick and weighed 400 pounds each. They were considerably more durable than limestone facing.

vincent_vega_lives says:
Thin aluminum wings
laiden with 10,000gal (30+ tons) of AVGAS cut through much of the "MOther Of All Walls" due to their inerta (f=m*a) and did indeed disintergrate and burn inside the pentagon. Only about 10' of either tip did not penetrate the Pentagon's 24" facade, and ended up as aluminum foil on the lawn.

Where did the AVGAS go?
I want MercutioATC to answer that one.
And then I want to see some mush.

[MercutioATC]

195. There was no "AVGAS"

AvGas is used in piston engines.

I believe what you want to know is where the "Jet-A" went.

"The wing fuel tanks are located primarily within the inner half of the wings. The center of gravity of these tanks is approximately one-third of the wing length from the fuselage. Considering this tank position and the physical evidence of the length of each wing that could not have entered the building, it appears likely that not more than half of the fuel in the right wing could have entered the building. While the full volume of the left wing tank was within the portion of the wing that might have entered the building, some of the fuel from all tanks rebounded upon impact and contributed to the fireball. Only a portion of the fuel from the left and right wing tanks and the center fuselage tank actually entered the building."

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

There's your answer.

[vincent_vega_lives]

200. That makes sense.

"One third of the wing length from the fuselage" would mean that the hole in the pentagon would be 86' across, which is the with of the collapsed section and then some.

I estimated the width of the collapsed section to be the aproximate width between the two engines.

[vincent_vega_lives]

199. The Jet A aviation fuel.

"Where did the AVGAS go?" Mostly into the Pentagon, igniting the fire. Some splashed at the foot of the Pentagon, hence the fires there.

[DulceDecorum]

239. Did the jetfuel fire burn the inside of the plane?

And where were the passenger seats and such when the fire started?
Did they catch on fire?

Were the passenger seats and such
INSIDE the Pentgon?
Or were they OUSIDE the Pentagon?
Wherdy go?

[MercutioATC]

241. Within a couple of seconds of impact, there WAS no plane....

The "passenger seats and such" were in little bitty pieces with the rest of the plane and, mixed with the unburned jet fuel, did the damage to the interior of the Pentagon.

"The damage pattern throughout the building and the locations of fatalities and aircraft components, together with the deformation of columns, suggest that the entire aircraft disintegrated rapidly as it moved through the forest of columns on the first floor. As the moving debris from the aircraft pushed the contents and demolished exterior wall of the building forward, the debris from the aircraft and building most likely resembled a rapidly moving avalanche through the first floor of the building."

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

[DulceDecorum]

286. The "passenger seats and such"

were in little bitty pieces with the rest of the plane and, mixed with the unburned jet fuel, did the damage to the interior of the Pentagon.
-- MercutioATC

Oh,
the turbulence of your prose
is unmatched by the actuality of the crash.
http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=2479

Only the facade ventures forth in black-face.
http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=2463

Why, even the pages do hardly flutter at the passage of the Penta-Boeing.
http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=2454

WHERDY GO?
http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=2453

Authorities did not rule out finding people in adjacent areas after a WRECKING BALL could be used to clear unstable debris, but they did not appear confident of that possibility.
http://multimedia.belointeractive.com/attack/news/pentagon0913.html

Using the formula F= MA
calculate the force generated by
A) a regular Boeing 757 hitting a wall,
B) a wrecking ball hitting a wall,
C) a figment of your imagination hitting a wall.

[MercutioATC]

293. Nice post-collapse photos, Dulce.

The collapse happened well after the crash. In the collapse, portions of the building that were not damaged by the initial crash or subsequnt fire were exposed.

That's what you're seeing.

[vincent_vega_lives]

249. Inside

and yes they burned.

[vincent_vega_lives]

157. Good pic

The damage to the facade was done by the tips of the wings which are light compared to the much wider and fuel laiden part. If you were pan right you would find that the wall is missing along with several I beam supports, which you can see exposed here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/attack/pentagon_7.html

http://criticalthrash.com/terror.html

[Bolo Boffin]

257. What did cause that damage, Dulce?

Care to advance a hypothesis or two?

[DulceDecorum]

284. Was it

Barby the Harpy's big-ass head?
Or was it
Barby the Harpy's big ass?

[Sweet Pea]

287. T'would be nice.....

to carry on a substantive and intellectually satisfying debate with someone who makes sense.

But hey! That's just me.

:)

[DulceDecorum]

288. Heads or Tails?

that Barby the Harpy was hard-headed and had a pointy tail.
We also know that Barby the Harpy
had solid grey matter in both her cranium and her colon.

Something hard smacked into the Pentagon wall.

Was it her jawbone?
Or her ass?
Her eye, or her thigh?
Her ear, or her rear?

You be the judge.

[seatnineb]

289. The report about Propagandin' Barbie's

...........untimely demise was pretty quick off the mark ,wouldnt you say ,Sweety.......


Barbara Olson, former federal prosecutor & staple on
political commentary shows, died in the plane crash at
the Pentagon. She was able to use her cell phone to
call her husband, Solicitor-General Ted Olson, and
tell him that her plane had been hijacked.

(((shudder)))
posted by davidmsc at 3:00 PM PST on September 11
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/10034.........

It beat CNN's account of Barbies' fate by a couple of hours.......

Wife of Solicitor General alerted him of hijacking from plane

September 12, 2001 Posted: 2:06 AM EDT (0606 GMT)
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/pentagon.olson.

[tngledwebb]

109. Five non-answers, in pseudo-sci gobbledygook!

From an ex Drexel student! Well, having known some college grads, even a few Phd's, this doesn't surprise.

In fact it re-affirms the premise that soi-disant experts in 'engineering' should not, prima facie, be trusted to analyze data, or, apparently, even read English.

Btw, how does one know this poster is sort of an engineer? Because he said so! And posted a link to DU website! Anyone need more proof?

[MercutioATC]

110. And your technical expertise, tngledwebb?

Why is is that those here that categorically refuse to divulge any credentials are the first to question those that do?

[tngledwebb]

111. Ex- CIA, USAF Desert Storm Vet,

PHD in Physics from M.I.T., and so on. How's that?

[MercutioATC]

113. That's your stated bio?

I just want to make sure I can quote you...

[vincent_vega_lives]

117. Nothing worse

than a poser.

[tngledwebb]

119. How' bout proving that Mercutio ATC is indeed

a full time Quentin Tarentino fan Gen-X DU poster? If he SAYS so, it's true. Let him alone.

[vincent_vega_lives]

121. Funny how that works... but I belive him

based on his posts. Plus I trust him. I notice that the anti-CT'ers are a lot more forthcoming about themselves and their backgrounds than any of the ones who espouse the vast 9-11 conspiricy.

[MercutioATC]

137. Name your proof. I'll try to accomodate.

Short of a street address or SSN I'm willing to answer questions.


Doubt I'm an ATC? Ask away.

[LARED]

122. Very Very Impressive

A doctorate in Physics from MIT no less. Ex-CIA, USAF Desert Storm vet to boot. You clearly are an elite segment of society.

What was your Doctorate thesis? I would love to hear about it or even better maybe read it.

Air Force, desert storm. Are you a pilot? Something else? Tell me more.

CIA experience to boot. I know you can't tell us much, but what area did you work in? Did you work in the field? Overseas?

Your extensive background does make me wonder though. Ex-CIA, Desert Storm, an elite university? Sounds like BFEE material to me?

Do you know Papa Bush?

Also I have to admit, that given your CV, I'm puzzled by your belief that the wings could not slice through the WTC facade and steel columns. I mean after all, how could I not take seriously the thoughts of a person with a PHD in Physics from MIT? Yet I wonder, if water can slice through steel and aircraft aluminum is nearly equal in strength to the WTC CS, why can't the wings slice through the columns?

Given your extensive knowledge of physics, and other experiences in the Air force please tell me (and others) why the wings could not slice through the steel? Please keep it as simple as possible for those with less education than you.

[LARED]

124. It could be just a typo but most folks I know

particularly those with PhD's, would use PhD rather than PHD.

[DulceDecorum]

127. And most engineers I know

do NOT take WEEKS to figure out the two major branches of chemistry.
Or how Kevlar responds to heat.

And most ATCs I know
can intelligently comment on the NEED to ROUTINELY turn transponders off.

tngledwebb has claimed to have a PHD in Physics from M.I.T.
tngledwebb has claimed to be Ex- CIA, USAF Desert Storm Vet, and so on.

WHY should we doubt him?
(Any more than we doubt YOUR claim to YOUR qualifications?)

[LARED]

130. Please stop lying about this

As pointed out perhaps ten times by now, I answered your question regarding chemistry in a short time period. Even if I did not know the answer, a quick google search will get one an answer in ten second.

So cut the crap.

[DulceDecorum]

166. The days stretched into weeks

before you were able to answer.
Several times you demanded that others provide you with the information.

Your predicament is recorded on the Penta-threads.
So cut the crap
and
Please stop lying about this.

[Abe Linkman]

167. Please explain what "crap" you are talking about.

What exactly is the "crappola" you are talking about? Is it true that you aren't a graduate engineer, and that you don't have an engineering degree from Drexel University? Is THAT what you are talking about?

I don't understand what your point is. Don't you understand why people might be suspicious when you can't answer a question that any graduate engineer should be able to answer in a heartbeat?

[LARED]

168. Cut the crap is a request for DD to stop lying

Very simple.

[Abe Linkman]

169. That's a serious charge, "lared". DD has a reputation for high integrity.

Wouldn't it make more sense to reserve charges like that for people such as:

TED OLSON, COMMANDER BUNNYPANTS,

the CIA (who always use the same lie to deny their involvement in unsavory actions: "incompetent?, sure. negligent? of course. largest distributor of LSD in the country as part of an effort to undermine the Ant-Vietnam War resistance? no way, agents would surely bungle such a thing. CIA as biggest crack distributor in the U.S. - to raise money for the Contras? wouldn't have a clue about how to sell drugs to homies in South Central"),

RUMSFELD ("missile struck the Pentagon"), even CLINTON ("I never had relations with THAT woman")...

but DD is a liar? C'mon. You apologize right now, "lared".

[MercutioATC]

171. DD has a reputation for lengthy posts with lots of links.

Also, for bizarre segues.

Integrity is in the eye of the beholder.

[LARED]

172. Are you DD's lawyer?

I'm sure DD can easily debunk my statement by going to the archives.

If he accused me of lying that's where I would be.

[Abe Linkman]

173. No, I'm the judge...and the court finds you GUILTY of libel.

If you appeal the decision and win a decision granting you a retrial, I'm going to order that you be tried jointly with TED OLSON.

[MercutioATC]

174. Finally! Abe claims an occupation!

:eyes:

[LARED]

176. Judge???? Guilty??? Typical Abe logic

No evidence, no facts, just bluster and BS.

[Abe Linkman]

179. Too late for either of you Defendants to plead "Diminshed Capacity".

GUILTY, as charged. The verdict stands and no presentation of error as grounds for an appeal is permitted under the latest PATRIOT ACT. "Bailif, whack 'em both on the pee-pee, then lock 'em up".

[MercutioATC]

180. Wow! Abe's a judge who supports Patriot II...

...you learn something new every day.

[LARED]

181. Judge Abe and Diminshed Capacity in the same sentence

works for me. :)

[MercutioATC]

182. That thought had crossed my mind...

[DulceDecorum]

184. RE: the short time period

Tue Dec-23-03 12:09 PM
DULCEDECORUM
41. Point taken
And they would have to be able to name the two major branches of chemistry on demand.
And also be able to accurately define elastomeric temperatures in their own words.
A quick look at the work of Mr. Davis indicates that he must have studied at a college other than the one you attended, Lared.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=4711&mesg_id=4788&page=

Feb-23-03, 05:25 PM (ET)
LARED
80. Organic and inorganic
Your turn.
I'm ready for my remedial math lesson. Getting a cup of coffee. BRB
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=5585&forum=DCForumID43#80

Feb-23-03, 06:13 PM (ET)
LARED
84. Still waiting
for my math lesson.
As a side note
If you recall I asked what the big deal about the Kevlar was and now I know. All those weeks of waiting and boy am I disappointed. So things melt at different temperature. I'm impressed.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=5585&forum=DCForumID43#84

LARED says:
As pointed out perhaps ten times by now, I answered your question regarding chemistry in a short time period. Even if I did not know the answer, a quick google search will get one an answer in ten second.
So cut the crap.

LARED, I asked that question BEFORE December 23, 2003.
You answered on it on February 23, 2004.
Ten seconds, eh?
Google usually works faster than that.

[LARED]

187. Nice try DD

Tue Dec-23-03 12:09 PM
DULCEDECORUM
41. Point taken
And they would have to be able to name the two major branches of chemistry on demand.
And also be able to accurately define elastomeric temperatures in their own words.
A quick look at the work of Mr. Davis indicates that he must have studied at a college other than the one you attended, Lared.

My reponse was posted a short while later

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=4711&mesg_id=4789&page=

Tue Dec-23-03 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #41

42. How boring can this get?

.....So boring that you continue to believe those questions were never answered.

So boring that you somehow think those questions are even meaningful.

So boring I can only surmise that the inability to understand this can only be attributed to willful ignorance.

So boring you seem to spend all your time baiting me to say something marginally inappropriate so the MODs can be alerted.

DD, why not engage in some discourse for a change?

Obvisiouly not much has changed.

[DulceDecorum]

285. Congratualtions, LARED

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

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

[DulceDecorum]

149. With all due respect

(which in your case means NONE)
I do have an active life off this message board,
which is why I do in fact personally speak to actual real-life Air Traffic Controllers, both civilian and military.
And as for real-life engineers, I have taken to showing them LARED's posts over coffee. Unfortunately, this has caused such strong reactions as to have some of them banned from a certain cafeteria since they could not contain their laughter and derision. And neither could their high school children.

vincent_vega_lives states:
You don't know any engineers nor air traffic controlers. In fact, if you posts are idicative of anything, I would say you don't know any real people at all. :crazy:

vincent_vega_lives
perhaps you can substantiate your allegation.
And prove SOMETHING for once in your short stubby life.

[Name removed]

153. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

155. Deleted message

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

[vincent_vega_lives]

156. Double Wow

I actually give you a complement and it gets deleted!

Go figure? :shrug:

[MercutioATC]

135. You have an issue with my transponder comments?

Yes, transponders need to be turned off. When a plane lands, the transponder is turned off for the following reasons:

1) Electronic clutter at the airport.

2) The need to free up that transponder code for another flight plan. There are only 4096 available transponder codes and some of them are reserved for special use. If planes didn't turn off their transponders when they landed, there simply wouldn't be enough codes.

Which of these explanations do you take issue with?

[DulceDecorum]

151. How many civilian planes

can the US National airspace accomodate if there are fewer than 4096 available transponder codes?
How so?
What is the difference between Mode A and Mode C and Mode S?
And that is just the beginning....

[Sweet Pea]

154. LOL...

How many are flying VFR and squawking 1200? The answer: the vast majority.

BTW...the only time I ever turned my IFF off in flight was when we were joined with a lead aircraft with us as the wingman - having two squawks so close together was a guaranteed mess on a ATC scope.

One of the *first* things we learned was indeed, as soon as you clear the runway, off goes the IFF.

[MercutioATC]

161. Ah! A substantive question! An answer:

The national airspace accomodates as many planes as it does because, even though flight plans transfer from facility to facility, each facility's computer knows which codes are still available for its airspace and reassigns a different code to the flight plan if necessary. An example:

AAL1 departs LAX bound for LaGuardia on a code of 2222. That code isn't in use at other facilities along its route of flight until it reaches Chicago Center. In Chicago center, UAL2 is already using 2222. Chicago Center's computer assigns a new transponder code to AAL1...code 3333. The first controller in Chicago Center that talks to AAL1 tells the pilot to change the squawk to 3333. 3333 is also unused in Cleveland Center's airspace, so AAL1 keeeps 3333 as its code. A flight plan filed from White Plains airport (In New York Center's airspace) has already been assigned 3333, however. New York Center's computer assigns AAL1 a new code, 4444. The first controller in New York Center's airspace tells the pilot to squawk 4444.....and so on...

Mode A : 4-digit base-8 transponder code.

Mode C : Altitude encoding.

Mode S : A transponder "serial number" assigned to each individual aircraft. Unlike Mode A and Mode C, Mode S is not recieved by civilian ATC computers.

Other questions? Ask away.

[k-robjoe]

27. Wings

What I was interested in discussing, was the wings hitting the concrete slabs "along the latitude".
It seems clear that the wings couldn´t demolish the concrete slabs. So it must have been the explosion.

But right now, I´m more interested in discussing the latest Karl Schwartz article. See my thread : "Karl Schwartz - part three".

( All this about wings and walls and collapses and all can be interesting to discuss - if you have one or two participants that don´t "go into a loop" - but what is really decisive, for me, is found elsewhere. )

[tngledwebb]

71. Here we go loop de loop, here we go loop de lie

Guided by the spirit of ace flying student Haji Hanjour, with the professional assistance of those in the relevant areas of flight traffic control and flight simulator training, not to mention engineering, physics and organic gardening.

But agree with you if you mean to show how the cuts oddly align with floor-lines, seem to have been made by demo charges, not by a Boeing, and any wings should have folded back on impact, ala the p-gon, or at at least the WTC walls would not show such definite 'wing' shaped outlines. Also would apply to the second hit 'hole'.

Or, if anyone cares to post the Purdue study diagram, we can prove the opposite sometimes occurs, at least in the re-enforced p-gon.

Are you also saying the floor location of the hit is suspicious in pinpointing offices containing incriminating evidence of financial links? Agreed, and adds credibility to either 'no plane' or something very small, as seen in Naudet video. This vehicle may have been required to cover for the demo charges, and to insert additional explosives ensuring all evidence was obliterated.

[demodewd]

28. peculiar lack of floors

http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=4372&sid=209e601590a51d45ef224fb76508224f

A pyrophoric entry mechanism would certainly ensure that the aircraft was able to fully pierce the aluminum over steel . However, there is a subtle impact pattern on the surface of the WTC which occurs alongside the entry that fits perfectly with a thermobaric explosion going off inside the building. This also explains the peculiar lack of floors in the impact area. Floors which likely would have sliced the fuselage in half and hence had to be removed for proper deployment of the Shock and Awe Incendiary Device.

Then there is the Depleted Uranium Dildo which can clearly be seen casting a massive shadow across the face of the South Tower as it exits the opposite side. I can't see a standard aircraft eggshell thin aluminum fuselage emerging seemingly untouched and *white hot* trailing dense black clouds of atomized material. So the flash upon entry and the subsequent exit intact are also consistent with a pyrophoric material.

Given the massive amount of "depleted" uranium available for use , I could see use of DU but after much thought Tungsten is also a strong possibility:

Quote:

Appearance: white to gray white solid. May cause eye and skin irritation. May cause respiratory and digestive tract irritation. Flammable solid. Danger! Pyrophoric. Spontaneously flammable in air. May be pyrophoric and become spontaneously flammable in air. May cause eye and skin irritation. May cause adverse reproductive effects based upon animal studies.



White/gray-white, flammable in air and pyrophoric describe *exactly* what is apparent in the video until someone develops a convincing theory that does not include Boyle's Law

[Abe Linkman]

29. What is the Official explanation for what that exiting object is? n/t

n/t

[LARED]

40. It's a jet engine.

Amazinginly if you follow the object in any of the videos that show it exiting, it winds up on the same corner that a large part of a jet engine was found.

This has been discussed about a dozen times. Did you miss them somehow?

[Abe Linkman]

41. Looks like a POD. Got any proof (Official Story cite) for YOUR claim?

If that's an engine, it's gotta be one of MercuriousATC's "Magic Engines".

Sorry, I can't accept your word for it. If you have any proof, kindly post it. Your claims too often lack a certain...credibility.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[Abe Linkman]

53. Okey Dokey -- but, wouldn't you be more credible if you had some proof?

It's obviously not an engine coming out the other side of the building, so what exactly is it? Missile head, ATC's body in a wrap? What?

All we want is some proof, and you don't seem to have any.

[LARED]

55. Obviously ????

It's obviously not an engine coming out the other side of the building, so what exactly is it?


You tell me. You've said it was a pod??????????? Obviously you must have some proof.


All we want is some proof, and you don't seem to have any.

The proof was sitting on the corner of Church and Murry St. A jet engine. As for any proof of a pod, I humbly await you providing some.

[Abe Linkman]

56. Please stop misstating my positions. Thank you. Now, are you really...

going to use "Sweet Pea" (sic) logic here and try to imply that IF a jet engine was "found" on a corner, THEN that strange object seen emerging from the tall building in the WTC MUST BE that very same jet engine. It just lost it's protective cloak during the float down from the tower, right?

Could that object be a MISSILE? One of M-ATC's "Magic Wands"? The noze
of a Beedee jet? Your grandfather's moustache?

[LARED]

57. As soon as you stop changing your position I can address it

You are the one that said it looked like a pod. Whatever a pod is????

Abe this is simple logic. A plane enters WTC at high speed. Round cylindrical looking object exits back of tower in a cloud of dust. Object falls away landing at the corner of Church and Murry. People look at it and discover it's part of a jet engine.

I can only assume as you believe its a pod entering the tower, and that the pod held jet engine parts to fool people into believing a Jet (a Jet that millions just watched on TV, and ten of thousands watched from the streets of NYC) flew into the WTC.

Or maybe I've got you all wrong Abe, and you really believe something but just can't quite make up your mind. So what it it?

[Abe Linkman]

58. Most trained engineers are careful & take pains to be accurate, so it's ..

difficult to believe you really are an engineer, but then maybe Drexel has lowered their admission standards in recent years.

I did say that it "looks" like a pod. I never said that it is a pod, or even that I believe it is a pod.

And, it DOES "look" like a pod. It looks nothing like a jet engine, and I don't have a clue about why you are using fallacious reasoning to try and convince weak-minded DUers that IF a jet struck the WTC and IF a jet engine was allegedly found (never mind how it may gotten there) on the street, THEN that MUST MEAN the found jet engine came from the jet that allegedly struck the WTC building and THEREFORE the strange looking object seen exiting the building HAS TO BE the/a jet engine from the aircraft that struck the building. WHY? As any fool can plainly see: that object looks NOTHING like a jet engine.

Wouldn't it be better if you just stopped with the nonsense about being some kind of engineer? And, while you're at it, go get something that can provide you with some occular relief...then go back and have a look at the photo in question.

If you'd like to issue an apology, it would certainly be in order. But, it's okay to wait until after you've done something about your current visual impairment. Hopefully, that is something which will pass soon. If you're going to play like an engineer, you need good eyes, AND YES, you also need good analytical skills and the ability to reason with logic. But, one thing at a time. Now, scram.

[LARED]

70. I think a long vacation is in order.

It looks nothing like a jet engine, and I don't have a clue about why you are using fallacious reasoning to try and convince weak-minded DUers that IF a jet struck the WTC and IF a jet engine was allegedly found (never mind how it may gotten there) on the street, THEN that MUST MEAN the found jet engine came from the jet that allegedly struck the WTC building and THEREFORE the strange looking object seen exiting the building HAS TO BE the/a jet engine from the aircraft that struck the building. WHY? As any fool can plainly see: that object looks NOTHING like a jet engine.

If you are really unsure a jet struck the WTC, I suggest you take a long vacation.

If you really believe your above statement, then it is quite pointless to continue any conversation.

[Abe Linkman]

74. Truth hurts, but YOU are the one trying to maintain an unproven claim.

The issue is the object seen exiting the WTC. It is not a large commercial jet airliner.

To date, it isn't known what the object is, so wouldn't it be better to STOP using fallacious arguments to try and fool people, "lared"?

[LARED]

75. Abe, take comfort in knowing that some people ARE fooled by your

position if it help you. But the majority see right thru it.

[Abe Linkman]

95. Dance all you want to, "lared" - but that object IS NO jet engine.

They really did lower the admissions standards at DU, and now we all have to live with the consequences.

[LARED]

98. We?

Use the ignore button. That's what its there for.

[vincent_vega_lives]

91. Doesn't a jet engine look like a fuking POD?

Engine Pod Abe. Its a type of pod. And you are tying to base a whole theory on a crapy peice of video when you have perfectly good pics of an fuking engine siting in the street, with a trajectory to match. It don't take a rocket scientist.

Talk about "good analytical skills and the ability to reason with logic"...you take the cake.

[vincent_vega_lives]

92. BTW Abe

Does that compressor disk look familier? Similar to those used in a RB535E4?

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[MercutioATC]

50. Return of the PODS!!!!

I thought we'd seen the last of them.

:eyes:

[Abe Linkman]

54. You think THAT'S what it is?

It's a very curious looking whatever it is, and I wouldn't ordinarily defer to the judgement of someone who lack of knowledge about these kinds of thing so painful to behold, but if you think it's a pod, that's fine by me...and besides, none of your co-workers (or bosses) know you post here, so what's one more oddity in your big bag of 9/11 "Magical Things".

[MercutioATC]

59. You're the one who mentioned a "pod". I thought it was funny.

The whole pod issue has been thoroughly debunked.

What makes you think that my coworkers and bosses don't know I post here? "Theories" like these BEG to be shared...

[demodewd]

61. sucker

The whole pod issue has been thoroughly debunked.

Translate. You have attempted to debunk the pod issue along with some of your government theory compatriots on this board. Don't be dishonest and misrepresent "debunk". You have no substantial professional sources for your "debunking" Its all you and lared and a few others. There is no professional basis for your statement yet you make it sound that way.

More correctly the pod issue is not addressed by anyone in government circles. It's among a list of hundreds of legitimate questions and points of inquiry that are ignored by government bureaucrats(911 Commission) and sycophantic mass media pundits. These are the people that you have been conditioned over the years to believe and support.

Everything you contribute to this forum is just a regurgitation of government speak. The rich capitalize on conditioning the masses and people like you to give State justification for their treachery. George Bush needs you and he has you.And you think because you are a Democrat that you aren't a part of their sucker parade? Think again.

[MercutioATC]

63. Oh really?

It hasn't only been me. As I recall, at least one professional pilot also provided quite detailed analyses refuting the "pod" claim (and that silly "fuel sprayer" idea).

By the way, the "alien death ray issue" is not addressed by anyone in government circles, either. There's a reason for that...

[demodewd]

64. intellectually dishonest

Well... a singular pilot..who? And so what? There's no extensive government investigation into any of the apparent not fully explained anomalies. The case was closed two hours after the fact and you bought into it.

And again you argue from a point of disingenuous association. You continuously link the "jet sprays",thereby attempting to weaken the pod possibility by associating the jet sprays with it. Link up a weak point with a better one and let 'er fly. You do this. And it is intellectually dishonest. And that's essentially what I think of you. You are intellectually dishonest. Irrespective of what opinions you hold. Silly boy.

[MercutioATC]

65. Oh? YOU'RE the one who introduced the "fuel sprayers"...

Now you're describing your own argument as a "weak point"?

You're the one who made a big deal of some imaginary "fuel sprayers" and I'm being "intellectually dishonest" for mentioning them?

Interesting.

The "pod" claim was bogus from the start. A few people provided numerous reasons why. One of the reasons is that the "pod" would have taken the place of the starboard main landing gear assembly. When this was explained, you replied:

"Why would the plane need a landing gear assembly? Hmmmm? Too bad I interupt your hardened set of reality principles.Maybe someday you'll have the capacity to step away from your present day vapidity and see things more sharply."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=16223#16413

...of course, failing to reason that, without a really big slingshot, an airplane DOES need all three landing gear assemblies to take off...


"Intellectually dishonest"? Whatever.

[MrSammo1]

67. The real way

of debuking a "pod" plane.......is with another pod plane. You know.......the way Myth Busters would do it. Actually trying to recreate the effect?

[MercutioATC]

69. Why not? We have plenty of big buildings left in NYC....

Please. You're serious?

[MrSammo1]

237. My point is

a simple one. With all the jets that take off and land at airports, surely the anomaly can be recreated? All that is need is a video camera and a jet with the sun at the same angle and height as it was that day.

[Abe Linkman]

238. Very good idea. Who could possibly oppose it? Let's see...

well, no OBJECTIVE person could. That leaves just the usual suspects, whom I predict will:

* Try to spin away the idea as being impractical.

* Agree to it, provided the "test" is done by a Government-sponsored
group like the ASCE group.

[MercutioATC]

242. Not me. Go for it. Re-enact the scenario.

I'm not going to spin anything or demand the test be done by any government-sponsored group (although we both know that the ASCE is a prefessional society, not a "government-sponsored group").

I'd be interested in your results.

I do reserve the right to ask questions, however.

[demodewd]

68. silly silly

You're being intellectually dishonest for mentioning the "fuel spray" with the pod and you have done this before.And you are being intellectually dishonest now for misconstruing my previous statement on the matter. Whatever you are you are most certainly intellectually dishonest.

Yes I've heard your argument that a landing gear assembly would be interupted by said pod. But you afford no accomodation for possible retrofitting that could accomodate both. That is a possibility...

So we have an object(POD) that is discernable on multiple different cameras with a discernable piping and a discernable flash to the right of the nose. But they can't exist even though they are present according to your reasoning(?).

I've described the fuel spray possibility as "weak" before but I don't completely dismiss it. and I have told you this before. But you insist upon going back to page one as a way of demeaning my imput. 'Lets start over by disparaging the pod situation by reintroducing the spray element ,conjoining them and thusly giving the spray factor basically equal weight when demodewd had already placed some doubts as to its(spray fuel) complicity.' You compromise my pod argument with a weaker rider. And since the spray factor is "silly" why then everything is "silly".

[MercutioATC]

76. The "pod" argument is weak enough on its own. It doesn't need any help.

I must have missed the post where you previously described the "fuel sprayer" idea as weak. You frequently mentioned both the "pod" and the "fuel sprayers" (which are actually blade antennae) in the same threads.

Now, onto the pod.

IF a pod was present, one of two things must have been true:

1) It was on the original airplane (the one with the passengers and crew) or,

2) It was on a "replacement plane".

If it was on the original plane, it would have been detected before the plane ever left the ground by ground crew personnel, caterers, air traffic controllers and, most importantly, by the pilot during the walkaround he does before every flight. Since none of these people saw anything, I think it's safe to assume that the pod was not on the original plane.

Since the only possibility remaining is that the pod was on a "replacemant plane" (which would have taken the original plane's place in mid-flight), we're faced with the following problems:

1) Radar data does not show more than one plane. No replacement plant meeting up with the original plane and no original plane flying in another direction. Stealth 767s are not an option.

2) I'd like to see ANY report that explains how a 767 can have one of its main gear retrofitted to a different position and still be airworthy. They don't just stick the wheels on as an aftersight...the structure of the plane must support the loads that the gear transfer to the wings and fuselage.

3) A "replacement plane" would be just that...a replacement - one without the original passengers and crew. This leaves an entire empty 767 fuselage to work with. Even if your claim that the explosions needed to me more "Hollywoodesque" than a normal 767 crash would create, why make alterations to the exterior that would effect the aerodynamics and draw attention to the fact that this plane was different? Why not pack the empty fuselage with explosives or fuel? It simply makes no sense.

In fact, that's the real problem with the entire "pod" theory. It makes no sense.

[Abe Linkman]

81. I realize cops only react instinctly, but pls. - learn some logic.

Your argument is illogical and would only appeal to people who can't THINK. Really, it's almost insulting. It would be more appropriate on a Monster.com forum than at DU. Too many smart people here who can see through poorly reasoned claims and fallacious arguments.

[MercutioATC]

82. Will YOU explain what's illogical about it, Abe?

...pretty please?

[demodewd]

97. pod,piping,flash and OVW

Obviously it was not on the original Flight 77. Why would you bother bringing this up?

It was on a replacement flight. In that the Pentagon was running Operation Vigilant Warrior which included live fly bys via drones,a replacement is quite feasible.Radar showed as many as 22 unidentified planes and inserted blips over NEADS because of the 5 different excercises being conducted that morning.

The main gear did not have need to be retrofitted to a different position.It possibly was folded into a different area or extended somewhat in length. Maybe it was ejected after takeoff?? FTS..a flight termination system is standard fare on jets and planes retrofitted to terminate(explode) by remote control.This is a standard as a external attachment on the undercarraige of the plane.

The fuselage was packed with fuel.as the plane that flew into the WTC2 was a Boeing 767 cargo plane. The FTS guaranteed an immediate disintegration of the plane and an immediate explosion of the fuel to insure the grandiose ball of flame. Just packing the interior with explosives and fuel doesn't insure that the plane would explode at the exact second that it was needed to to insure maximum visual effect.

A missile preceeded the plane by a split second and was hidden from view by the piping that extended along the undercarraige of the plane and conjoined with the pod.

The "pod" is visible on numerous different camera shots. The piping is visible. The flash is visible and is not in the area where the nose engages the building. It is not caused by friction. How do you explain the flash???? The flash may be indicative of a heat generated devise released from the pod that triggered a response in the building via shaped charges. See www.letsroll911.org

[MercutioATC]

99. Oh. My. God.

I'll just stick with the "death ray" explanation...it's got a hell of a lot fewer implausible variables.

[Abe Linkman]

101. You are using a disinformation technique to avoid responding because...

you cannot rebut the logical explanation presented. If that's beyond the pay grade of an ATC, then stick to ATC-related issues as we were promised you would. This kind of avoidance of the issues technique is unbecoming to a serious, objective, non-DISINFO agent. Besides, it isn't a good way to show off one's cranial horsepower. Got a lot of smart people here, doncha know.

[MercutioATC]

108. How was my original post not a rebuttal?

You might not agree with me, but I did respond to the question. I'd argue that you're refusing to respond to my answers by simply claiming that I'm not answering questions.

I thought my last reply fit. That was my honest first response to a suggestion that landing gear were "refitted", missile pods were used and "piping" (fuel sprayers, perhaps?) were necessary, or even feasible.

There ARE smart people here, Abe...do you think nobody else sees this?

[Sweet Pea]

143. What "logical" explanation?

I musta missed it.

[demodewd]

104. da flash man!

Explain the flash, Merc, or go take a sponge bath in the Cuyahoga. In otherwords,put up or shut up.

I bet you think LHO was the lone assassin of JFK like your buddies boloboffin,lared and vincent vega.

[MercutioATC]

106. You have the "search" ability too, demodewd. Why not just look at my LAST

comments on this video?

When I see "pod" and "fuel sprayer" references, I don't make you repost everything, I simply quote your old posts. Feel free to do the same with me.

[demodewd]

120. again...intellectually dishonest

My old posts are just that...old. You refer to the post that I originally made about the fuel sprayer. First it was a cut and paste from letsroll911. It was a submission not an admission that I agreed with it all. And since then I have posted that the fuel sprayer scenario is not proof positive in my mind. All this progression of posts is ignored by you as you only refer to the original fuel sprayer post contending that that is where I stand on the issue now. This is why I believe you to be INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST!

As time goes by and more information becomes available and some aspects become more clear my thoughts and ideas about 911 adjusts to new realities.

Now please tell me your present day's ideas regarding the flash and do you support the government's explanation of the JFK assassination?

[MercutioATC]

134. In Post #97 YOU brought up the "fuel sprayers" again...

(or at least the "piping")

If it's an argument you now feel is "weak", why do you continue to reference it?

[demodewd]

138. answer my questions please..

or just stop responding to me...

You're at it again. I responded to you bringing up the fuel sprayers.
And you are avoiding answering my questions. Who killed JFK? What caused the orange flare coming from the plane's underside just prior to entry??

[MercutioATC]

139. You're sensitive about the "fuel sprayers"? Fine. I won't mention them.

To answer your questions:

1) I don't have an opinion on who killed JFK.

2) I'd need to see exactly which flashes you're talking about. I haven't looked at WTC crash videos for months.

[demodewd]

140. look.

Check out letsroll911.org. It takes a while to download. Check out the flash of the plane entering WTC2. Tell me what it is.

[MercutioATC]

142. I don't see anything out of place.

It looks like a small flash caused by the plane's nose smashing into the building.

[demodewd]

147. points of interest

points of interest
1. If it is caused by friction,why is there no orange flash on the left side of the nose also?

2 The flash appears to be entering the building a bit to the right and a bit below the nose

3.The flash is conic in its development,tapered at its onset and expanding towards the building. This is the opposite of what would be expected from your friction flash that would originate at the nose's engagement with the building and disperse and widen out away from the building.Light also widens as it goes away from its source.

4. the piping retrofit from the pod to the aft is quite apparent as evidenced by the undercarraige bulge and crease between the two entities.

5.If you look closely you can see the heat flow of the missile progressing through the piping.

6. Click on the right of your mouse and click the "zoom in" once to get an even better perspective.

[Abe Linkman]

141. What to call someone who supports the OCT & won't answer questions?

Isn't it obvious why someone wouldn't answer a question that would show they're full of you know what and their agenda is certainly not the same as that of most people here?

Isn't it curious that someone like that just "happens" to claim to work at a place that may well have been an important part of the self-attacks of 9/11, and now is here for we know what but can't say because the rules that protect us also protect them.

Personally, I don't think MTC knows enough about 11/22 to give an informed opinion. I DO think MTC knows a lot about 9/11 and THAT is why MTC is here, and is also why MTC avoids or dances around disturbing questions.

[MercutioATC]

144. You're entitled to an opinion, Abe.

So are the others here.

I think it's obvious who is anwering questions and who is avoiding them.

[Abe Linkman]

146. The mask is slowly coming off & soon maybe even the blind will see...

what some of us have known all along, and interestingly isn't being denied (except maybe overtly, as would be expected).

[MercutioATC]

163. I'm supposed to deny what, exactly?

Theatrics don't become you, Abe. If you have something to say, say it.

[Abe Linkman]

164. You're not SUPPOSED to deny anything.

You're supposed to be honest about everything.

[MercutioATC]

170. Excellent! That's what I'm doing.

I guess everything's O.K.

[Sweet Pea]

145. So the FTS...

ensured a CVD (Catastrophic Visual Display). Why wouldn't a ACIB (Aircraft Crash Into a Building) generate enough of a CVD when the object that was crashing was FWF (Filled with Fuel)? Seems to me too much of a PPMATDMAS (Pod People Making Acronyms That Don't Make Any Sense).

Seriously (again....unfortunately an OUW )...pods? ALG (alternative landing gear)? JLG (jettisoned landing gear)? missile? piping? You can see what you *want* to see.

What was that flash? I have no idea, but I also know I have seen other views/images/videos that do *not* have any kind of flash. I also know that no missile was NEEDED to create the sort of conflagration that was seen - the mere fact of flying an airliner full of fuel was the precursor to what was seen - and no POD or SPRAYERS or MISSILES or ALG or JLG or EIEIO was needed.

[demodewd]

148. a clear view

A very clear view of pod and piping.

Too much has been made of my submitting the fuel spray idea from www.letsroll91.org .I have made follow ups questioning its import or possible veracity. Please...if you wish to continue a discussion with me, honor the fact that I have some doubts about the sprayer issue. I believe there to be many more exceptions that a far more firmly based.It is only the preoccupation with this issue by Merc that the spray idea is brought up at all any more. I certainly am not promulgating it and find it insignificant in my quest for the truth.

[Sweet Pea]

93. Was it demodewd...

who brought up that aerodynamically-sound concept of forward-spraying fuel-sprayers? I remember reading that here months ago.

And *how* fast was the aircraft supposed to be flying?

And what would be the aerodynamic properties of boundry air flow across the leading edge of the wing - or above it or below it or even along the fuselage that would allow for such an.....event to have a marked effect?

And what sort of pressure would one need to (cough cough) spray fuel ahead of an aircraft traveling at nearly 400 knots?

And why would anyone want to do something like that when a nanosecond after impact fuel would be EVERYWHERE in any event?

I await the NEXT Brilliant Brainiac Bally-Hoo....to go along with the Magical Pod that Appears Over the Landing Gear After Take-off and the Forward-Fuel-Sprayers and Forward-Missile-Firings and the Holograms-Not-Real-Aircraft and the...and the...and the...

What's next? Atta opening up the cockpit window and throwing a BOMB at the building to open up an access portal!

[Abe Linkman]

96. How about a pristine, fire-proof, bomb-proof, crash-proof PASSPORT...

that just happened to land where a Coincidence Theorist from the Gov't
would have planted it if such a person was so inclined.

("Relax, Sweetie, we're from the Gov't, we're just here to help.")

[carlvs]

105. You call this PROOF???

Small and/or delicate objects have been found intact in the aftermath of far more extreme events. Take for instant this account of what would-be rescuers found in city of St. Pierre after it, and all but 2 of its 28,000 + citizens, were wiped-out on May 8, 1902 by a blast from the nearby Mt. Pelée volcano:

“Amidst all this evidence of the effects of unlimited destructive power, there were small pockets in which unexpected things survived – delicate china cups, corked bottles of water, still drinkable, little packets of starch in which the granules were untouched; even a street fountain still splashed cold drinking water in one of the ruined streets. …”

(From Volcanoes; 2nd Edition by Peter Francis and Clive Oppenheimer - Chapter 3, Four Classic Eruptions; Section 3.3, Mt. Pelée, 1902” pg 79)

So I wouldn’t be surprised to discover that a passport had survived something so modest like the events of 9/11. That is unless you’re going to state that the members of this administration have access to time-travel technology, and have been planting items at other violent disaster sites throughout time to throw people off (though considering your typical CTer’s mentality… :crazy:)

[Sweet Pea]

112. Talking about small and/or delicate objects....

Good point, carlvs.

HOWEVER....to satisfy Abe and his "impossible for the passport to survive" theory, we must assume the FOLLOWING as "planted" by the obligatory Coincidence Theorist from the Sudanese Gov't:

Child survives airline crash
in Sudan; 115 people killed

KHARTOUM–A Sudan Airways plane crashed shortly after takeoff on a domestic flight on Tuesday, killing 115 people, and officials said a child was the only survivor.

http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2003/jul/09/world/20030709wor4.html

I mean....after all, things do not survive airplane crashes intact - passports OR a 2 year old child - so it MUST be a plant!

[seatnineb]

114. Wrong.

Come on' man!

Is that the best you can do!

The child was not the only thing to survive that crash.

http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/st-afk/photo.shtml

There was also plenty of evidence of the other unfortunate passengers.

"Bodies were scattered everywhere, burned and charred and could be seen all over the place," Muhammad Osman Babikir, a journalist with el-Sahafa daily, told the Associated Press. "There was no way of performing the Muslim ritual of washing the bodies. It was horrible."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0%2C3604%2C994281%2C00.html.

[Sweet Pea]

115. Correction...

According to news reports, the only living thing that survived the crash was a 2-year old boy. It was unknown if any passports were found.

better? :)

[seatnineb]

118. Still dont buy what you are sayin.....

Sure.

I get your point.

But for this Sudan flight......

Huge chunks of metal debris also survived.

So did the burnt corpses of the poor passengers.

Regarding Flight 11 on the other hand.....

It is not just a question of the passport being found.......

It is a question of how quickly it was found.......

Whatelse of flight 11 was found in those few days AFTER 9/11?

If anything.

[DulceDecorum]

177. O, ye of little faith -- BEHOLD

Yediot Aharonot disclosed on Thursday that some months ago, sections of Ramon's personal diary -- handwritten in Hebrew -- during his last days on the ill-fated space shuttle were recovered in Texas by a Native American tracker. The pieces of paper had somehow survived 1,800-degree heat during the explosion that occurred some 60 kilometers above the earth. Neither the Indian nor the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration could make head or tail out of the unfamiliar Hebrew squiggles. So NASA sent the pages to Rona Ramon, Ilan's widow, who was still in Houston. She immediately identified it as her husband's writing.

The emotional story will be presented in full in a film to be broadcast on Tuesday by Channel Two. The date of the crash was February 1, 2003. In his notes, Ramon expresses his excitement and feeling of good fortune to be aboard the spacecraft and to enjoy views of the Earth and the "thin layer of atmosphere."

Since part of the text was destroyed and the pages were full of holes, Ramon's widow sent the diary to the criminal investigation unit of the Israel Police, which used advanced optical scanners to fill in the lacunae. The film will be presented Monday in a special showing for the family at the Israel Air Force House in Herzliya.
http://www.4law.co.il/ilan220104.htm

lacuna:
noun
plural lacunas or lacunae FORMAL
-- An absent part, especially in a book or other piece of writing

optical scanner
noun
-- A device that converts printed images and text into digital information that can be stored as a computer file and processed by graphics software.

The criminal investigation unit of the Israel Police,
used advanced optical scanners to fill in the lacunae.

Sweet Pea says:
I mean....after all, things do not survive airplane crashes intact - passports OR a 2 year old child - so it MUST be a plant!

[MercutioATC]

178. We've run into this issue before, DD.

You seem to have a problem understanding two things:

1) In a crash or explosion, a lot of things are thrown clear of the center of the event.

2) Heat at an event decreases rapidly as it gets farther away from the center.

Have you ever lit a firecracker? There's quite a bit of paper wrapping left over after the explosion. Paper burns at about 400 degrees farenheit. If the firecracker really did explode (in excess of 400 degrees), why is paper left?

Answer: Because when PART of the firecracker was above 400 degrees, other parts weren't and the explosion threw pieces of paper beyond the range where they'd burn from the heat source.

It's not so difficult a concept.

[DulceDecorum]

185. But ....

How come there is paper left over when a firecracker burns
and there is no Penta-debris worth a damn?

Why do they make planes out of aluminum?

[MercutioATC]

190. Because...

There WAS plenty of debris left. It was mostly in small pieces (as most people would suspect after a crash into/through a reinforced military building.

Aluminum is the least expensive light metal that can be used. Weight is a major factor when you're building airplanes.

[DulceDecorum]

193. So let's build planes out of Middle-East passport-paper

And then we can get one of those advanced optical scanners
to fill in the gaps if we need to fix it.

[MercutioATC]

196. You do realize that makes no sense, right?

The passport (and the book at the Pentagon that's always shown) were far enough from the heat source that damage to them was minor.

In the case of the passport, it was blown away from the hottest part of the explosion by the explosion itself (like the paper left over from a firecracker when it explodes).

In the case of the book at the Pentagon, it was only exposed AFTER the collapse...after the fires had been extinguished.

Is that a little clearer?

[DulceDecorum]

207. Paper survive fire, aluminum turn into confetti

Book at Pentagon exposed to much smoke yet still lily white.

What kind smoke leave no mark?
What kind aluminum go byebye?

This only happen on Pentagon when
Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics.

Muslim God heap powerful.
Empty Pentalawn big proof.

[MercutioATC]

208. SOME paper survive. SOME aluminum melt.

It all depends on their proximity to a heat source AFTER they came to rest. Those pieces blown far enough away by the force of the crash didn't sustain much fire damage, if any. Those in the fire burned or melted.

Why is this such a difficult concept for you?

[Abe Linkman]

211. Because it's VOODOO Magic.

"Why is this such a difficult concept for you?"

[MercutioATC]

212. Ok, Abe. Why is there paper left over after a firecracker explodes?

Is that voodoo too?

[tngledwebb]

215. Save the newbies and lurkers time-save your typing for later.

Post us some 'plenty of debris' photos, let the pictures do the talking.

[MercutioATC]

226. I think I'd rather have Abe answer the question...

It's an important question.

[vincent_vega_lives]

227. HA!

abe answer a question? That's a good one!

Not without reverting to somthing like...

"The cavemen suspended the laws of physics with voodoo-magic...WEREDY GO?"

[MercutioATC]

228. I know, but I can try, can't I?

If somebody can't understand a complete scenario, sometimes it's better to break thinks down into little bitty pieces and deal with them one at a time.

That's what I'm attempting...

Wish me luck.

[vincent_vega_lives]

229. Oh I agree

The problem is when you adress a small part of the theory, it is ignored and another item is tossed up, you adress that, and then that is ignored. You go round and round until people start posting the orginal issues all over again as "proof".

It's like a monkey fucking a football. A lot of activity with little result.

[tngledwebb]

230. Pics?

Any? Pics?

[MercutioATC]

231. Pics of what, specifically?

[Name removed]

232. Deleted message

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

[MercutioATC]

233. I'm stealing that pic.

:)

[Abe Linkman]

236. Please do not call out names in posts. Thank you AND the Moderators.

n/t

[MercutioATC]

243. Whom are you addressing, Abe?

The posts get jammed up when they are a lot of consecutive replies like this.

That's why I occasionally include names in my posts - to make it clear to whom I'm addressing the question. Are you taking issue with asking questions of specific people (and, as a result, mentioning their name in the post)?

[Abe Linkman]

244. Remember this?

Tue Dec-28-04 02:43 PM
Response to Original message
4. Locking



Please do not call out users in your posts

Lithos
DU Moderator

[MercutioATC]

246. Whatever...

:eyes:

[Abe Linkman]

247. Why so non-chalant?

It resulted in something that favors YOUR side, so you shouldn't be so non-chalant about it. In fact, a savvy person with your agenda would subtly encourage things that ultimately result in shutting down discussion of topics that you and yours have a more difficult time dancing around and suppressing.

[MercutioATC]

250. Because it has nothing to do with the issues.

It's just a board rule.

I also fail to see how it favors any "side". Personally, I've edited my posts numerous times before I hit the "post message" button...as I'm sure we all have. If Skinner wants to try to minimize name-calling and personal attacks, thet's certainly his right.

The "agenda" comment is beneath a response..

[Abe Linkman]

251. Glad you now understand why it's important NOT to "call out names".

n/t

[MercutioATC]

252. Yes, Abe. I understand.

[AZCat]

248. Skinner was kind enough to clarify "calling out"

There is a thread in ATA about the phrase "calling out".

Skinner's clarification:
The "calling out" part refers to when you start a thread to pick on a particular person, or to continue a fight with a different person, to call someone to the carpet, or to otherwise draw negative attention to a particular person. In general, we don't want members "personalizing" their disagreements and focusing on particular people rather than on the issues. (from the link above)

[seatnineb]

116. Wrong

It's not just a question of what is discovered......

It is also a question of when it's discovered and when it can be identified as belonging to a passenger on the flight in question.

DNA Evidence Identifies September 11 Victim - Mar 19, 2002
The remains of a passenger aboard one of the hijacked jets that crashed into the World Trade Center has been identified through DNA, officials revealed yesterday. It was the first time DNA has been able to determine the identity of any of the victims aboard the two doomed planes. The city medical examiner's office said it had determined that a hand found in the rubble at Ground Zero belongs to James Trentini -- a retired Massachusetts school teacher aboard American Flight 11, family members said. (New York Daily News)

http://www.gothamgazette.com/rebuilding_nyc/news/mar02.shtml

So it was not until march 2002 that the first passenger from flight 11(or 175) was identified....5 months AFTER the bombing of Afghanistan......

Yet Al- Suqami's(or Atta's?) passport was discovered after a few days.....just in time for the genocide to begin in October 2001.........

[MercutioATC]

100. Yes, it was.

I could never see the "piping" that was supposed to be there, but the "sprayers" were in the same positions as a couple of blade antennae are on "unmodified" 767s.

[Abe Linkman]

102. I'm shocked. Isn't good vision a basic requirement for ATC work?

"I could never see the "piping"

Didn't Commander Bunnypants say that, too?

[MercutioATC]

107. Yes, it is. My corrected vision must be 20/20.

Let's try a fill-in-the-blank question.


As an ATC, MercutioATC's vision is certified to be 20/20 by the FAA.


As a _____, Abe's vision is certified to be ______ by _______.


Wanna play?

[demodewd]

123. re: blade antennae

The blade antennae are too short to qualify for what you claim to see.

[MercutioATC]

136. Maybe they attached the fuel sprayers to the blade antannae...

...thus making them longer...


:eyes:


The "fuel sprays" you refer to are positioned where the 767 has blade antennae.

[MrSammo1]

66. Strange how

so many people don't get the concept that physical inconsistencies don't happen?

Ever hear of anyone taking photos or videos of jets landing or taking off at airports complaining that the photos of the jets look pregnant? I haven't?

Come to think of it........was there any physical consistencies that did happen on 911? ;o)

[uncle ray]

103. how about this link, the first thing i came up with on google

when i entered "straw tornado pole" gee that was simple.

http://216.239.63.104/search?q=cache:3moCbT9LXXYJ:www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00325.htm

estion - Tornado Effect
I've heard stories about tornados shoving drinking straws through phone
poles and brick walls. Is the reason for this known? I am curious what
would be discovered if I constructed a large ring, weighted heavily
(tons?), spun it at extreme speeds, and tested the maliability of metals
placed within the center of the spinning ring.
-----------------------------------------
You have asked two questions:
1. About the tornado. The mechanical properties of a projectile
depends on its speed. For example, if I take a soft lead bullet and press it
slowly against a steel plate, say 0.5 cm thick, using a mechanical press, it
would deform into a lead disc and the steel plate would be largely
unaffected. However, if I take the same soft lead bullet and it's fired from
a 0.357 Magnum, it would easily blow a large hole in the same steel plate.
The difference is that deformation of a projectile takes a certain amount of
time to occur. If the impact time is very short compared to this
characteristic time of deformation, the mechanical properties of the object
will be very different. This is not an uncommon phenomenon. Another example,
if I jump into a lake from a height of 1 meter, I just sink and make a
splash -- no harm. But if I jump into the same lake from an airplane at 1000
meters above the surface, I'm a pancake. I might just as well hit solid
ground. The reason is: at the speed with which I hit the water is so fast,
the water does not have time to "get out of the way" so it becomes
essentially a solid. This is what happens to straws etc. driven by tornadic
winds. They become projectiles, like an arrow.

2. The high speed rotary press you describe is cerainly feasible, but it
would be a difficult machine to build and it is not clear what you would
learn that you do not learn from a conventional press, which is relatively
simple and inexpensive.

Vince Calder
=========================================================
Alex,
This is based on what many textbooks refer to as the normal force, the force
the surface of a solid object exerts to prevent another object from passing
through it. Every surface has a maximum normal force. It can push no
harder than its maximum. A straw moving at an incredible speed hits the
phone pole. The pole pushes on the straw with its maximum force. Time is
required to stop the straw. In that time, the straw moves a distance into
the telephone pole.
Force provides acceleration. Acceleration over time provides a change of
velocity.

As for the question regarding malleability, what you are speaking of is a
centrifuge. One method is to attach a weight (tons are not necessary) to a
wire. Have the weight set on a rotating stand. Make sure the weight move.
One option is to mount it like a pendulum at approximately the radius you
want. Connect the metal wire from the hanging weight to the center fo the
rotating platform. Be sure the wire is taught, no bends. Spin the platform
to a significant speed. Measure the new radius while spinning, perhaps with
a ruler mounted on the platform. The force exerted on the wire is (mass of
hanging weight)(speed of weight)^2/(radius of weight's position). Textbooks
call it centripetal force for circular motion.

Dr. Ken Mellendorf
Illinois Central College
=========================================================
Straws are able to go through telephone poles,
obviously, because of their extreme speeds. I do not
see the connection between this phenomenon and your
idea with the iron ring.

If the ring were to spin rapidly, I suppose that it
will have no bearing on any object you place at its
center, with the exception of the wind created by the
spinning. Friction from the wind may increase the
temperature, thus increasing the malleability of the
metal.

[rman]

201. but why did you google for "straw tornado pole" specifically?

-

[uncle ray]

209. why?

because i wanted to cite an example that people can relate to re: the ability of an aluminum fuselaged airplane to penetrate concrete/steel structures. having grown up in tornado country, i'm well familar with stories of things like straw being poked though wooden poles. i suppose i could just as well used the elementary school science experiment of sticking a drinking straw into a potato.

its unfortunate though, that i accidently posted to the OP instead of the replies more directly relating to this, i guess it's a convenient excuse for "some" to miss this example and continue believing whatever they want about missles and planted explosives.

[vincent_vega_lives]

126. Interesting

World Trade Center Fire Experiment Images
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery2.htm

Gallery of Recovered World Trade Center Steel at NIST
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery.htm#recover

[rman]

202. why interesting? does it prove anything?

to bad NIST didn't recover any of the beams that were so neatly cut to pieces.

[vincent_vega_lives]

205. What are you kidding?

1. What does it prove? It proves that there have been extensive tests and analysis done, much to the contrary of what CT'ers have been spouting.

2. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery.htm#recover

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery.htm#metal

http://911review.org/Wget/www.nerdcities.com/guardian/WTC/astaneh-wtc.htm

NIST recovered all the beams they required. But don't bother to actually look into the matter or anything.

[rman]

206. i do know

the steel of the WTC has been tested beforehand, withstanding a kerosine fire for an hour without any problems.

[uncle ray]

213. was that kerosene fire

also fueled with paper, plastic, paint, and who knows what else that can be found inside a typical office building? not to mention a healthy doseage of fresh air blowing right through the building? has ANY test been done under such conditions?

[rman]

214. would paper and paint increase the temperature of the fire?

"fresh air" certainly wouldn't. Any fire has a maximum temperature at a certain optimum ratio between fuel and oxigene (air) - more air won't make it any more hot.
In fact the WTC fires probably weren't at maximum temperature, given the black smoke and the fact that very little fire was visible through the holes in the facade of the buildings; looks like there wasn't a healthy doseage of fresh air blowing right through the building.
Kerosene burns at some 800 degrees (maximum), the melting point of steel is at 3000 degrees.

[vincent_vega_lives]

218. Lots of problems with this post

First of all the melting point of steel is irrelevant. Steel does not have to melt to loose structural strength. The key temperature is when the steel looses sufficient strength to support the load it is bearing.

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P5SimulationofFiresinWTC1&2.pdf

In simulations done, even the least severe cases had localized temperatures of 900 degrees C. Even typical house fires can reach 900 degrees C. The Kerosene just acted as an accelerant, the contents of the floors provided ample fuel, and there was ample oxygen to support sustained temps.

[rman]

220. that's were the tests come in

tests of the steel sructure in advance of building the towers. it performed admirably.

[vincent_vega_lives]

222. can you substantiate that?

With or without fireproofing?

Define: admirably.

[rman]

224. don't have a link

i might be able to dig one up.
meanwhile my post #223 goes some way towards substantiating my claim.

[uncle ray]

234. yes.

as would fresh air. theres not much oxygen in air, but a constant supply of more air, acts like compressed oxygen, making a fire much hotter. again, i'll simplify it for you: ever heard of a bellows? its a tool used to blow air, oridinary air, into a fire. blacksmiths used it to inject more air into their fires, wood fires at that, to forge steel.

and like the other poster said, you do not need to melt the steel to weaken it. you can rattle off numbers you read off the internet all you want, but to someone who works with steel and fire, etc on a regular basis, there is little doubt that there could damn well been a hot enough fire to make the WTC lose structural integrity, especially after a plane blasted through it.

and your black smoke proves nothing. these were big buildings, and big fires, just because some parts of the fires were burning cool, with plumes of black smoke, does not rule out that there were much more intense fires in there too. i suppose next you'll cite a couple of individual rescue workers who said it was inder control?

to you it doesn't "look" like much air going thru there. how do you know that? logic tells ME that at 1/4 mile or so up, combined with a hole on each side of the building, still active ventilation systems, and the convection or whatever of the fire sucking in as much air as it can consume, there's a LOT of air moving thru there.

i admire your concern for finding the truth, but you apparantly know little about fire. i've set fires, fought them etc, fire is a dangerous and powerful thing not to be underestimated.

[vincent_vega_lives]

216. Links

Define: withstanding

Define: problems

define: kerosine fire

Because if you are saying unprotected steel was subjected to a typical building fire (with or without "kerosine") and did not suffer any "problems" at all...well I would love to see that.

[rman]

223. well..

it's not like WTC1, 2 and 7 were the first steel-frame building to catch fire. But these buildings are the first ever that collapsed due to fire. They are also the first ever to collapse like a house of cards, with the exception of controlled demolitions of course.

All fell at a near free-fall speed. Especially the way in which 7 collapsed can only be explained if all of the structural integrity failed pretty much instantly. There were only a few fires on a few floors. Ever wondered why the collapse of 7 wasn't repeated over and over in the mass media?

[vincent_vega_lives]

225. Well

it's not like WTC1, 2 and 7 were the first steel-frame building to catch fire.

No but they are the only ones to be struck by passenger aircraft loaded with fuel,(WTC1 & 2) and then not have the fire fought for seven hours (WTC 5).

All three buildings had a unique structure. WTC 1 & 2 had exceptionally light steel construction to same time and money during construction. The fire danger was recognized as fireproofing was added to the steel. But that was only to buy time for a fire fighting effort. No steel girder high rise was expected to last more than 2 hours with a unfought fire. WTC 1 & 2 lasted significantly less due to the increased load distribution a the points of impact.


http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch5.pdf#search='original%20wtc%207%20structure'

Fires in WTC 7 were observed on the east face of the 11th, 12th, and 28th floors. On the north face...fires were located on the 7th, 8th, 11th, 12th and 13th floors. The 7th floor held the OEM Generator and the day tank. The west face had fires on the 29th and 30th floors.

It is important to note that floors 5 thru 7 contained structural elements that were important to supporting the structure of the overall building. The 5th and 7th floors were diaphram floors that contained transfer girders and trusses. These floors transferred loads from the upper floors to the structural members and foundation system that was built prior to the WTC 7 office tower. Fire damage to the 5th and 7th floors of the building could, therefore, have damaged essential structural elements.

[Name removed]

235. Deleted message

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

[spooked911]

260. You raise a really good point that none of these comments seems to be

be addressing that I can see.

How did the wings of the plane tear away these floors here and yet at the Pentagon, the wings did so little damage?

[Abe Linkman]

263. Whatever happened at the Pentagon did NOT include a 757 crash there.

A small jet fighter plane may well have fired a missile into the Pentagon and then followed it in, but FL 77 wasn't even scheduled to fly on 9/11 & it didn't. Therefore, whatever caused the damage at the Pentagon wasn't a B757.

[spooked911]

264. You keep saying that-- but what about the pilots and passengers that

were supposed to be on flight 77?

My theory is that the flight was a special hijacking drill that wasn't supposed to be a real flight. It likely was shot down or crashed somewhere away fromthe Pentagon.

[Abe Linkman]

270. you keep saying that -- but what about what the disinfo agents say...

about what really happened?

My theory is, the more you learn about 9/11, the quicker you come to realize that it was an inside job, and that there is nothing new under the Sun. In 1963, "they" decided JFK was a traitor and had to be removed from power. In Great Britain, "they" decided the KGB had infiltrated the Gov't, and a fascist coup by the British Army was actively talked about by "them".

9/11 is not even the latest, is it? THINK: Iraq, Iran, Ukraine etc.

[spooked911]

274. Fine-- I agree 9/11 was an inside job. So tell me-- did those pilots and

passengers exist or is it a some created fiction?

Tell me how you think they did it-- who started this fake flight 77 and where did they get all the people from? And are all these people, for instance, Barbara Olson, still living-- or did they do something to them?

Is the media in on this fake flight too, or have they been fooled?

What is your theory?

[tngledwebb]

283. Passengers. pilots, planes could be created, yes.

Some individuals and planes may have been real- one planeful perhaps. And yes, the top levels of MSM would seem to be complicit.

Hard to believe, I know, but as a former OCT'er, I'll bet that in time you will arrive at similar conclusions, if you research without pre-conceptions. Read the New Pearl Harbor for a start.