Hole in the Pentagon

[Vincent Vega]

I don't know how wide the original hole of the Pentagon was but it wasn't 90 feet like Popular Mechanics tried to deceive people into believing.


It was only that wide after the wall collapsed.


Yes its only been six years. Apparently Google isn't emailing stickboy's computer with the proper pics or somthing.

He's put his hand on the table and he's shown to be a "hole too smaller".

I've explained it a thousand times.

The pre AND post collapse photos show where the portion of the wings with the fuel tanks Penetrated the facade and shattered the wall up to the 2nd floor, and took out mutiple steel column supports. These supports are replaced in one area with stacked 4" x 4"s. The center hole was aprox 15' x 15' and top edge was some 20' off hte ground which means the engines BARELY cleared the ground. They DID NOT however clear the Generator trailer and chain link fence around it.

Pics in next posts.

[Vincent Vega]

Here you can see clearly the two stacks of 4x4s supporting the facade undercut by the wing fuel tanks TO THE LEFT of the collapsed portion. YFurther to the left of them is where the facade was damaged by the outer portion of the wing...which shattered on impact constituting much of the aluminum "confetti" seen in pictures of the lawn.

ou can also see the destroyed facade to the RIGHT of the collapsed portion. There the columns stood.

http://www.brasscheck.com/videos/911/pentagon-aerial.jpg

[T.A.M.]

If he is looking for a 90 Foot Long Cookie Cutter Hole in the Pentagon he is not likely going to find it.

TAM:)

[Vincent Vega]

In this pre collapse photo you can see the facade destroyed by the right wing fuel tanks. The fire marks the 15' x 15' hole where the 13' x 13' fuselage penetrated the facade. You can also see the chain link fence that was taken out by the right engine.

http://911review.org/images/pentagon/07mw.jpg

[T.A.M.]

Here is what they want as proof, from Judy Woods site no less...

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/why/whypics/65_CoyotePlate.jpg

TAM:)

[BenBurch]

If he is looking for a 90 Foot Long Cookie Cutter Hole in the Pentagon he is not likely going to find it.

TAM:)

http://www.lorien1973.com.nyud.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/wileecoyote.jpg

[Vincent Vega]

This PRE collapse foto is a close up view of the hole and missing supports created by the LEFT wing fuel tanks, and the damage caused by the left wing tip. Note the missing fence. Note the beam in the middle of the fuselage hole that appears to be still attached at the top. The upper half of hte fuselage (passenger cabin) is mostly empty space and this beam would have cut through it (and horrifically the passengers within) like butter.

The forward landing gear, some of the most rugged and dense equipment on the aircraft would have smashed the lower part of the column however.

Note the ballistic windows in the fuselage hole. Shattered but still attached at the top. This attests to the effectiveness of the blast resistant construction. Both the windows and the spall blanket hang loose in the hole created by the fuselage.

http://www.assassinationscience.com/Pentagon.jpg

[BenBurch]

VV, it is indeed AMAZING to me that the Pentagon stood up to this so well. Shows what you can do with an unlimited budget! ;)

[Vincent Vega]

These pictures show the evidence impact with right engine. The generator, which is hte size of a semi-trailer is kicked back to the right and shows severe impact damage.

It would have been parked parallel with the fence, which shows the path of the engine with the huge gap.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/totuus/img/pentagon-generator.jpg

http://physics911.ca/images/omholt/genloc.jpg

[Vincent Vega]

Here the answer to their question is RIGHT IN THE PHOTO!

http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/1003/6c7rm6tlp5.jpg

the Fueselage HOLE is visible in this composite photo, and the wing damage, when considering the WING FUEL TANKS is readily apparent.

http://www.757.org.uk/systems/images/tanks.gif

[Vic Vega]

Hey! My brother is here!

:D

[Vincent Vega]

Stick. Ball. Court.

[T.A.M.]

The second photo in your post #9 VV, is an interesting one for a couple of reasons...

Truther Point:
1. You notice that there is an area of damaged fence, but then the fence furthest to the left (in the pic) seems undamaged. So how does a jet (wing or otherwise) strike and damage part of the fence, but leave the rest unscathed, given the direction it was traveling in.

Debunker Point:
1. The Generator has been moved inward, toward the Pentagon on the left end (in the pic). This is the opposite of what would occur if the damage to it was from an explosive planted in the pentagon.

TAM:)

[BenBurch]

Response to truther point; It was the ENGINE that hit the fence. You know, the dangly bit that makes all the sound under the wing.

[T.A.M.]

lol....

I agree, that seems to be what happened, but the truther reply to this would be along the lines of...

"Well if the plane were flying that high (so the engine, hanging down would hit, but not the wings), so close to the pentagon, then why is the large hole (most of the damage), contained to mostly the bottom floor?"

TAM;)

[sts60]

Here you can see clearly the two stacks of 4x4s supporting the facade undercut by the wing fuel tanks TO THE LEFT of the collapsed portion...
Minor note... the cribbing is probably 6x6s, or perhaps even larger. 4x4s are routinely used for cribbing wrecked vehicles. (I'm not a USAR guy myself, but I've had some collapse rescue training, and I know USAR guys who were there that day.)

[BenBurch]

lol....

I agree, that seems to be what happened, but the truther reply to this would be along the lines of...

"Well if the plane were flying that high (so the engine, hanging down would hit, but not the wings), so close to the pentagon, then why is the large hole (most of the damage), contained to mostly the bottom floor?"

TAM;)

Because the engine striking forced the nose down! Just like when a dachshund trips while running. ;)

[BenBurch]

Minor note... the cribbing is probably 6x6s, or perhaps even larger. 4x4s are routinely used for cribbing wrecked vehicles. (I'm not a USAR guy myself, but I've had some collapse rescue training, and I know USAR guys who were there that day.)

I saw half of the entire weight of a articulated steam loco set down onto 4x4 cribbing. The groan it let out was alarming to say the least, but it held up.

[T.A.M.]

Because the engine striking forced the nose down! Just like when a dachshund trips while running. ;)

Truther reply...

The Generator was 100 feet from the pentagon wall.

How far is it from the tip of the nose of the plane to where the engine would be, in terms of how far back the length of the plane?

Lets say 40 feet back.

So by the time the engine struck the generator, the tip of the plane was a mere 60 feet from impact. How long would it take the plane to travel that 60 feet, and is that time sufficient to allow a major deviation of the plane in terms of tilting downward, prior to impact.

TAM (temporary devils advocate)
:)

[defaultdotxbe]

lol....

I agree, that seems to be what happened, but the truther reply to this would be along the lines of...

"Well if the plane were flying that high (so the engine, hanging down would hit, but not the wings), so close to the pentagon, then why is the large hole (most of the damage), contained to mostly the bottom floor?"

TAM;)
or, "hanjour was an inexperienced pilot, how did he manage to fly at just the right height to hit the fence with the engine but not the wing?"

[Mangoose]

I agree, that seems to be what happened, but the truther reply to this would be along the lines of...

"Well if the plane were flying that high (so the engine, hanging down would hit, but not the wings), so close to the pentagon, then why is the large hole (most of the damage), contained to mostly the bottom floor?"


Actually, "most of the damage" of the right wing is NOT confined to the bottom floor. It was tipped at a slight angle, so much of it extended above the second floor slab. According to the Pentagon Building Performance Report, the slab (which was strongly reinforced and which was more parallel to the vetor of the wing than the vertical columns) absorbed most of the impact. There is significant damage to the second floor just to the right where the wing impacted the second floor slab.

Here is the best image of the damage to the second floor slab by the right wing (prior to the collapse):

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/8042/slab5gh9.jpg

(If you look carefully at the limestone, there are also dark spots....jet fuel spray?) And below the damaged second floor slab, there is a hole ... the exterior wall has been destroyed. And here is the second-floor damage just to the right of this:

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/1715/ingersoll2xq5.jpg

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/5712/dam6ng5.jpg

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/5190/damage8bg8.jpg

[RedIbis]

I know this is a stupid question but if the engine hit the generator, where's the engine?

[T.A.M.]

I imagine it hit the generator, knocking it inward (toward the pentagon, the opposite direction to where it should go from any blast coming FROM the pentagon), and then traveled onward toward the Pentagon.

That is assuming the engine did hit the generator. The reference I have read, said the RIGHT WING hit the generator, it did not specify the Engine.

TAM:)

[RedIbis]

I imagine it hit the generator, knocking it inward (toward the pentagon, the opposite direction to where it should go from any blast coming FROM the pentagon), and then traveled onward toward the Pentagon.

TAM:)

And then what? Did it disintegrate upon contact with the building?

[defaultdotxbe]

I know this is a stupid question but if the engine hit the generator, where's the engine?
inside the pentagon

[T.A.M.]

And then what? Did it disintegrate upon contact with the building?

I dunno, I imagine parts of it were found inside the pentagon, bits, scraps, etc. Just because it is not present in the web photos and a google search does not mean that the FBI did not collect parts of it.

TAM:)

[Pardalis]

I imagine it hit the generator, knocking it inward (toward the pentagon, the opposite direction to where it should go from any blast coming FROM the pentagon), and then traveled onward toward the Pentagon.

That's my guess as well, it continued with the plane's momentum towards the Pentagon.

I wonder why you are asking, RedIbis?

[T.A.M.]

ask yourself this Red. If this was some conspiracy to fake a plane crash, WHY didn't they plant TWO FAKE ENGINES among the debris?

TAM:)

[Mangoose]

Probably in the building where it collapsed. Got any pictures inside E-ring right before it collapsed?

There probably were some fragments of the engine near the generator between the generator and the building (I think Lee Evey said this), but I haven't seen any closeup photos of the ground in this area either.

[Pardalis]

ask yourself this Red. If this was some conspiracy to fake a plane crash, WHY didn't they plant TWO FAKE ENGINES among the debris?

TAM:)

I knew these NWO budget cuts would work against us eventually.

[RedIbis]

That's my guess as well, it continued with the plane's momentum towards the Pentagon.

I wonder why you are asking, RedIbis?

I'm a curious person. Plane hits building. Plane has two engines. Engine, as well as other parts should be all around the site.

Is this the totality of the engine parts?

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/jrubins101/77rotorpentagon.jpg

[RedIbis]

ask yourself this Red. If this was some conspiracy to fake a plane crash, WHY didn't they plant TWO FAKE ENGINES among the debris?

TAM:)

TAM, you know me better than that. I'm not interested in speculation. I'd like to see the photos of Flight 77 that you have or can direct me to. Thanks.

[Pardalis]

Is this the totality of the engine parts?

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/jrubins101/77rotorpentagon.jpg

How the hell do I know?

[SDC]

TAM, you know me better than that. I'm not interested in speculation. I'd like to see the photos of Flight 77 that you have or can direct me to. Thanks.

Why photos? The eye is a liar.

[RedIbis]

Why photos? The eye is a liar.

So the evidence that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon is that there are so few pics of plane parts?

Oh boy...

[BenBurch]

No. Some engine parts were visible in the pictures taken between two of the rings.

[SDC]

So the evidence that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon is that there are so few pics of plane parts?

Oh boy...

Is that what I said? I said "the eye is a liar," and I mean it. Especially the untrained eye. I said nothing about the presence or absence of photos and I will thank you not to pretend I did.

Do your own research. Prefer text over photos. For heaven's sake, avoid the no-planers. They are as crazy as betsy bugs.

[Mangoose]

Is this the totality of the engine parts?

Why would anyone think a single photo represents "the totality of the engine parts"?

Or is it, "If a photo of X isn't on the internet, X doesn't exist?"

[Pardalis]

You don't need to see a picture of every scrap of the engines to determine that flight 77 was there, the DNA of the passangers and crew recovered at the Pentagon for example...

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/linksto911forensicsaqndvictimidentificat
http://www.dcmilitary.com/dcmilitary_archives/stories/112901/12279-1.shtml
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/pentagon-attack.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61202-2001Nov20?language=printer
http://www.911myths.com/html/personal_effects.html
http://www.jonhoyle.com/GeneCodes/LATimes.htm
http://www.amazon.ca/Bone-Detective-Forensic-Anthropologist-France/dp/0309095506
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html

The multitude of evidence is more than enough.

[Mangoose]

so few pics of plane parts?

If most of the plane ended up inside the building, then there should be "so few pics" because there are "so few pics" of the inside of the building to begin with (when compared to the outside of the building).

The minority of the debris that didn't enter the building however has been well-photographed.

[CurtC]

Is this the totality of the engine parts?

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/jrubins101/77rotorpentagon.jpg
Well there's this:

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/images/image055.jpg

[Mangoose]

Here are some helpful graphics I've collected off the internet:

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/9030/pbpr2avgb8.jpg

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/3020/wedge1rebuildln3.jpg

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/5042/pentagon757ol2.jpg

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/3651/s112ox0.jpg

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3295/collissionmu4.jpg

[Mangoose]

Thanks, I forgot about that one, CurtC.

[T.A.M.]

I dunno, I imagine parts of it were found inside the pentagon, bits, scraps, etc. Just because it is not present in the web photos and a google search does not mean that the FBI did not collect parts of it.

TAM:)

Red:

see above. NOT EVERYTHING ON EARTH IS ON THE INTERNET!

TAM:)

[Vincent Vega]

EVERYTHING with any significant mass ended up IN SIDE the Pentagon. Mass + Velocity = MOMENTUM.

Most of the debris outside on the lawn was light aluminum skin.

The engines carried a good distance into the interior of the building. Both disintergrated, NOT vaporized or melted, when they eventually struck somthing solid enough, like a structual column. Though the process started as soon as they struck the facade.

[T.A.M.]

Red:

For the love of god, will you at least admit that there may be a lot of things, debris, documents, etc... that the FBI may have for all of this, that the public, in particular via googleinvestigating etc.., may not have access to?

And if you admit to this, which if you are honest you will, will you explain to me why the truth movement feels they have the right to see with their own eyes all elements of the investigation evidence?

Do we get to see all the evidence in any criminal investigation prior to the trial???

TAM:)

[Pardalis]

Twoofers demand that every tiny inch of scrap of the aircraft should be accounted for, and photographed, and that the trajectory of every single debris should be analyzed. Even then, even if such a thing was possible, the analysis must fit with their pre-conceived notion of how these things should have been.

That's not how science works does it not? You find out how things work by what the data shows you. Twoofers work the other way around. They think they know what the data should look like, and when it doesn't, then the data lies. The problem is that they have no notion of how these things should be in the first place, but yet pretend they do. And in this case, when the topic is something they already have set their minds on, because of its political and emotional implications, then their a priori concept of how things work changes accordingly, it becomes whatever is not what the data shows.

In other words, they are willing to change their own perception of reality it in order to deny the evidence.

In this case, the engine hitting the generator, instead of continuing with the plane towards the Pentagon and crashing into it, the engine should now bounce back like a tennis ball on the lawn on the Pentagon, because since the evidence doesn't show a complete engine on the Pentagon lawn, therefore a plane didn't hit the building...

ETA: if the engine did somehow survive the crash and bounced off by some random freak occurrence on the lawn, the twoofers would now pretend that the enigne should have been engulfed in the Pentagon, and that it was planted there.

[Unfit4Command]

So the evidence that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon is that there are so few pics of plane parts?

Oh boy...

I have asked this before, but never got an answer. What do you believe struck the Pentagon if not Flight 77, and what evidence do you base your claim on?

The evidence that Flight 77 struck the Pentagon goes beyond airliner debris. There's also the human remains, personal effects, eyewitnesses, downed light poles (suggesting it was a large airliner), damaged generator, engine debris matching Flight 77 (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml), landing gear debris matching Flight 77 (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0290.shtml) (plus the landing gear struts), etc...

More here (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary), and here (http://investigating-911.blogspot.com/).

[Gravy]

Thanks for posting those fake pictures. I hope you had fun with MSPaint. Everyone knows that buildings don't collapse due to due to damage and fire. Inside job, schmoes.

[AMTMAN]

Well there's this:

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/images/image055.jpg

Definetly from an RB211 engine. But what the heck do I know. ;)

[ref]

Here is one more photo showing the extent of damage after the impact.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/13639473b5aac68364.jpg

[beachnut]

I'm a curious person. Plane hits building. Plane has two engines. Engine, as well as other parts should be all around the site.

Is this the totality of the engine parts?

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/jrubins101/77rotorpentagon.jpg
Oops, engine parts. Gee, there were thousands of small blades at the Pentagon from the engines. Be you never saw an engine after an accident. Too bad you do not understand things like this. Education can help if you try harder.

Why do truthers debunk themselves; actually that is a large part. ?

[beachnut]

So the evidence that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon is that there are so few pics of plane parts?
Oh boy...
This seems to be a stupid question. What do you mean by this stupid question? The entire aircraft is at the Pentagon, after a big impact, that is what an impact scene looks like. Your have no conclusion, you just ask stupid questions. Why?

You have been posting long enough at JREF to understand 9/11 but still you have no clue. There are thousands of aircraft parts in photos. You even posted a photo with lots of aircraft parts, but you do not even see them? Why post a photo that debunks your stupid question?

Your aircraft parts question is stupid, and when you do not couple it with a goal it becomes a goal less stupid question. Why are all truthers unable to articulate a story line to go with their stupid questions? What makes 9/11 truth people unable to make a conclusion where their stupid questions are going and what are they looking for?

Why are you still asking a stupid question about 77 when it impacted the Pentagon? You have not conclusion, you have no facts, you make posts that debunk your own questions. Are you unable to put the evidence together rationally?

9/11 truth, dumb now, dumb forever. No rational conclusions for 6 years. What perfect movement for idiots. They make up lies about the Pentagon. Pathetic people make up 9/11 truth. What do you think their motives are for making up junk about the hole at the Pentagon?

[AMTMAN]

So the evidence that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon is that there are so few pics of plane parts?

Oh boy...

So what is your point.

[ref]

This seems to be a stupid question. What do you mean by this stupid question? The entire aircraft is at the Pentagon, after a big impact, that is what an impact scene looks like. Your have no conclusion, you just ask stupid questions. Why?

You have been posting long enough at JREF to understand 9/11 but still you have no clue. There are thousands of aircraft parts in photos. You even posted a photo with lots of aircraft parts, but you do not even see them? Why post a photo that debunks your stupid question?

Your aircraft parts question is stupid, and when you do not couple it with a goal it becomes a goal less stupid question. Why are all truthers unable to articulate a story line to go with their stupid questions? What makes 9/11 truth people unable to make a conclusion where their stupid questions are going and what are they looking for?

Why are you still asking a stupid question about 77 when it impacted the Pentagon? You have not conclusion, you have no facts, you make posts that debunk your own questions. Are you unable to put the evidence together rationally?

9/11 truth, dumb now, dumb forever. No rational conclusions for 6 years. What perfect movement for idiots. They make up lies about the Pentagon. Pathetic people make up 9/11 truth. What do you think their motives are for making up junk about the hole at the Pentagon?

Classic beachnut, and I mean it in a good way :D Putting truthers in their place time and time again.

[T.A.M.]

beachnut is every debunker's id.

TAM:)

[Gravy]

People here aren't really trotting out the insane "no 757" argument, are they? Really? In December, 2007?

People who have seen the evidence and read the witness accounts and investigative and first responder reports, and cannot accept that flight 77 hit the building, are seriously ill. They need help.

Here are some of the people who describe the plane parts at the Pentagon.
Bell, Mickey
Biggert, Judy
Boger, Sean
Bouchoux, Donald R.
Braman, Chris
Brennan, Donald
Brown, Ervin
Bryceland, Frank
Cissell, James R.
Clodfelter, George
Close, Bernadette
Damoose, John
Defina, Michael
Donley, Daryl
Dyson, John
Elhallan, Aziz
Evey, Walker Lee
Faram, Mark
Fortunato, Don
Hudson, Ed
Ingledue, Jim (VBFD)
Jarvis, Will
Krohn, Charles H.
Lagasse,William
McClain, Tom
Milburn, Kirk
Mitchell, Terry
Neri, Michael
Powell, Reginald
Probst, Frank
Ragland, Clyde
Regnery, Alfred S.
Roser, John F.
Shaeffer, Kevin
Sorenson, Kristopher Leigh
Stanley, G.T.
Sucherman, Joel
Tamillow, Michael
Terronez, Tony
Wallace, Alan
Yeingst, William

Anyone who doubts them is encouraged to go to my site and read their accounts (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary), and the accounts of all the people who saw flight 77 hit the building.

Actually, the first thing they should do is tell a doctor about the problems they're having with reality. I doubt if reading witness accounts will make any difference to them if they're this lost.

[T.A.M.]

Don't send them my way damn it...my practice is full!!

TAM:)

[Sabrina]

People here aren't really trotting out the insane "no 757" argument, are they? Really? In December, 2008?

Have you been messing with the time machine again, Gravy? I TOLD you... no more jaunts to the time of the dinosaurs! With our luck you'd trigger something that would erase us as the dominant species on the planet!!! Bad Gravy, bad!!! No mashed potatoes for you! ;)

[Gravy]

Have you been messing with the time machine again, Gravy? I TOLD you... no more jaunts to the time of the dinosaurs! With our luck you'd trigger something that would erase us as the dominant species on the planet!!! Bad Gravy, bad!!! No mashed potatoes for you! ;)Heh. I just corrected this before I read your post. If I could go back in time I'd try to convince Mohammed Awad bin Laden that six sons was plenty.

[BenBurch]

I actually had a truther claim that he thought that they slaughtered the passengers elsewhere, and strapped body parts to the cruise missile.

[Sabrina]

Heh. I just corrected this before I read your post. If I could go back in time I'd try to convince Mohammed Awad bin Laden that six sons was plenty.

Hell, I'd try to convince Hitler's mama to abort.

[BenBurch]

Hell, I'd try to convince Hitler's mama to abort.

It would likely have been sufficient to give him a job in 1921...

[Jonnyclueless]

Of course those parts are just the scraps dropped by the plane that flew over the building.

[T.A.M.]

I would have taught cavemen to read, and brought a copy of Darwin with me...would have solved everything.

TAM:)

[Mangoose]

A thread written for Stickman and he never came to the party.

[leftysergeant]

I think more attention should be paid to the cable spools. Killclown has even put up a page devoted to them. He parodies the lack of visible damage to them, but all that he accomplishes, in the long run, is to prove that he has never worked on a major construction site. Those spools are definitely NOT undamged. They have been bent out of shape, obviously by impact from a very heavy, solid object. They may even have played a major role in preventing the plane's digging nose-first into the ground just short of the target.

[Vincent Vega]

People here aren't really trotting out the insane "no 757" argument, are they? Really? In December, 2007?

.

Oh no not at all. Stickboy2008 was "just asking questions" about the size of the hole in the Pentagon. He would never go as far as to actually commit to a point of view.

[Gravy]

I think more attention should be paid to the cable spools.I very strongly disagree. To devote your valuable time to meaningless minutiae is to play the 9/11 deniers' sick game. They would love nothing more than to occupy your time with such nonsense. Rob Balsamo is now arguing that the Pentagon grass is the wrong color in some photos. Dylan Avery finds examining aerial photos for Battery Park City rooftop boiler vent anomalies to be a valuable pursuit. David Ray Griffin is working on a new "New Pearl Harbor." Steven Jones thinks a 1/8 scale model of a three-story concrete building proves 9/11 was an inside job. Kevin Ryan finds Ryan Mackey's use of the word "we" to be suspicious. Skeptics here are still responding to the nonsensical claims of Max Photon, Swing Dangler, and deliberately ignorant people who claim there weren't massive fires in the WTC buildings.

It's December, 2007. We can endlessly chase their delusions or insist that they address the facts.

[RedIbis]

Red:

For the love of god, will you at least admit that there may be a lot of things, debris, documents, etc... that the FBI may have for all of this, that the public, in particular via googleinvestigating etc.., may not have access to?

And if you admit to this, which if you are honest you will, will you explain to me why the truth movement feels they have the right to see with their own eyes all elements of the investigation evidence?

Do we get to see all the evidence in any criminal investigation prior to the trial???

TAM:)


Tam, For the love of God will you please stop asking me to trust the gov't that everything is just as they've reported and the implausible story that they've told is supported by their well hidden evidence.

Why doesn't your skepticism extend to matters official?

[BenBurch]

Twoofers demand that every tiny inch of scrap of the aircraft should be accounted for...

And they think the whole WTC should have been set up on a scaffold like an aircraft whose COD is undetermined! Ignoring the fact that no building exists that could house this and that no scaffold of sufficient strength is even possible to build (and if it were, we'd still be building it) they demand that nothing else would be proof.

Of course this ignores that fact that we saw to huge aircraft slam into them and resulting fires, and the COD in this case is not in any question by anybody sane.

[BenBurch]

I totally trust the government on this Red Ibis, and so should you.

And the reason is that though politicians come and go, the career people do not and they drove this investigation. And there were far too many of them of both political parties for anything like what you allege to have occurred. You slander good Democrats when you spew your hateful bile and I am personally offended by you and your ilk.

[RedIbis]

I totally trust the government on this Red Ibis, and so should you.



Ok, Winston.

[BenBurch]

Ok, Winston.

Look, fool, this is not anything the CIA could have covered up even had it been a maximum effort. Are you such a sickening idiot that you cannot understand that? The CIA wasn't even able to cover up a few missiles to Iran and some guns for the Sandonistas. They were and remain a pitiful excuse for a spy agency.

Keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks or insults to argue your point.

[MetalliSociety]

VV, it is indeed AMAZING to me that the Pentagon stood up to this so well. Shows what you can do with an unlimited budget! ;)

The Pentagon is buil like a brick poo house. That thing isn't ever going to be completely destroyed unless its something on a much more massive scale than a plane.

Good photos as well Vega.

[Mangoose]

I think more attention should be paid to the cable spools. Killclown has even put up a page devoted to them. He parodies the lack of visible damage to them, but all that he accomplishes, in the long run, is to prove that he has never worked on a major construction site. Those spools are definitely NOT undamged. They have been bent out of shape, obviously by impact from a very heavy, solid object. They may even have played a major role in preventing the plane's digging nose-first into the ground just short of the target.


Well, I think you miss the most obvious thing here....one of the spools is missing. There were 6 spools on the lawn just before 9/11 and there are only 5 on the lawn after the attack. So not only were the spools damaged, not only were they rolled around (they were in neat groups of three on the lawn before the attack, whereas they were scattered around towards the building haphazardly afterwards), but one was likely destroyed.


To devote your valuable time to meaningless minutiae is to play the 9/11 deniers' sick game. They would love nothing more than to occupy your time with such nonsense.


If the intent is to directly respond to nonsensical troofer claims that mire themselves in minutiae, I agree that this can be counterproductive -- especially in, say, a debate setting (whether online or in person) where it is important to keep the focus on the main logical points and the "big picture". To get bogged down by, say, whether rivets can rip away in a certain way on a piece of debris, is to get lost in a topic that would otherwise play no role in a question that is already settled. It's like counting hanging chads when the election has already been settled by a large majority.

However, some here like me are also interested in the forensic details of the event for its own sake. What interests me is not the question, "Did X (= a plane crash into the Pentagon, the towers collapse from fires, WTC7 collapse from structural damage and fires, etc.) happen" but "How did X happen". The first question is what troofers care about and which should more than adequately be answered without appealing to countless minutiae. The second question is of interest to those who accept what happened but want to understand the mechanics or process involved. That may be a valid intellectual pursuit, if only to document the event in detail for history.

[T.A.M.]

Tam, For the love of God will you please stop asking me to trust the gov't that everything is just as they've reported and the implausible story that they've told is supported by their well hidden evidence.

Why doesn't your skepticism extend to matters official?

Red:

I have said nothing about your skepticism or mine. My point is simple. The forensic investigation of the 9/11 attacks did not begin with, end with, or even likely involve "the internets" (to any great degree). I am sure there are warehouses full of evidence on the attacks. Because regular citizens, or even concerned politicians or scientists, do not have access to such, does not mean it doesn't exist, but you will not even admit this much.

in other words, if the truth movement is expecting or waiting for a tour of the DNA labs and their evidence, the FBI Hangars and their evidence, etc...they will be waiting a very long time.

TAM:)

[RedIbis]

I am sure there are warehouses full of evidence on the attacks. Because regular citizens, or even concerned politicians or scientists, do not have access to such, does not mean it doesn't exist, but you will not even admit this much.



TAM:)

Let me see if I have this straight. The evidence that supports the official story is that there's no evidence since they must be hiding it since the gov't wouldn't allow anyone else to study it.

Is that really what you're going with?

[Good Lt]

Let me see if I have this straight. The evidence that supports the official story is that there's no evidence since they must be hiding it since the gov't wouldn't allow anyone else to study it.

You didn't get it straight.

Sorry.

[Mangoose]

there's no evidence

Who ever said anything about there being no evidence? :rolleyes:

[leftysergeant]

Well, I think you miss the most obvious thing here....one of the spools is missing. There were 6 spools on the lawn just before 9/11 and there are only 5 on the lawn after the attack. So not only were the spools damaged, not only were they rolled around (they were in neat groups of three on the lawn before the attack, whereas they were scattered around towards the building haphazardly afterwards), but one was likely destroyed.

Obviously, it would take a rather larger object than a cruise missile to move more than one of the spools toward the building. That one is missing from the front would suggest that it was shoved inside by the aircraft.

That's gotta be one big freakin aircraft.

[Mangoose]

More like blown to smithereens. I don't think a spool is going to stand much a chance with an aircraft impacting at 500+ MPH.

Looks like one of the engines took it out:

http://img474.imageshack.us/img474/1095/pent52a1oa0.jpg

The others I think were blown towards the building by the plane's wake.

http://img474.imageshack.us/img474/753/pent52b1ajb5.jpg

[Mangoose]

Here is the picture that ref posted on the last page:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/13639473b5aac68364.jpg

There is a hole on the right wall of the underground utility access structure, right where the left engine hit it. So, I guess a near complete list of the things the plane hit before hitting the building, all documented in photographs, would be:

1. Tree near the underpass on Route 27

2. VDOT mast

3. 5 light poles

4. Chain-link fence

5. diesel generator

6. 1 cable spool

7. right wall of underground utility access structure

8. mechanical structure inside the UUAS

Anything else? I think there was also a tree and another construction trailer in the path.

[leftysergeant]

Bloody well rules out a truck bomb outside the building or a shaped-charge warhead exploding against the facade, doesn't it?

[Vincent Vega]

Bloody well rules out a truck bomb outside the building or a shaped-charge warhead exploding against the facade, doesn't it?

I always loved the shaped charge bit. Would've taken a charge the size of a satellite dish to make a hole that diameter.

[BenBurch]

I always loved the shaped charge bit. Would've taken a charge the size of a satellite dish to make a hole that diameter.

I'm not even sure that would do it, given the construction, without a tamping mass of considerable size.

[Vincent Vega]

I'm not even sure that would do it, given the construction, without a tamping mass of considerable size.

Not direct TV type. Think SETI size dish.

[BenBurch]

Not direct TV type. Think SETI size dish.

I was!

:)

That was one solid wall!

[T.A.M.]

Let me see if I have this straight. The evidence that supports the official story is that there's no evidence since they must be hiding it since the gov't wouldn't allow anyone else to study it.

Is that really what you're going with?

No, and I know you are smart enough to know that is not what I am saying, so quit it.

My point, which I am sure you get, is that while there is a lot of evidence publicly available, including witness testimony, the data collected by NIST, the testimonies provided in the Commission report, and many others, there is also likely a wealth of information, and evidence, such as plane parts, the actual tissue of bodies recovered with subsequent DNA analysis, and much more that is not publicly available.

However, the truther doctrine seems to be "If i can't see it with my own eyes, then it doesnt exist".

TAM:)