[Merged]Terral shows us the picture of an A-3 crashed at the Pentagon [Archive]

Walter Ego

2nd February 2008, 10:42 AM

As you can see for yourself, this is very compelling evidence that an A-3, not an Boeing 757, was used to hit The Pentagon.

Ah, the little white dog rears it head again!

Asked what struck the Pentagon, Fetzer replied,

"Hit by a missile from an A—3 Skywarrior, most likely."

Most likely. Now, as any aircraft buff can tell you, the A—3 (which entered the story when someone claimed to have spotted its 'outline' in the DoD footage of the attack — though you could fool me.) was a Navy jet bomber designed for long—range operations from carriers. It started squadron service in 1956. It was a decent enough airplane, a little too big for shipboard use, and not especially popular with pilots due to a lack of ejection seats. After Vietnam, it was slowly phased out until only a handful of electronics and weather versions were still around to be decommissioned in 1991, ten years before 9/11. Raytheon uses a couple as experimental testbeds out in California. Other than that, they're gone.

So the question arises — where did Karl Rove come up with an A—3?

There's no point asking the Scholars — they think the A—3 is still flying for the Navy. They also think that the A—3, nicknamed the 'Whale', nearly 80 feet long and with over 70 feet of wingspan, the largest aircraft ever deployed from a carrier and fully equivalent to a mid—size domestic airliner, was a 'small plane.' (By the way, it was never fitted to fire missiles either.)

So where did it come from? Where, exactly, do you go to find a fifty—year—old, out—of—service military aircraft that's in flying condition? And, in a country with thousands of active military planes available, why would anybody bother?

How do you fly such an aircraft over a city full of military personnel without anyone noticing? And why on earth do you paint it black, probably the most distinctive single thing that could be done to call attention to it?

What East Coast airport was this odd—looking plane operating from? How is it nobody ever caught sight of it in the air or on the ground? Who modified it for the mission? Who serviced it? Who painted it?

Challenged with all this, I'm certain that Fetzer and crew will come up with perfectly logical and utterly unbelievable explanations. It makes no difference. There was a woman at Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963 who was standing right beside JFK's car when the shots rang out. She saw everything. The gunmen on the grassy knoll. The gunmen behind the fence, the gunmen up the street. The problem was, she also saw a little white dog in Jackie Kennedy's lap that jumped out and ran off when the shooting started. A little white dog that nobody else saw, for the very good reason that it didn't exist.

Fetzer's A—3 is the 9/11 conspiracy's little white dog.

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/09/conspiracy_theories_and_media.html

Quad4_72

2nd February 2008, 12:31 PM

I think they may have hidden it and secreted it away.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://home.att.net/~carlson.jon/A3firetruck_files/bluetarp.jpg&imgrefurl=http://home.att.net/~carlson.jon/A3firetruck.htm&h=327&w=500&sz=45&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=8kgJBWY1ZUn5MM:&tbnh=85&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Da-3%2Bhitting%2Bthe%2Bpentagon%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26 sa%3DN (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://home.att.net/%7Ecarlson.jon/A3firetruck_files/bluetarp.jpg&imgrefurl=http://home.att.net/%7Ecarlson.jon/A3firetruck.htm&h=327&w=500&sz=45&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=8kgJBWY1ZUn5MM:&tbnh=85&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Da-3%2Bhitting%2Bthe%2Bpentagon%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26 sa%3DN)

http://home.att.net/~carlson.jon/A3firetruck_files/bluetarp.jpg (http://home.att.net/%7Ecarlson.jon/A3firetruck_files/bluetarp.jpg)

As you can see for yourself, this is very compelling evidence that an A-3, not an Boeing 757, was used to hit The Pentagon.

Is this a serious post? Do you really think something besides a 757 hit the pentagon?

Terral

2nd February 2008, 02:27 PM

Hi 1337:

A challenge! :0) Thank you 1337 for presenting us with this grand opportunity.

1337 >> The burden of proof is a two-way street. Whatever standard you are holding your opponent to, you should hold to yourself as well.

My standard (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104792) includes far more than just a few words and a few links like you have on display here. A real debating opponent has an opposing thesis with claims, plenty of evidentiary support and conclusions, about what really happened at the Pentagon, as the basis of his rebuttals or counterproposals. I see nothing like that on my ‘two attack’ thread and I certainly do not expect to see anything like that on this one from any of these so-called ‘debunkers’ that make me laugh OUT LOUD (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU) more than anything else; when in fact is topic is no laughing matter.

1337 >> Terral demands that we provide him with a picture of a "100-Ton Jetliner" despite the fact that a plane hitting a concrete wall is not going to remain intact. He refuses to believe that a Boeing hit the Pentagon until he sees such a photo (As they say on 4chan: "Pics or it didn't happen").

There is nothing anyone here can do to prove a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed into this Limestone Masonry Wall (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NoWayBaby.jpg), because this side of the debate already knows what really happened at the Pentagon. If you had one quarter of my debating skills, then you would already realize that our Opening Post thesis papers are drafted for the benefit of the ‘unbiased’ third-party readers yet to make up their minds on our particular topics. You would already know that ‘debate’ is the presentation of ‘opposing views’ without regard for convincing your debating opponent of anything at all. Your OP thesis paper would contain a thesis statement with applicable claims and conclusions pivoting back and forth on either side of the supporting evidence, apart from all of this “Terral, Terral, Terral” hype that does nothing to forward your case at all. You cannot produce a picture of a ‘crashed’ 100-Ton Jetliner anywhere near the Pentagon, because nothing like that happened on 9/11 or any other day. Period. Rather than attempt to make that case, you are wasting valuable OP space with nonsense about an F-4 Jet crashing into a 10-feet thick concrete wall designed to test the WALL and not the cotton picking plane.

Do you know the size differences between your F-4 Jet (http://science.howstuffworks.com/mcdonnell-douglas-f-4-phantom-ii1.htm) and a real 757 Jetliner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757#Specifications)? :0) The wingspan of the F-4 is about 38 feet and that of the Boeing 757-200 is 125 feet. The weight of the F-4 is just under 30,000 pounds and that of the 757 is about 200,000 pounds. In other words, your little bird is about one seventh the size of a real 100-Ton Jetliner. The class-1 Boeing 757-200 Jetliner has 234 seats and your little jet . . . Heh . . (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU). There are really no similarities to a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashing into the Limestone wall of the Pentagon only a few inches thick and your massive concrete wall being tested by the F-4 controlled collision, because a real Jetliner crash looks more like this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NotAtPentagon.jpg) (see video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKhBzAh_eeA)). If you are going to simulate a real Jetliner crash, then at the very least use a real Jetliner. :0)

Your next problem is that we already have very good evidence of what a real Jetliner can do to even a steel building much stronger than the Pentagon Limestone wall shown here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/wtcwoman.jpg). You might recognize that as the North Tower entry hole made earlier that same morning, but did you see a little piles of Jetliner debris at the base of the Twin Towers? No. :0) The next problem with your apples/oranges comparison above is the Pentagon also has an entry hole that does NOT nearly match the dimensions of any real 100-Ton Jetliner shown here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/leftsidedamage.jpg). What is wrong with this picture? Your real Jetliner is almost 50-feet tall, but somehow passed over this untouched Green SUV ‘and’ (this is the good part) under the still-intact second story concrete slab. :0) This composite picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/pent-ricostruzionedannouw0.jpg) shows Column Line 9 and 10 (closer shot (http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/Murru_Columns_8-10.jpg)) still intact too, which means even your first-floor damage extends only about 40 feet from the center of impact (CL 14). However, the Official Story says impact was made at a 45-degree angle from the south and a schematic diagram (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/simulation.jpg) reveals the actual damage should extend over to CL 5; but those windows were not even broken in the attack. In fact, all the windows on the third floor were unbroken and only two windows were missing from the second floor (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/impact_scale.jpg). :0) How does a 125-feet wide 100-Ton Jetliner going 533 miles per hour create an 18 feet diameter hole on the second floor without even breaking a window on the third floor? :0)

The next part of your problem is over the inconsistencies in the damage pattern created by the real impact of whatever really did crash into the Pentagon on 9/11 shown here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/columns.jpg). We can verify from this damage pattern that the attack did indeed come from the south (our left), because of the straight line (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/45DegreeTrajectory.jpg) running between the E-Ring entry hole (top of diagram) and the C-Ring exit hole shown here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/bigCringhole.jpg). What is wrong with this picture? We have two 6-ton engines going 533 miles per hour with nothing but two masonry walls (the first floor is all under one roof) standing in the way. Does this masonry wall look 10 feet thick to you? :0) Heh . . . Your first problem is the ‘single’ entry and exit hole, when you should see twin holes some 50 feet apart to accommodate your two Rolls Royce engines. The next problem is that you have no engine setting out here between the C and B ring walls. Another picture displaying another problem is here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/fire_spools.jpg) where you see only seven feet between the tops of the cable spools and the bottom of the still-intact second floor. This Pentagon site is a CRIME SCENE where innocent Americans DIED, but your concrete wall crash test is just that! And finally, none of these pictures show any crashed 100-Ton Jetliner. :0)

1337 >> I will give Terral the benefit of the doubt and assume he is a reasonable person. Therefore, he must be holding himself to the same standards that he is holding us.

Absolutely. What I expect from you is a line by line rebuttal to my This Is What Really Happened At The Pentagon” (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104792) thesis paper in the same way you see my answering your explanations right here.

1337 >> That means that if he is so convinced that an A-3 Sky whatever hit the Pentagon, he must have seen a photo of an intact A-3 at the pentagon.

No sir. This is where you are being disingenuous and deceiving at the very same time. I am growing wearing of repeating myself on this point, so please try to pay closer attention: The retired A-3 Skywarrior is what the DoD bad guys used to BEGIN this inside-job operation, when the retrofitting process (http://web.archive.org/web/20070221061504/http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/318250.shtml) BEGAN. The DoD bad guys started off with something like this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/a3insky500.jpg) and this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/aim54.jpg) to then turn the thing into something that looked more like this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/AA_Painted_A3_Jet.jpg). Very simply, the DoD ‘tricked their Jet’ into looking like a real 100-Ton Jetliner using parts from many Jets and lots of silver and blue paint, etc., etc.. Why? Because their intention from the very start was to simulate a real 100-Ton Jetliner crash at the Pentagon . . . Next, I do not expect anyone here to produce a picture of any intact Jetliner, because supposedly the thing crashed going 533 miles per hour. We have plenty (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/plane.jpg) of pictures (http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/03/07/knPLANE__1_narrowweb__300x369,0.jpg) of other crash sites (http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/03/07/crash1_wideweb__470x301,0.jpg) showing engines (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/enginee.jpg) completely separated from the body of the plane like this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/4.jpg), but each time the time-change parts (http://physics911.net/georgenelson) are connected back to the host Jetliner. However, you cannot show me where your Jetliner crashed into the Pentagon, OR exited the C-Ring wall, OR produce a single seat of over 200 (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/boeing2.jpg), OR one time-change part of hundreds from the two Rolls Royce engines. This picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NoPlaneHere.jpg) had to be taken less than one hour after impact, because the E-Ring roof is still standing, but how many of these military people appear concerned about saving ANYONE from any Jetliner crash? :0) None! Do you know why? Nothing like that happened here.

1337 >> I for one would like to see this photo. Can you show it to me Terral?

1337 is trying to be facetious, when he should be hauling out ‘evidence’ for what really hit the Pentagon. Yes. We do have pictures of what really hit the Pentagon right here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/pentani.gif), but analysis reveals the diameter of this object to be only 20-inches (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/a1-Frame1a.jpg). You are looking at what struck the Pentagon during the 9:31:39 AM Missile Strike, while the Retrofitted Jet struck the Pentagon at the same location just 5 minutes later (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/BeforeAndAfter.jpg) (bottom pic); according to these eyewitnesses (Don Wright (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=schV0rKCRwA) and Michel Kelly (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD0qpbwHCYI)). I have News Reports of witnesses that saw a small plane hit the Pentagon, but where are your witnesses? :0) Even if you had a real witness claiming that a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed into the Pentagon, then where is the corroborating evidence? I have plenty of small Jet debris (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/DebunkedNothing.jpg) like this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/A-3JetDebris.jpg), but where is your evidence? :0)

The problem right here is that you have no thesis paper prepared to become the basis of any sound rebuttal or counterproposal. I must merely assume that you are attempting to support Senor Bushie’s Official Cover Story, because your work includes no real theory for anything at all . . .

GL in the debate,

Terral

DGM

2nd February 2008, 02:34 PM

TheRedWorm

2nd February 2008, 02:48 PM

Quit stalling, Terral. Show us an A3 hitting the pentagon, or admit that your beliefs are not based in fact.

twinstead

2nd February 2008, 02:51 PM

Why do you keep showing 757 parts and calling them A3's? You need to talk to people that were there not the morons on the internet you get your stuff from. People might start thinking your hanging with a like crowd.

You mean take the word of the actual people who held these parts, both PLANE and BODY, in their very hands instead of biased internet websites?

Yea. Like that's going to happen.

pomeroo

2nd February 2008, 02:54 PM

Hi 1337:

A challenge! :0) Thank you 1337 for presenting us with this grand opportunity.

My standard (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104792) includes far more than just a few words and a few links like you have on display here. A real debating opponent has an opposing thesis with claims, plenty of evidentiary support and conclusions, about what really happened at the Pentagon, as the basis of his rebuttals or counterproposals. I see nothing like that on my ‘two attack’ thread and I certainly do not expect to see anything like that on this one from any of these so-called ‘debunkers’ that make me laugh OUT LOUD (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU) more than anything else; when in fact is topic is no laughing matter.

There is nothing anyone here can do to prove a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed into this Limestone Masonry Wall (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NoWayBaby.jpg), because this side of the debate already knows what really happened at the Pentagon. If you had one quarter of my debating skills, then you would already realize that our Opening Post thesis papers are drafted for the benefit of the ‘unbiased’ third-party readers yet to make up their minds on our particular topics. You would already know that ‘debate’ is the presentation of ‘opposing views’ without regard for convincing your debating opponent of anything at all. Your OP thesis paper would contain a thesis statement with applicable claims and conclusions pivoting back and forth on either side of the supporting evidence, apart from all of this “Terral, Terral, Terral” hype that does nothing to forward your case at all. You cannot produce a picture of a ‘crashed’ 100-Ton Jetliner anywhere near the Pentagon, because nothing like that happened on 9/11 or any other day. Period. Rather than attempt to make that case, you are wasting valuable OP space with nonsense about an F-4 Jet crashing into a 10-feet thick concrete wall designed to test the WALL and not the cotton picking plane.

Do you know the size differences between your F-4 Jet (http://science.howstuffworks.com/mcdonnell-douglas-f-4-phantom-ii1.htm) and a real 757 Jetliner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757#Specifications)? :0) The wingspan of the F-4 is about 38 feet and that of the Boeing 757-200 is 125 feet. The weight of the F-4 is just under 30,000 pounds and that of the 757 is about 200,000 pounds. In other words, your little bird is about one seventh the size of a real 100-Ton Jetliner. The class-1 Boeing 757-200 Jetliner has 234 seats and your little jet . . . Heh . . (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU). There are really no similarities to a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashing into the Limestone wall of the Pentagon only a few inches thick and your massive concrete wall being tested by the F-4 controlled collision, because a real Jetliner crash looks more like this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NotAtPentagon.jpg) (see video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKhBzAh_eeA)). If you are going to simulate a real Jetliner crash, then at the very least use a real Jetliner. :0)

Your next problem is that we already have very good evidence of what a real Jetliner can do to even a steel building much stronger than the Pentagon Limestone wall shown here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/wtcwoman.jpg). You might recognize that as the North Tower entry hole made earlier that same morning, but did you see a little piles of Jetliner debris at the base of the Twin Towers? No. :0) The next problem with your apples/oranges comparison above is the Pentagon also has an entry hole that does NOT nearly match the dimensions of any real 100-Ton Jetliner shown here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/leftsidedamage.jpg). What is wrong with this picture? Your real Jetliner is almost 50-feet tall, but somehow passed over this untouched Green SUV ‘and’ (this is the good part) under the still-intact second story concrete slab. :0) This composite picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/pent-ricostruzionedannouw0.jpg) shows Column Line 9 and 10 (closer shot (http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/Murru_Columns_8-10.jpg)) still intact too, which means even your first-floor damage extends only about 40 feet from the center of impact (CL 14). However, the Official Story says impact was made at a 45-degree angle from the south and a schematic diagram (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/simulation.jpg) reveals the actual damage should extend over to CL 5; but those windows were not even broken in the attack. In fact, all the windows on the third floor were unbroken and only two windows were missing from the second floor (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/impact_scale.jpg). :0) How does a 125-feet wide 100-Ton Jetliner going 533 miles per hour create an 18 feet diameter hole on the second floor without even breaking a window on the third floor? :0)

The next part of your problem is over the inconsistencies in the damage pattern created by the real impact of whatever really did crash into the Pentagon on 9/11 shown here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/columns.jpg). We can verify from this damage pattern that the attack did indeed come from the south (our left), because of the straight line (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/45DegreeTrajectory.jpg) running between the E-Ring entry hole (top of diagram) and the C-Ring exit hole shown here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/bigCringhole.jpg). What is wrong with this picture? We have two 6-ton engines going 533 miles per hour with nothing but two masonry walls (the first floor is all under one roof) standing in the way. Does this masonry wall look 10 feet thick to you? :0) Heh . . . Your first problem is the ‘single’ entry and exit hole, when you should see twin holes some 50 feet apart to accommodate your two Rolls Royce engines. The next problem is that you have no engine setting out here between the C and B ring walls. Another picture displaying another problem is here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/fire_spools.jpg) where you see only seven feet between the tops of the cable spools and the bottom of the still-intact second floor. This Pentagon site is a CRIME SCENE where innocent Americans DIED, but your concrete wall crash test is just that! And finally, none of these pictures show any crashed 100-Ton Jetliner. :0)

Absolutely. What I expect from you is a line by line rebuttal to my This Is What Really Happened At The Pentagon” (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104792) thesis paper in the same way you see my answering your explanations right here.

No sir. This is where you are being disingenuous and deceiving at the very same time. I am growing wearing of repeating myself on this point, so please try to pay closer attention: The retired A-3 Skywarrior is what the DoD bad guys used to BEGIN this inside-job operation, when the retrofitting process (http://web.archive.org/web/20070221061504/http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/318250.shtml) BEGAN. The DoD bad guys started off with something like this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/a3insky500.jpg) and this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/aim54.jpg) to then turn the thing into something that looked more like this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/AA_Painted_A3_Jet.jpg). Very simply, the DoD ‘tricked their Jet’ into looking like a real 100-Ton Jetliner using parts from many Jets and lots of silver and blue paint, etc., etc.. Why? Because their intention from the very start was to simulate a real 100-Ton Jetliner crash at the Pentagon . . . Next, I do not expect anyone here to produce a picture of any intact Jetliner, because supposedly the thing crashed going 533 miles per hour. We have plenty (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/plane.jpg) of pictures (http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/03/07/knPLANE__1_narrowweb__300x369,0.jpg) of other crash sites (http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/03/07/crash1_wideweb__470x301,0.jpg) showing engines (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/enginee.jpg) completely separated from the body of the plane like this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/4.jpg), but each time the time-change parts (http://physics911.net/georgenelson) are connected back to the host Jetliner. However, you cannot show me where your Jetliner crashed into the Pentagon, OR exited the C-Ring wall, OR produce a single seat of over 200 (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/boeing2.jpg), OR one time-change part of hundreds from the two Rolls Royce engines. This picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NoPlaneHere.jpg) had to be taken less than one hour after impact, because the E-Ring roof is still standing, but how many of these military people appear concerned about saving ANYONE from any Jetliner crash? :0) None! Do you know why? Nothing like that happened here.

1337 is trying to be facetious, when he should be hauling out ‘evidence’ for what really hit the Pentagon. Yes. We do have pictures of what really hit the Pentagon right here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/pentani.gif), but analysis reveals the diameter of this object to be only 20-inches (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/a1-Frame1a.jpg). You are looking at what struck the Pentagon during the 9:31:39 AM Missile Strike, while the Retrofitted Jet struck the Pentagon at the same location just 5 minutes later (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/BeforeAndAfter.jpg) (bottom pic); according to these eyewitnesses (Don Wright (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=schV0rKCRwA) and Michel Kelly (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD0qpbwHCYI)). I have News Reports of witnesses that saw a small plane hit the Pentagon, but where are your witnesses? :0) Even if you had a real witness claiming that a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed into the Pentagon, then where is the corroborating evidence? I have plenty of small Jet debris (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/DebunkedNothing.jpg) like this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/A-3JetDebris.jpg), but where is your evidence? :0)

The problem right here is that you have no thesis paper prepared to become the basis of any sound rebuttal or counterproposal. I must merely assume that you are attempting to support Senor Bushie’s Official Cover Story, because your work includes no real theory for anything at all . . .

GL in the debate,

Terral

You are an ineducable ignoramus. DNA testing identified the passengers on Flight 77. Your lies about the imaginary A-3 were exposed by J.R. Dunn.

DGM

2nd February 2008, 02:56 PM

You mean take the word of the actual people who held these parts, both PLANE and BODY, in their very hands instead of biased internet websites?

Yea. Like that's going to happen.
Just wait till he shows you the columns at the WTC that were cut with thermite. I bet you can guess the exact picture without him even posting it.

The depths of this one are astonishing.

beachnut

2nd February 2008, 03:07 PM

Hi 1337:

A challenge! :0) Thank you 1337 for presenting us with this grand opportunity.

My standard (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104792) includes far more than just a few words and a few links like you have on display here. A real debating opponent has an opposing thesis with claims, plenty of evidentiary support and conclusions, about what really happened at the Pentagon, as the basis of his rebuttals or counterproposals. I see nothing like that on my ‘two attack’ thread and I certainly do not expect to see anything like that on this one from any of these so-called ‘debunkers’ that make me laugh OUT LOUD (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU) more than anything else; when in fact is topic is no laughing matter.

There is nothing anyone here can do to prove a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed into this Limestone Masonry Wall (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NoWayBaby.jpg), because this side of the debate already knows what really happened at the Pentagon. If you had one quarter of my debating skills, then you would already realize that our Opening Post thesis papers are drafted for the benefit of the ‘unbiased’ third-party readers yet to make up their minds on our particular topics. You would already know that ‘debate’ is the presentation of ‘opposing views’ without regard for convincing your debating opponent of anything at all. Your OP thesis paper would contain a thesis statement with applicable claims and conclusions pivoting back and forth on either side of the supporting evidence, apart from all of this “Terral, Terral, Terral” hype that does nothing to forward your case at all. You cannot produce a picture of a ‘crashed’ 100-Ton Jetliner anywhere near the Pentagon, because nothing like that happened on 9/11 or any other day. Period. Rather than attempt to make that case, you are wasting valuable OP space with nonsense about an F-4 Jet crashing into a 10-feet thick concrete wall designed to test the WALL and not the cotton picking plane.

Do you know the size differences between your F-4 Jet (http://science.howstuffworks.com/mcdonnell-douglas-f-4-phantom-ii1.htm) and a real 757 Jetliner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757#Specifications)? :0) The wingspan of the F-4 is about 38 feet and that of the Boeing 757-200 is 125 feet. The weight of the F-4 is just under 30,000 pounds and that of the 757 is about 200,000 pounds. In other words, your little bird is about one seventh the size of a real 100-Ton Jetliner. The class-1 Boeing 757-200 Jetliner has 234 seats and your little jet . . . Heh . . (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU). There are really no similarities to a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashing into the Limestone wall of the Pentagon only a few inches thick and your massive concrete wall being tested by the F-4 controlled collision, because a real Jetliner crash looks more like this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NotAtPentagon.jpg) (see video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKhBzAh_eeA)). If you are going to simulate a real Jetliner crash, then at the very least use a real Jetliner. :0)

Your next problem is that we already have very good evidence of what a real Jetliner can do to even a steel building much stronger than the Pentagon Limestone wall shown here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/wtcwoman.jpg). You might recognize that as the North Tower entry hole made earlier that same morning, but did you see a little piles of Jetliner debris at the base of the Twin Towers? No. :0) The next problem with your apples/oranges comparison above is the Pentagon also has an entry hole that does NOT nearly match the dimensions of any real 100-Ton Jetliner shown here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/leftsidedamage.jpg). What is wrong with this picture? Your real Jetliner is almost 50-feet tall, but somehow passed over this untouched Green SUV ‘and’ (this is the good part) under the still-intact second story concrete slab. :0) This composite picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/pent-ricostruzionedannouw0.jpg) shows Column Line 9 and 10 (closer shot (http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/Murru_Columns_8-10.jpg)) still intact too, which means even your first-floor damage extends only about 40 feet from the center of impact (CL 14). However, the Official Story says impact was made at a 45-degree angle from the south and a schematic diagram (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/simulation.jpg) reveals the actual damage should extend over to CL 5; but those windows were not even broken in the attack. In fact, all the windows on the third floor were unbroken and only two windows were missing from the second floor (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/impact_scale.jpg). :0) How does a 125-feet wide 100-Ton Jetliner going 533 miles per hour create an 18 feet diameter hole on the second floor without even breaking a window on the third floor? :0)

The next part of your problem is over the inconsistencies in the damage pattern created by the real impact of whatever really did crash into the Pentagon on 9/11 shown here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/columns.jpg). We can verify from this damage pattern that the attack did indeed come from the south (our left), because of the straight line (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/45DegreeTrajectory.jpg) running between the E-Ring entry hole (top of diagram) and the C-Ring exit hole shown here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/bigCringhole.jpg). What is wrong with this picture? We have two 6-ton engines going 533 miles per hour with nothing but two masonry walls (the first floor is all under one roof) standing in the way. Does this masonry wall look 10 feet thick to you? :0) Heh . . . Your first problem is the ‘single’ entry and exit hole, when you should see twin holes some 50 feet apart to accommodate your two Rolls Royce engines. The next problem is that you have no engine setting out here between the C and B ring walls. Another picture displaying another problem is here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/fire_spools.jpg) where you see only seven feet between the tops of the cable spools and the bottom of the still-intact second floor. This Pentagon site is a CRIME SCENE where innocent Americans DIED, but your concrete wall crash test is just that! And finally, none of these pictures show any crashed 100-Ton Jetliner. :0)

Absolutely. What I expect from you is a line by line rebuttal to my This Is What Really Happened At The Pentagon” (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104792) thesis paper in the same way you see my answering your explanations right here.

No sir. This is where you are being disingenuous and deceiving at the very same time. I am growing wearing of repeating myself on this point, so please try to pay closer attention: The retired A-3 Skywarrior is what the DoD bad guys used to BEGIN this inside-job operation, when the retrofitting process (http://web.archive.org/web/20070221061504/http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/318250.shtml) BEGAN. The DoD bad guys started off with something like this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/a3insky500.jpg) and this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/aim54.jpg) to then turn the thing into something that looked more like this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/AA_Painted_A3_Jet.jpg). Very simply, the DoD ‘tricked their Jet’ into looking like a real 100-Ton Jetliner using parts from many Jets and lots of silver and blue paint, etc., etc.. Why? Because their intention from the very start was to simulate a real 100-Ton Jetliner crash at the Pentagon . . . Next, I do not expect anyone here to produce a picture of any intact Jetliner, because supposedly the thing crashed going 533 miles per hour. We have plenty (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/plane.jpg) of pictures (http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/03/07/knPLANE__1_narrowweb__300x369,0.jpg) of other crash sites (http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/03/07/crash1_wideweb__470x301,0.jpg) showing engines (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/enginee.jpg) completely separated from the body of the plane like this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/4.jpg), but each time the time-change parts (http://physics911.net/georgenelson) are connected back to the host Jetliner. However, you cannot show me where your Jetliner crashed into the Pentagon, OR exited the C-Ring wall, OR produce a single seat of over 200 (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/boeing2.jpg), OR one time-change part of hundreds from the two Rolls Royce engines. This picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NoPlaneHere.jpg) had to be taken less than one hour after impact, because the E-Ring roof is still standing, but how many of these military people appear concerned about saving ANYONE from any Jetliner crash? :0) None! Do you know why? Nothing like that happened here.

1337 is trying to be facetious, when he should be hauling out ‘evidence’ for what really hit the Pentagon. Yes. We do have pictures of what really hit the Pentagon right here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/pentani.gif), but analysis reveals the diameter of this object to be only 20-inches (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/a1-Frame1a.jpg). You are looking at what struck the Pentagon during the 9:31:39 AM Missile Strike, while the Retrofitted Jet struck the Pentagon at the same location just 5 minutes later (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/BeforeAndAfter.jpg) (bottom pic); according to these eyewitnesses (Don Wright (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=schV0rKCRwA) and Michel Kelly (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD0qpbwHCYI)). I have News Reports of witnesses that saw a small plane hit the Pentagon, but where are your witnesses? :0) Even if you had a real witness claiming that a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed into the Pentagon, then where is the corroborating evidence? I have plenty of small Jet debris (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/DebunkedNothing.jpg) like this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/A-3JetDebris.jpg), but where is your evidence? :0)

The problem right here is that you have no thesis paper prepared to become the basis of any sound rebuttal or counterproposal. I must merely assume that you are attempting to support Senor Bushie’s Official Cover Story, because your work includes no real theory for anything at all . . .

GL in the debate,

Terral
Failure. And the reason is -
Do you know the size differences between your F-4 Jet (http://science.howstuffworks.com/mcdonnell-douglas-f-4-phantom-ii1.htm) and a real 757 Jetliner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757#Specifications)?
The question should be do you know the difference between fantasy and reality?
http://www.beachymon.com/photo/delusionsbp4.png
Nice try, but you are Debunked, Busted and Fact Less.

AMTMAN

2nd February 2008, 03:35 PM

Terral:

The pictures you show have absolutely ZERO evidence of an A-3. The pictures I have seen shows wreckage from an AA 757, 5BP.

ElMondoHummus

2nd February 2008, 04:05 PM

Nope. Sorry Terral. Pictures were produced. Along with many other pieces of evidence proving your A-3 hypothesis is wrong. It's your own failure and no one else's that you don't comprehend the evidence.

It also helps to provide testimony from eyewitnesses, as we have. You have not.

And I'm pretty sure that lurkers and visitors here can tell the difference between someone arguing nonesense and arguing from fact. BTW, you figured out the difference between a left and right bank (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/AA_Painted_A3_Jet.jpg)yet? As well as what the concept of curvillinear distortion (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3005240#post3005240)is?

OldTigerCub

2nd February 2008, 04:47 PM

You are an ineducable ignoramus. DNA testing identified the passengers on Flight 77. Your lies about the imaginary A-3 were exposed by J.R. Dunn.

...To add to that, this presentation (http://coop.vaed.uscourts.gov/moussaoui/P200318.zip) from the Zacarias Moussaoui trial details the locations of remains, and identifies all of them. note: it is a very large file download and is interactive.

Jonnyclueless

2nd February 2008, 04:53 PM

"If you had one quarter of my debating skills"

Divide by zero error.

stateofgrace

2nd February 2008, 05:24 PM

:words:

GL in the debate,

Terral

Your debate is down here.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104792&page=11

Stay on topic in this thread and respond to the OP, or admit you cannot produce such a photogragh.

1337m4n

2nd February 2008, 05:36 PM

Hi 1337:
My standard (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104792) includes far more than just a few words and a few links like you have on display here. A real debating opponent has an opposing thesis with claims, plenty of evidentiary support and conclusions, about what really happened at the Pentagon, as the basis of his rebuttals or counterproposals. I see nothing like that on my ‘two attack’ thread and I certainly do not expect to see anything like that on this one from any of these so-called ‘debunkers’ that

And there you have it: You have shown us your true colors. You don't care about the truth at all, all you care about is being able to show other people that you are "right". Thanks for exposing yourself for me.

There is nothing anyone here can do to prove a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed into this Limestone Masonry Wall (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NoWayBaby.jpg), because this side of the debate already knows what really happened at the Pentagon.

Further debate is pointless. Why? You have basically just admitted to us that you REFUSE to admit even the slightest possibility that you might be wrong no matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary.

Come back when you have an open mind and are prepared to admit that you might be wrong about the sky being green. "I believe X and nothing will ever convince me otherwise" is NOT a scientific position. I suggest you complete Totovader's challenge before posting here again.

Answer Totovader's challenge, prove that you have an open mind towards evidence that contradicts your pet beliefs, and then you can come back here and we can have a nice debate.

His challenge is in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idgjL-tBGNg

And for the record, I think I could destroy every single one of your "arguments" in a debate if I wanted to. But I'm not going to bother, because as you've just blatantly admitted, you are blind to any and all evidence you don't like.

1337m4n

2nd February 2008, 05:52 PM

What I expect from you is a line by line rebuttal to my This Is What Really Happened At The Pentagon” thesis paper in the same way you see my answering your explanations right here.

Not until you admit that you are not omniscient and that there is even the slightest chance in Hell that you MIGHT conceivably be mistaken. Until you can do that, arguing with you will be a waste of time because you'll never be convinced no matter what I say or show you.

Prove me wrong. Tell me what I can show you that would get you to change your mind about 9/11. What if God descended from the heavens and told you to your face that you were wrong? Would that convince you?

Unsecured Coins

2nd February 2008, 07:14 PM

Not until you admit that you are not omniscient and that there is even the slightest chance in Hell that you MIGHT conceivably be mistaken. Until you can do that, arguing with you will be a waste of time because you'll never be convinced no matter what I say or show you.

Prove me wrong. Tell me what I can show you that would get you to change your mind about 9/11. What if God descended from the heavens and told you to your face that you were wrong? Would that convince you?

No!! God's in on it too

Corsair 115

2nd February 2008, 07:24 PM

A basic specifications comparison:

Douglas A-3 Skywarrior

Three-seat carrier-borne attack bomber (A-3), reconnaissance bomber (RA-3 and EA-3), and refuelling tanker (KA-3).

Data: EA-3B Skywarrior
Power plant: two Pratt & Whitney J57-P-10 turbojet engines (each providing 10,500 lbs of thrust)
Wingspan: 72 ft 6 in
Overall length: 76 ft 4 in
Max. takeoff weight: 73,000 lbs
Max. level speed: 530 knots (610 mph) at 10,000 feet

Boeing 757

Data: 757-200
Passengers: 200 (typical 2-class configuration), 228 (typical 1-class configuration)
Wingspan: 124 ft 10 in
Overall length: 155 ft 3 in
Max. takeoff weight: 255,000 lbs
Cruise speed: Mach 0.80

Data: 757-300
Passengers: 243 (typical 2-class configuration), 280 (typical 1-class configuration)
Wingspan: 124 ft 10 in
Overall length: 178 ft 7 in
Max. takeoff weight: 272,500 lbs
Cruise speed: Mach 0.80

General appearance differences between the A-3 and the 757:

The wings on the A-3 are joined to the fuselage at its top; on the 757 the wings are joined to the fuselage at its bottom. On the A-3, the horizontal stabilizers at the tail are attached to the vertical stabilizer, about one-quarter of the way up; on the 757 the horizontal stabilizers are attached to the rear part of the fuselage. In a side view, the bottom of the engines on the A-3 are almost exactly in line with the bottom of the fuselage; on the 757, the bottom of the engines is below the bottom of the fuselage (specifically, about half of the engine appears below the bottom line of the fuselage).

The 757-200 has a wingspan 1.72 times greater than that of the A-3 and an overall length 2.03 times that of the A-3. The 757-300 also has a wingspan 1.72 times that of the A-3, but its overall length is 2.34 times that of an A-3.

The ratio of fuselage length to fuselage height on the A-3 is about 10.5:1, or in other words, the fuselage is about 10.5 times longer than it is tall. The ratio on a 757-200 is about 11.6:1, while the ratio for a 757-300 is about 13.4:1.

Put all this together, especially the size difference, and it is unlikely anyone with at least some familiarity with aircraft would ever confuse an A-3 with a 757.

twinstead

2nd February 2008, 07:28 PM

Well, it appears the the 757 and A-3 Are exactly the same.

What's the issue here, then?

peteweaver

2nd February 2008, 07:39 PM

Terral, the onus of proof is upon YOU.

So far, you've delivered less than 'New' Labour.

If you're theories were a football team, they'd be Brentford FC. Now you may be thinking who are they ?!! And the answer is: Exactly! (who are they?!!!, they're rubbish!!!!!!!!).

Terral

3rd February 2008, 06:47 AM

Hi 1337:

Thank you to everyone for proving that no matter how much evidence is presented, then you can muster up two sentences of nonsense to any reply. :0) (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)

1337 >> Not until you admit that you are not omniscient and that there is even the slightest chance in Hell that you MIGHT conceivably be mistaken. Until you can do that, arguing with you will be a waste of time because you'll never be convinced no matter what I say or show you.

For anyone on this thread to even begin arguing anything, then you must have a thesis paper with evidence FOR SOMETHING. I met your challenge in Post #7 and this is your reply. :0) (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/YoSoFunny.gif)

1337 >> Prove me wrong.

Start a thread presenting ‘your’ theory from the evidence for what really hit the Pentagon on 9/11 and perhaps we will have something to debate. Nobody can prove 1337 wrong, until he steps up to the plate to take a few Pentagon Explanation swings. :0)

1337 >> Tell me what I can show you that would get you to change your mind about 9/11.

If all the evidence suddenly changed, then my conclusions would too.

1337 >> What if God descended from the heavens and told you to your face that you were wrong? Would that convince you?

Heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain God (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Kings%208:26-27;&version=49;), so your Theology is broken even more severely than your 911 explanations. 1337 is going to continue whining (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/tantrumwithpans.jpg) no matter what Terral or anyone says. Right? Of course. Offer a solid ‘evidence-filled’ rebuttal or counterproposal to my ‘two attack’ thesis paper here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104792) and perhaps ‘you’ will begin convincing me of something. Or, start your own “Flight 77 Crashed Into The Pentagon” Topic using whatever 1337 calls ‘credible evidence,’ so ‘we’ can look at the reasons why ‘you’ really feel a 100-Ton Jetliner crashed anywhere. This side of these debates is not holding his breath . . .

GL,

Terral

DGM

3rd February 2008, 06:54 AM

Terral:
If a parent does not video tape the birth of their child does the child still exist?

You seem to not think so.

Alt+F4

3rd February 2008, 06:55 AM

the DoD bad guys

How about some names?

Alt+F4

3rd February 2008, 06:59 AM

Start a thread presenting ‘your’ theory from the evidence for what really hit the Pentagon on 9/11...

Three letters.....DNA

Terral

3rd February 2008, 07:05 AM

Hi again 1337:

1337 >> Answer Totovader's challenge, prove that you have an open mind towards evidence that contradicts your pet beliefs, and then you can come back here and we can have a nice debate.

His challenge is in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idgjL-tBGNg

His little video has no challenge anywhere. What will make Terral change his mind? Stop being ridiculous. Here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/pentmorris.jpg) is the hole (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NoWayBaby.jpg) where ‘you’ say a 100-Ton Jetliner did one of these numbers (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NotAtPentagon.jpg) from this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKhBzAh_eeA). You have NO REPLY to Post #7 and Totovander has NO CASE for what really crashed into the Pentagon. Now I am supposed to determine which of you is being more ridiculous. :0) The EVIDENCE says something crashed into the Pentagon at 9:32 AM (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/faa5.pdf) to create an 18-feet diameter E-Ring entry hole (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/compmix2.jpg) ‘and’ a 8-10 feet diameter C-Ring exit hole (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/bigCringhole.jpg) over 200 feet away on this flight path (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/45DegreeTrajectory.jpg) with this damage (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/DringDamage.jpg) in between (schematic (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/columns.jpg)). Where is the evidence of your TWO 6-ton Rolls Royce engines tumbling through this crime scene? :0) Where is Totovader's case for ANYTHING? :0) Nowhere! And, both of you really believe that something is proved by all your talk, talk, talk . . . Please . . . (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)

I come here to present the 911Truth and can only laugh out loud at your impotent replies . . .

GL,

Terral

DGM

3rd February 2008, 07:09 AM

Hi again 1337:

His little video has no challenge anywhere. What will make Terral change his mind? Stop being ridiculous. Here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/pentmorris.jpg) is the hole (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NoWayBaby.jpg) where ‘you’ say a 100-Ton Jetliner did one of these numbers (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NotAtPentagon.jpg) from this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKhBzAh_eeA). You have NO REPLY to Post #7 and Totovander has NO CASE for what really crashed into the Pentagon. Now I am supposed to determine which of you is being more ridiculous. :0) The EVIDENCE says something crashed into the Pentagon at 9:32 AM (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/faa5.pdf) to create an 18-feet diameter E-Ring entry hole (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/compmix2.jpg) ‘and’ a 8-10 feet diameter C-Ring exit hole (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/bigCringhole.jpg) over 200 feet away on this flight path (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/45DegreeTrajectory.jpg) with this damage (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/DringDamage.jpg) in between (schematic (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/columns.jpg)). Where is the evidence of your TWO 6-ton Rolls Royce engines tumbling through this crime scene? :0) Where is Totovader's case for ANYTHING? :0) Nowhere! And, both of you really believe that something is proved by all your talk, talk, talk . . . Please . . . (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)

I come here to present the 911Truth and can only laugh out loud at your impotent replies . . .

GL,

Terral
Go ask UAL (you know real live people) about the 95% of flight 93 they got back. You know the victims families were allowed to view it?

I know again real people are scary but they really do exist.

bje

3rd February 2008, 07:12 AM

Hi again 1337:

His little video has no challenge anywhere. What will make Terral change his mind? Stop being ridiculous. Here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/pentmorris.jpg) is the hole (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NoWayBaby.jpg) where ‘you’ say a 100-Ton Jetliner did one of these numbers (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NotAtPentagon.jpg) from this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKhBzAh_eeA). You have NO REPLY to Post #7 and Totovander has NO CASE for what really crashed into the Pentagon. Now I am supposed to determine which of you is being more ridiculous. :0) The EVIDENCE says something crashed into the Pentagon at 9:32 AM (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/faa5.pdf) to create an 18-feet diameter E-Ring entry hole (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/compmix2.jpg) ‘and’ a 8-10 feet diameter C-Ring exit hole (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/bigCringhole.jpg) over 200 feet away on this flight path (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/45DegreeTrajectory.jpg) with this damage (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/DringDamage.jpg) in between (schematic (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/columns.jpg)). Where is the evidence of your TWO 6-ton Rolls Royce engines tumbling through this crime scene? :0) Where is Totovader's case for ANYTHING? :0) Nowhere! And, both of you really believe that something is proved by all your talk, talk, talk . . . Please . . . (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)

I come here to present the 911Truth and can only laugh out loud at your impotent replies . . .

GL,

Terral

Hey, Terral,

Let's play stump the band.

Just what was the wreckage that the 1,000+ people saw and/or removed from the Pentagon? What were their statements about the wreckage?

Alt+F4

3rd February 2008, 08:00 AM

Go ask UAL (you know real live people) about the 95% of flight 93 they got back. You know the victims families were allowed to view it?

I know again real people are scary but they really do exist.

Most of these conspiracy liars are afraid to confront real people because they know their stupid theories will be shot to hell.

How difficult would it be to travel to Washington D.C., go into some local firehouses and ask the men and women who work there what they saw on 9/11?

Mince

3rd February 2008, 09:14 AM

Is this a serious post? Do you really think something besides a 757 hit the pentagon?

Oh man, I'd hoped the post would be self-evident.

No, it was not a serious post.

bje

3rd February 2008, 08:46 PM

Terral punts on the question of what wreckage was found at the Pentagon. Just like Dick Eastman and Gerard Holmgren did six years ago.

Congratulations on joining the Has-Been 9/11 Truther Club, Terral.

Edx

3rd February 2008, 08:49 PM

Hi again 1337:

His little video has no challenge anywhere. What will make Terral change his mind? Stop being ridiculous. Here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/pentmorris.jpg) is the hole (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NoWayBaby.jpg) where ‘you’ say a 100-Ton Jetliner did one of these numbers (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NotAtPentagon.jpg) from this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKhBzAh_eeA). You have NO REPLY to Post #7 and Totovander has NO CASE for what really crashed into the Pentagon. Now I am supposed to determine which of you is being more ridiculous. :0) The EVIDENCE says something crashed into the Pentagon at 9:32 AM (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/faa5.pdf) to create an 18-feet diameter E-Ring entry hole (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/compmix2.jpg) ‘and’ a 8-10 feet diameter C-Ring exit hole (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/bigCringhole.jpg) over 200 feet away on this flight path (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/45DegreeTrajectory.jpg) with this damage (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/DringDamage.jpg) in between (schematic (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/columns.jpg)). Where is the evidence of your TWO 6-ton Rolls Royce engines tumbling through this crime scene? :0) Where is Totovader's case for ANYTHING? :0) Nowhere! And, both of you really believe that something is proved by all your talk, talk, talk . . . Please . . . (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)

I come here to present the 911Truth and can only laugh out loud at your impotent replies . . .

GL,

Terral

I too entertained the idea of no plane at the Pentagon for bit, but in the end I couldnt rationalise the eye witness'. How do you?

Calcas

3rd February 2008, 08:56 PM

I too entertained the idea of no plane at the Pentagon for bit, but in the end I couldnt rationalise the eye witness'. How do you?

Good question.

In the end, they rationalize by saying that all witnesses that don't happen to fit within their preconceived fantasies are either planted, liars, or gubmint disinfo.

It must be nice to live in Terral world, no?

Good Lt

3rd February 2008, 08:59 PM

Slightly OT:(As they say on 4chan: "Pics or it didn't happen").4chan! I was wondering if you were hip to 4chan memes, what with the pedobear avatar and all. :)

DESU DESU DESU LULZ!!

Edx

3rd February 2008, 09:00 PM

Good question.

In the end, they rationalize by saying that all witnesses that don't happen to fit within their preconceived fantasies are either planted, liars, or gubmint disinfo.

It must be nice to live in Terral world, no?

Thing is even if they were plants, you wont ever know for sure if you just accuse everyone which kind of renders the idea useless. I think I was accused of being a plant or something once too hehe.

And even LC: Final Cut acted like there was the real plane at the pentagon, which is saying something.

1337m4n

5th February 2008, 12:54 PM

Yup, as I suspected. Terral will not explain what evidence it would take to convince him. His mind is dead-set on this issue and nothing will ever change it. He just keeps on dodging questions and repeating the phrase "100-Ton Jetliner" over and over again like a broken record.

*yawn*

Terral, you and LastChild shall now keep each other company on my esteemed Ignore List.

If you would like to appeal being placed on Ignore, send me a PM with these exact words:

"I have an open mind. I may not believe I am wrong, but I am at least willing to accept the possibility that I might be wrong. I am prepared to be convinced if the right evidence is presented to me."

In the meantime, Enjoy your AIDS.

1337m4n

5th February 2008, 01:00 PM

Slightly OT:4chan! I was wondering if you were hip to 4chan memes, what with the pedobear avatar and all. :)

DESU DESU DESU LULZ!!

Oh yes, I'm very much a /b/tard.

In fact, just this past Saturday I participated in an epic /i/nvasion against the Orlando Church of $cientology.

Walter Ego

5th February 2008, 01:10 PM

"I have an open mind. I may not believe I am wrong, but I am at least willing to accept the possibility that I might be wrong. I am prepared to be convinced if the right evidence is presented to me."

In the meantime, Enjoy your AIDS.

What's with the AIDS remark? Has Terral told us he has AIDS? And even if he does what would his medical condition have to do with what he has posted in this thread?

1337m4n

5th February 2008, 01:35 PM

What's with the AIDS remark? Has Terral told us he has AIDS? And even if he does what would his medical condition have to do with what he has posted in this thread?

4chan inside joke. Couldn't resist.

Walter Ego

5th February 2008, 01:48 PM

4chan inside joke. Couldn't resist.

Perhaps you can explain it to me so I can have a good laugh too. I mean, we all know what a knee-slapper having AIDS is so let us all have a chuckle. Don't be shy.

dudalb

5th February 2008, 01:55 PM

lapman

5th February 2008, 02:13 PM

Hi 1337:

A challenge! :0) Thank you 1337 for presenting us with this grand opportunity.

Your next problem is that we already have very good evidence of what a real Jetliner can do to even a steel building much stronger than the Pentagon Limestone wall shown here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/wtcwoman.jpg). Please provide your proof that the light steel of the towers were stronger that the bomb resistant steel reinforced concrete walls of the Pentagon.
No sir. This is where you are being disingenuous and deceiving at the very same time. I am growing wearing of repeating myself on this point, so please try to pay closer attention: The retired A-3 Skywarrior is what the DoD bad guys used to BEGIN this inside-job operation, when the retrofitting process (http://web.archive.org/web/20070221061504/http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/318250.shtml) BEGAN. The DoD bad guys started off with something like this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/a3insky500.jpg) and this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/aim54.jpg) to then turn the thing into something that looked more like this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/AA_Painted_A3_Jet.jpg). Very simply, the DoD ‘tricked their Jet’ into looking like a real 100-Ton Jetliner using parts from many Jets and lots of silver and blue paint, etc., etc.. Why? Because their intention from the very start was to simulate a real 100-Ton Jetliner crash at the Pentagon . . . Next, I do not expect anyone here to produce a picture of any intact Jetliner, because supposedly the thing crashed going 533 miles per hour. We have plenty (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/plane.jpg) of pictures (http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/03/07/knPLANE__1_narrowweb__300x369,0.jpg) of other crash sites (http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/03/07/crash1_wideweb__470x301,0.jpg) showing engines (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/enginee.jpg) completely separated from the body of the plane like this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/4.jpg), but each time the time-change parts (http://physics911.net/georgenelson) are connected back to the host Jetliner. However, you cannot show me where your Jetliner crashed into the Pentagon, OR exited the C-Ring wall, OR produce a single seat of over 200 (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/boeing2.jpg), OR one time-change part of hundreds from the two Rolls Royce engines. This picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NoPlaneHere.jpg) had to be taken less than one hour after impact, because the E-Ring roof is still standing, but how many of these military people appear concerned about saving ANYONE from any Jetliner crash? :0) None! Do you know why? Nothing like that happened here.
Please enlighten us and point out the huge pieces of airliner in this picture of the ValuJet 592 crash.
http://www.pilotfriend.com/disasters/crash/images/30.jpghttp://llnw.image.cbslocal.com/370x278/images_sizedimage_131051428.jpg
Or the big pieces of 747 in the El Al Cargo crash.
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/elal1862/1.jpg

Lennart Hyland

5th February 2008, 02:28 PM

Terral:

You have failed even to answere one simple question.

- Do you have a photo of a A-3 crashing in the Pentagon?

And we can do that math:

If you havent got a photo, well that means - You dont believe that an A-3 crashed into the Pentagon.

And if you do have a photo - then you should show it to us.

(And oh remind that "A-3" can be changed to whatever veichle you want :p)

twinstead

5th February 2008, 02:35 PM

Terral doesn't seem to realize that we know all about the tactics of the truther: don't answer specific questions, change the subject whenever necessary, and when in doubt, provide a link that 'explains it all'. When one thing is debunked, don't even mention it, just go on to the next subject as if you are simply adding on to a pile of evidence instead of throwing dead weight off of a hot air balloon to keep it in the air. After a while all you have is the hot air, and if that's not enough to keep you afloat you're going down.

He's already lost the debate. He's already relegated to post endlessly on an internet forum, smug that he's got the 'debunkers' going all in circles while unnoticed by him his idiotic 'movement' dies.

1337m4n

5th February 2008, 03:37 PM

Perhaps you can explain it to me so I can have a good laugh too. I mean, we all know what a knee-slapper having AIDS is so let us all have a chuckle. Don't be shy.

4chan memes cannot be "explained" in such a manner that a noob would fully understand and enjoy. All I can say is: lurk moar. (http://www.wikichan.org/index.php/Lurk_moar)

Walter Ego

5th February 2008, 03:47 PM

4chan memes cannot be "explained" in such a manner that a noob would fully understand and enjoy. All I can say is: lurk moar. (http://www.wikichan.org/index.php/Lurk_moar)

It is also common knowledge that no amount of lurking on 4chan is really ever enough because at some point or another you will make yourself look like a trememdous faggot and need to lurk the ***** moar.

http://www.wikichan.org/index.php/Lurk_moar

So it's some kind of 'inside' wiccian faggot joke? I got that part. So please explain in simple English (I'm slow, remember) what is so amusing about a 'faggot' enjoying having AIDS?

e^n

5th February 2008, 09:49 PM

Terral, we have talked before but only briefly and I very rarely have time to post at the moment. In short I believe you are wrong and your methods of research and analysis are at the best extremely biased. I will attempt to illustrate what I mean.

My standard includes far more than just a few words and a few links like you have on display here. A real debating opponent has an opposing thesis with claims, plenty of evidentiary support and conclusions, about what really happened at the Pentagon, as the basis of his rebuttals or counterproposals. I see nothing like that on my ‘two attack’ thread and I certainly do not expect to see anything like that on this one from any of these so-called ‘debunkers’ that make me laugh OUT LOUD more than anything else; when in fact is topic is no laughing matter.
I don't have the time to participate in a formal debate, but I will be checking this forum repeatedly over the next few days so I feel sure I can provide an alternative thesis to your own. I apologise if this is not suitable but as I am arguing for an already established thesis and am likely not to disagree with the majority of other people here I feel my criticisms are still relevant.

My first criticism is regarding your dismissal of the comparison between the F4 concrete wall test and the impact upon the pentagon.
Do you know the size differences between your F-4 Jet and a real 757 Jetliner? :0) The wingspan of the F-4 is about 38 feet and that of the Boeing 757-200 is 125 feet. The weight of the F-4 is just under 30,000 pounds and that of the 757 is about 200,000 pounds. In other words, your little bird is about one seventh the size of a real 100-Ton Jetliner.
You seem to imply that because the F4 is much smaller the two are not comparable, but the argument being made here is for the amount of plane destruction. With a much higher mass the kinetic energy involved is much greater, but a 757 is arguably much weaker, it is not designed to handle anywhere near the same G forces as an F4 and as such is not designed with such heavy reinforcement.

While I am not saying they are a perfect comparison, your immediate dismissal of the comparison is invalid unless you care to give more of a reason, simply saying that the 757 would be larger is irrelevant as this would contribute more kinetic energy to the equation.

You go on to imply that the north tower entry hole is a good comparison to the pentagon wall and that the lack of any debris as some sort of proof of something?
Your next problem is that we already have very good evidence of what a real Jetliner can do to even a steel building much stronger than the Pentagon Limestone wall shown here. You might recognize that as the North Tower entry hole made earlier that same morning, but did you see a little piles of Jetliner debris at the base of the Twin Towers? No.
Regardless you are wrong, while there was no identifiable plane debris specifically noticed falling from the impact hole (that I know of) there were countless pieces of debris found and upon impact there was lots of unidentifiable debris as you can see here: http://www.pbase.com/bankst/image/35931729

You then go on to make an argument from incredulity that a 757 just couldn't have made this damage. Why Terral? The wingtips of the planes did not fully penetrate the towers either, they are light and not filled with fuel. You seem to be quite certain that the pentagon wall and windows are quite fragile, despite them being blast reinforced. Do you have any evidence to support your theory that this damage is not consistent with a 757 or have you simply looked at the pictures and made your mind up without consulting an expert?

Next we move on to yet more strange claims not backed by any sort of evidence such as this:
What is wrong with this picture? We have two 6-ton engines going 533 miles per hour with nothing but two masonry walls (the first floor is all under one roof) standing in the way. Does this masonry wall look 10 feet thick to you? :0) Heh . . . Your first problem is the ‘single’ entry and exit hole, when you should see twin holes some 50 feet apart to accommodate your two Rolls Royce engines. The next problem is that you have no engine setting out here between the C and B ring walls.
If there are no engine parts outside of the rings, and no exit holes corresponding with the engines, then it would be a fair assessment that they were stopped inside the building? I don't understand how this is supposed to be suspicious in any way?

Another picture displaying another problem is here where you see only seven feet between the tops of the cable spools and the bottom of the still-intact second floor.
I fail to see where any seven foot measurement was taken. Incidentally Terral, when you look to the left of those spools and see the concrete structure, what do you think made that little chip in it?

Now this next section I am not entirely sure of how you have logically reasoned it in your head but let me assure you that it does not make sense to the rest of us. You posit that the 'bad guys' retrofitted an A3 skywarrior to look like a 757, and to support this you provide us with a picture which is clearly not an A3! The bottom image here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/AA_Painted_A3_Jet.jpg) is clearly a photoshopped Global Hawk with some imaginary hardpoints added to the wing. Lets forget for a moment the Global Hawk is a reconnaissance aircraft and carries no weaponry, you don't even attempt to try and prove a point here, you simply claim it happened, provide a photoshopped image of a completely different aircraft and then call it a day? This is not research, this is dogma.

The rest of your post continues along these lines, without making any actual claims supported by evidence apart from stuff like this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/a1-Frame1a.jpg).

This is so poor it's almost heart warming to see it attempted. In making this claim that the object is so small you must first ensure you have correctly placed it's distance from the camera. To this end you have a horizontal line underneath your 'horizon' line which is supposed to be 5 feet lower on the grass. however this line is placed at the edge of the grass next to the security station, the plane did not hit anywhere near this area. In fact you need to move that line up a significant number of pixels and you would be closer, even though this is an entirely invalid method of guesstimating size as you have completely neglected to include the Z plane.

The last thing I find quite odd is your maths:
.5X + 2.5X = 5'
X + 5X = 5'
6X = 10'
According to this maths, X is either 5/3 or 6/5.

Honestly Terral, this is not a good attempt at providing sources for an A3 skywarrior claim and while your archive.org link is down for me, I doubt it contains any thrilling revelations.

One thing I am curious about is, do you believe that retrofitting an A3 skywarrior, equipping it with a missile and attempting such a daring plan is somehow a better option than simply flying the plane into the building in the first place? I wonder what sort of evidence would convince you.

MIKILLINI

5th February 2008, 10:24 PM

The EVIDENCE says something crashed into the Pentagon And, both of you really believe that something is proved by all your talk, talk, talk . . .

Talk is all it will be to you Terral since you won't listen.

I come here to present the 911Truth and can only laugh out loud at your impotent replies . . .

The only thing here that can be considered impotent is the evidence you present as truth.
Have you proved what happened to flight 77's passengers and where they were on 9/11?
They certainly didn't board an A-3 or a missile...So what happened to them Terral?

Corsair 115

5th February 2008, 11:34 PM

In post #22, I listed the basic specifications of the A-3 and the 757. In keeping with the old saying, "a picture is worth a thousand words," I present the image attached below.

It shows three-view line drawings of both the Boeing 757 and the Douglas A-3 Skywarrior. Note that the aircraft are shown in proper scale to each other. One can easily see how much smaller the A-3 is in relation to the 757. Note also the differences in shape I mentioned in my earlier post.

After examining the comparitive image below, does anyone seriously think a person would confuse these two aircraft regardless of how they were painted?

leftysergeant

6th February 2008, 02:25 AM

Oy! So many ignorant statements, so little time to respond!

My standard (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104792) includes far more than just a few words and a few links like you have on display here. A real debating opponent has an opposing thesis with claims, plenty of evidentiary support and conclusions, about what really happened at the Pentagon, as the basis of his rebuttals or counterproposals. I see nothing like that on my ‘two attack’ thread and I certainly do not expect to see anything like that on this one from any of these so-called ‘debunkers’ that make me laugh OUT LOUD (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU) more than anything else; when in fact is topic is no laughing matter.

So you have an aircraft filled with TNT AND firing a missile. Why?

Do you know the size differences between your F-4 Jet (http://science.howstuffworks.com/mcdonnell-douglas-f-4-phantom-ii1.htm) and a real 757 Jetliner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757#Specifications)? :0) The wingspan of the F-4 is about 38 feet and that of the Boeing 757-200 is 125 feet.

Which all means that there is more aluminum to empty space in an F-4 than in a 757. Thus, the F-4 is more rigid and less given to accordianing than is a 757.

Your next problem is that we already have very good evidence of what a real Jetliner can do to even a steel building much stronger than the Pentagon Limestone wall shown

Steel has more give than steel backed by brick and more likely to shear.

This composite picture[/url] shows Column Line 9 and 10 (closer shot (http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/Murru_Columns_8-10.jpg)) still intact too, which means even your first-floor damage extends only about 40 feet from the center of impact (CL 14).

The two columns you point out are bent as though something round passed between them very energeticly. you know, like an ENGINE.

However, the Official Story says impact was made at a 45-degree angle from the south and a schematic diagram (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/simulation.jpg) reveals the actual damage should extend over to CL 5; but those windows were not even broken in the attack.

Why would they be broken? The wing sheared off outboard of the engines and most of the fuel bladders when it hit column 9. It would have skidded along the front where you see missing sheathing.

In fact, all the windows on the third floor were unbroken and only two windows were missing from the second floor (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/impact_scale.jpg). :0) How does a 125-feet wide 100-Ton Jetliner going 533 miles per hour create an 18 feet diameter hole on the second floor without even breaking a window on the third floor? :0)

Why would it break blast-resistant windows that it did not hit? Yoiu see that gap at column 13 on the second floor? That is where the tail hit and sheared off.

Your first problem is the ‘single’ entry and exit hole, when you should see twin holes some 50 feet apart to accommodate your two Rolls Royce engines. The next problem is that you have no engine setting out here between the C and B ring walls.

No, we are supposed to have a continous hole punched out by the fuselage and the most rigid, fuel-laden parts of the wings to a point just outboard of the engines, which is what i see here.

Another picture displaying another problem is here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/fire_spools.jpg) where you see only seven feet between the tops of the cable spools and the bottom of the still-intact second floor.

And your point is.....?

This picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NoPlaneHere.jpg) had to be taken less than one hour after impact, because the E-Ring roof is still standing, but how many of these military people appear concerned about saving ANYONE from any Jetliner crash?

Actually, all of them do. They are standing next to what appears to be an ambulance or some sort of medical emergency vehicle. Look at the group of Marines on the far left, near the fire station. One of them is holding a backboard, which is used to transport personnel with back injuries. At least two of the Air Force personnel to the right of the Marines are wearing medical gloves.

The fire department is, at this time, totally in control of the scene, because they are still fighting the fires. No one not equipped to do so is allowed inside the building at this point. Especially not persons wearing the sorts of uniforms that these military people are wearing. They are, however, available to handle whatever crispy critters the fire departmentr may bring out of the building for them to free the fire fighters to continue fighting the fire. Donald Rumsfeld could not, at this point, over-ride an order from the fire chief, or even a nozzleman.

(I am the resident authority on this, having served as a fire fighter in the Air Force and, as my secondary MOS, in the Army. Don't presume to lecture me otherwise.)

1337 is trying to be facetious, when he should be hauling out ‘evidence’ for what really hit the Pentagon. Yes. We do have pictures of what really hit the Pentagon right

Actually, we have. The resolution just sucks big-time.

here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/pentani.gif), but analysis reveals the diameter of this object to be only 20-inches (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/a1-Frame1a.jpg)

You have the Pentagon being only two feet high.

You are looking at what struck the Pentagon during the 9:31:39 AM Missile Strike, while the Retrofitted Jet struck the Pentagon at the same location just 5 minutes later (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/BeforeAndAfter.jpg) (bottom pic); according to these eyewitnesses (Don Wright (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=schV0rKCRwA) and Michel Kelly (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD0qpbwHCYI)). I have News Reports of witnesses that saw a small plane hit the Pentagon, but where are your witnesses? :0) Even if you had a real witness claiming that a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed into the Pentagon, then where is the corroborating evidence? I have plenty of small Jet debris (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/DebunkedNothing.jpg) like this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/A-3JetDebris.jpg), but where is your evidence? :0)

Okay, I'm going to have to lump this all together. Look at the vapor following the aircraft. It is rolled into waves, as though under the wings of a very large aircraft. No missile would leave an exhaust trail like that. A straight stream or one with rings in it. NOT waves.

Don Wright was looking DOWN from a good distance. He has no known measurement by which to guage the size of the aircraft.

Kelly just mentions the sound of a smaller aircraft. He was in a car. I sometimes have to look to see what aircraft just passed over my car when I drive past the end of the McChord AFB runway, unless it is a C-5A taking off, or an F-16. No mistaking those.

And why do you think those bropken clocks prove anything? Do you even know what sort of quality we are talking about here? They are made under the Skilcraft label. That makes it a product of the Light houses for the Blind. They were made in a sheltered workshop.

These are not Swiss chronographs. If you drop one, yougo re-set it against a time piece of known accuracy before you put it back on the wall.

FAIL.

twinstead

6th February 2008, 04:52 AM

Terral all you have is one great big argument from incredulity. Things didn't happen the way YOU think they should of, therefore the event is suspect. Remember, this isn't some high school debate; we KNOW YOUR TACTICS.

Meanwhile, you still fail to even talk about the REAL evidence, e.g. DNA evidence, that shows the passengers of AA77. Why is that? Do you only tackle evidence that you can hand wave away because you just 'don't believe it'?

HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP

6th February 2008, 05:43 AM

Here is new shot of an A-3 shortly before crashing at the Pentagon from Terral:http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1884047a8cd4c740b9.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10600)
and it was controlled by this:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/2186347a9ab59d4ff2.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10613)

Swing Dangler

6th February 2008, 10:41 AM

Please provide your proof that the light steel of the towers were stronger that the bomb resistant steel reinforced concrete walls of the Pentagon.

Please enlighten us and point out the huge pieces of airliner in this picture of the ValuJet 592 crash.
http://www.pilotfriend.com/disasters/crash/images/30.jpghttp://llnw.image.cbslocal.com/370x278/images_sizedimage_131051428.jpg
Or the big pieces of 747 in the El Al Cargo crash.
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/elal1862/1.jpg

A swamp at the Pentagon? Why I never made the connection! :big:

DGM

6th February 2008, 10:47 AM

A swamp at the Pentagon? Why I never made the connection! :big:
Where does he compare this to the Pentagon? He asks a question and show two pictures. Are you high?

sts60

6th February 2008, 10:58 AM

I have to say it - the claim that an airliner did not strike the Pentagon is somewhere in the top ten of the dumbest, most insane claims of all time. It's ridiculous because people saw the airliner hit the Pentagon. It's ridiculous because pieces of the airliner, and its occupants, were recovered from inside the Pentagon. (I ride with some of the firefighters who were there that day, recovering airliner debris and human remains.) It's ridiculous because there is no evidence whatsoever for a drone, or a Frankenstein A-3-ish aircraft, or a missile, or a death ray from space, hitting the Pentagon. It's ridiculous because of the sheer, staggering idiocy of the belief that conspirators would stake their success on no one noticing that the airliner actually didn't hit the Pentagon, in broad daylight on a beautiful fall day!

But I also must add that the claim that a missile was fired into the Pentagon, and five minutes later an old A3 was flown into the Pentagon, and no one noticed that they were not a single event involving a 757, raises the whole thing to delicious new heights of unbounded craziness. That's right up there with "no planes hit the WTC towers". It's a strong challenger, in fact, to "The Earth is flat." It makes the Moon-landing-hoax claims which are my usual bailiwick look sick. Isn't it wonderful what Internet access in asylums has done for us?

beachnut

6th February 2008, 11:05 AM

lapman

6th February 2008, 11:36 AM

A swamp at the Pentagon? Why I never made the connection! :big:
I guess comprehension is not on the top of your list of skills. Terral is claiming that ALL aircraft crashes leave HUGE pieces of aircraft laying around. Then a crash into a marsh should have left a tail section sticking out of the water since the ground is so soft. I would have included the Payne Stewart crash, but Terral would have used the "but that's a smaller plane" copout. So, are you getting any closer to understanding what I posted?

Wolrab

6th February 2008, 11:42 AM

All I get out of terral's rant is that he has a thesis (whatever) and we don't, so he must be right. How that works, I have no clue.

twinstead

6th February 2008, 11:43 AM

I guess comprehension is not on the top of your list of skills. Terral is claiming that ALL aircraft crashes leave HUGE pieces of aircraft laying around. Then a crash into a marsh should have left a tail section sticking out of the water since the ground is so soft. I would have included the Payne Stewart crash, but Terral would have used the "but that's a smaller plane" copout. So, are you getting any closer to understanding what I posted?

To rational people it would make sense then that if an airliner crash even into soft earth can leave such an absence of large parts, think of what a crash, at even higher speeds into a reinforced concrete wall would leave.

I think Swing knows exactly what you were talking about. I find it odd that he insists on coddling Terral.

SO Swing Dangler. Do you stand on record supporting Terral's position?

aggle-rithm

6th February 2008, 11:51 AM

And each idiot idea truth has would include more henchmen. How can they be so stupid?

Well, that's why they needed the 9/11 attacks in the first place...justification for an unprecedented increase in the Henchman Budget.

;)

Swing Dangler

6th February 2008, 11:57 AM

Where does he compare this to the Pentagon? He asks a question and show two pictures. Are you high?

Why golly gee, Beave, didn't you read the quote he highlighted above his question? Reading comprehension you ain't got!

DGM

6th February 2008, 12:04 PM

Why golly gee, Beave, didn't you read the quote he highlighted above his question? Reading comprehension you ain't got!
Two separate unrelated questions. Remember accuracy counts when you read something. Try understanding things in context. I'm sorry "twoofers" can't do that.

BTW I loved your stundie nomination. And you talk about comprehension.

Swing Dangler

6th February 2008, 12:13 PM

To rational people it would make sense then that if an airliner crash even into soft earth can leave such an absence of large parts, think of what a crash, at even higher speeds into a reinforced concrete wall would leave.

I think Swing knows exactly what you were talking about. I find it odd that he insists on coddling Terral.

SO Swing Dangler. Do you stand on record supporting Terral's position?

I can't stand there, you see, there is a huge swamp! I would at least need an air boat or perhaps a swamp buggy.

The best theory to date is the Purdue simulation where the wings fold neatly into the side of the fuselage and the engines themselves magically disappear before entering the computer simulation.
Now who makes planes like that?? ;) Hmm folding wings and no engines mounted on to the wings....maybe Terral is onto something.

Lapman-I did not read anywhere that Terral stated ALL crashes will leave debris. That could be a false interpretation on your part or the standard reading comprehension error.

What I have found odd is that the famous piece of wreckage that is offered by the lawn debris picture has:

1. No burn marks considering the amount of heat and fire that was supposedly generated by the petrochemical explosion.

2. No ripped holes where one would expect the rivets to leave holes after the metal has been sheered off the plane. On the other hand, I've read another account from an electrician journal where a survivor's truck had rivets from a plane embedded into it. It almost appears like the famous piece itself was never riveted to the plane.

lapman

6th February 2008, 12:31 PM

I did not read anywhere that Terral stated ALL crashes will leave debris. That could be a false interpretation on your part or the standard reading comprehension error.
You obviously missed:
We have plenty of pictures of other crash sites showing engines completely separated from the body of the plane like this, but each time the time-change parts are connected back to the host Jetliner. and did not click on his pictures. They show large pieces that many twoofers and twoofer videos claim should be there.

What I have found odd is that the famous piece of wreckage that is offered by the lawn debris picture has:

1. No burn marks considering the amount of heat and fire that was supposedly generated by the petrochemical explosion. Since those parts would have sheared off in the crash and been blown out by the blast wave, the explosure to heat and fire would have been minimal.
Please point out the burned pieces in the wreckage of the ValueJet crash here:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9606/27/valujet.crash.reconstruct/warehouse.lg.jpg

2. No ripped holes where one would expect the rivets to leave holes after the metal has been sheered off the plane. On the other hand, I've read another account from an electrician journal where a survivor's truck had rivets from a plane embedded into it. It almost appears like the famous piece itself was never riveted to the plane.Like the holes in this piece?
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/757-americanlogo.jpg/757-americanlogo-full.jpg

twinstead

6th February 2008, 12:39 PM

Just as I suspected, Swing. You aren't paying attention. I'm disappointed in you playing that whole argument by incredulity game. The Pentagon crash doesn't look like you think it should look, therefore it must be fake.

This is beneath you.

Swing Dangler

6th February 2008, 12:50 PM

You obviously missed:
and did not click on his pictures. They show large pieces that many twoofers and twoofer videos claim should be there.
Since those parts would have sheared off in the crash and been blown out by the blast wave, the explosure to heat and fire would have been minimal.
Please point out the burned pieces in the wreckage of the ValueJet crash here:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9606/27/valujet.crash.reconstruct/warehouse.lg.jpg
Like the holes in this piece?
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/757-americanlogo.jpg/757-americanlogo-full.jpg

Notice in your other post, you said ALL (in nice caps even) but in his post you quoted: Terral states: We have plenty of pictures of other crash sites showing engines completely separated from the body of the plane like this, but each time the time-change parts are connected back to the host Jetliner. Bolding mine. Does plenty equal ALL? Not in my book. In your book for some reason, plenty equates to ALL. BTW, thanks for the posting of that scorched shiny metal debris piece that does not have the rivet holes ripped away.

twinstead Just as I suspected, Swing. You aren't paying attention. I'm disappointed in you playing that whole argument by incredulity game. The Pentagon crash doesn't look like you think it should look, therefore it must be fake.This is beneath you.
Aww twinstead, I only pointed out one piece of debris that doesn't look like it should ie, ripped rivet holes, indented rivet holes, scorch marks, etc. (Thanks again lapman for posting that pic.) And where did I even post what I thought the Pentagon crash site should look like? I'm giving Terral the benefit of doubt to see where this leads.

Swing Dangler

6th February 2008, 12:53 PM

lapman

6th February 2008, 01:15 PM

Lapman, pay attention. Swamp equals water..lots of water. Fire no likey water. No firey marks on plane debris. Why? Lots of water. Fire no likey water. I get and caveman get, you not. Why? ugga uggaa. Also, swampy parts look like inside plane, shiny metal Pentagon part outside plane. Different parts...uggga ugga.
So much stupidity in one post. Interesting how you provide not one piece of evidence from a similar crash that shows the burns. You also forget the when a biggie objeco crash into da water, water separates in the splashie. Then da is no waterie to stop it from going big baddaboom. So if da partie is from da inside or da outside, burn markies would be there. It is da interestin' dat you 'pletely ignore the holes in da shiny metal that you claim are not there.

Thank you for proving that comprehension is a skill that you haven't even started to acquire yet.

funk de fino

6th February 2008, 01:21 PM

We all know Swingie will not address the last picture in post # 67 that destroys his previous assertion about rivet holes

How can one person manage to insert their foot in their mouth as many times as he, without getting sick of the taste?

No wonder this supposed revolutionary movement is dead in the water

peteweaver

6th February 2008, 01:24 PM

Why are you ignoring the fact that workers in the clean up operation used oxy acetylene flame cutters ?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1549047a79105b109c.jpg

Everytime someone shows you evidence that the cuts were not made by thermite, but by oxyacetylene you duck dodge ignore the evidence presented.

Don't be frightened Terral, this is not an attack on you, just a contradiction of your theory.

http://www.debunking911.com/cut.jpg

more pics of oxy acetylene flame cutters in use on debris pile:

Exhibit 1 (http://www.iridescent-designs.co.uk/images/wtc/flamecutter-wtc-1.jpg)

Exhibit 2 (http://www.iridescent-designs.co.uk/images/wtc/flamecutter-wtc-3.jpg)

Exhibit 3 (http://www.iridescent-designs.co.uk/images/wtc/flamecutter-wtc-4.jpg)

C'mon, admit it, thermite was not used to make those cuts.

leftysergeant

6th February 2008, 01:43 PM

BTW, thanks for the posting of that scorched shiny metal debris piece that does not have the rivet holes ripped away.

The holes don't have to deform much for the sheet metal to pop off of them. The fuselage skin is remarkably delicate. It comes of in flight sometimes as a result of realtively minor damage. The whole fusel;age was deformed and over-pressurized on impact. There is no way it would NOT have blown some of the skin off.

And did you notice all the insulation lying everywhere on the lawn? That comes off with the skin.

Learn to read a crash scene before you deign to tell fire fighters what the scene is supposed to look like.

It looks an awful lot more like the scene of an airliner strike than of an A-3 or missile strike. There is, simply put, no indication of a missile or high explosive damage anywhere in any picture ever taken of the Pentagon. That's the name of that tune.

Myriad

6th February 2008, 01:59 PM

I appreciate people taking the trouble to post pictures of A-3 aircraft on this thread, so that when Terral gets around to posting a picture of the crashed A-3 at the Pentagon I'll be able to recognize it.

Respectfully,
Myriad

twinstead

6th February 2008, 02:14 PM

Learn to read a crash scene before you deign to tell fire fighters what the scene is supposed to look like.

He doesn't need to. It just doesn't look right. That's all he needs to suspect foul play.

stateofgrace

6th February 2008, 02:27 PM

Why ignore facts?

<ct mode on>

Because facts along with logic, evidence and science are for fools, they are destroyers of my delusions, that I and I alone have spotted the most hideous crime imaginable. Nobody else can see it, nobody else cares and all those that opposes my delusions need to be demonised and labelled Bush loyalists or protectors of murderers. They laugh at me now, they mock me but my delusions shall never be destroyed , they are steadfast, unshakable and one day I will be vindicated. On that day the world will stop turning, all will stand in awe at my utter brilliance and I will be rightly proclaimed the saviour of humanity. One that day I will stand tall and proclaim.

“ My fellow human beings, I am here, I have always been here, the fearless twoofer warrior. They dismissed me, they laughed at me but finally I stand humbly before you all as your saviour. Please I ask no thanks for have saved the entire planet. Once more the balance is restored, the evil doers are brought to justice. The world is a better place and my name shall be forever remembered in history."

They may, mock, they may insult me, they may destroy my theories with facts but it will never happen for as long as I post on internet forums, as long as I copy and paste as much conspiracy stuff as I can, I know my destiny will be fore filled.

I am not a sheep, I am not a number, I am not one of the "uninformed "masses, no siree, nobody fools me. I saw the truth on youtube and the tinternet.

I am destined for greatness and I know it.

< ct mode off>

Or something like that.

lapman

6th February 2008, 02:46 PM

GStan

6th February 2008, 02:47 PM

Why ignore facts?

Terral and The Facts made out at the office Christmas party a couple of years ago. The Facts had regret and never called Terral like she'd promised. So now Terral ignores The Facts.

What?

It's no more ridiculous an explanation than what he will post.

lapman

6th February 2008, 03:05 PM

Why are you ignoring the fact that workers in the clean up operation used oxy acetylene flame cutters ? You might as well as why the birds sing, dogs bark or NWO Kitty sharpens his claws even though he carries a gun.:p

Terral

6th February 2008, 03:06 PM

Hi Pete:

Pete >> Why are you ignoring the fact that workers in the clean up operation used oxy acetylene flame cutters?

Iron workers definitely used all kinds of torches during the WTC cleanup operation. Why would Pete intimate that I believe otherwise? This massive column (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/thermite.jpg) over the Confused Fireman’s head was NOT cut by any cutting torch. Christopher Bollyn (http://www.rense.com/general70/pphe.htm) showed the same picture to his experts and they came to the same exact conclusion. He writes,

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/thermite.jpg

Christopher Bollyn >> There is substantial evidence that thermite was used to cut the central support columns, which caused the towers to fall.

Evidence can be seen on photographs of the columns from the rubble of the World Trade Center.

In this photo, for example, the column directly above the fireman's helmet shows that it was cut with thermite. There is a substantial amount of hardened molten iron which can be seen on both the inside and outside of the box column. This is precisely what one would expect to find on a column which had been cut with thermite.

Experts who have viewed this photograph say that this column was not cut with a torch.

Does Christopher Bollyn or his experts believe that “oxy acetylene flame cutters” were NOT used in the aftermath of these attacks? Only if they are MORONS. :0) The reason we draw this conclusion is because of the molten metal residue that frothed up and literally boiled over (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/cut3.jpg) on the outside ‘and’ the inside of the column. This massive column was ‘cut’ chemically and not physically using any kind of cutting torch at all. Practically every steel-frame building demolition job includes cutting torches, but that does not mean this 45-degree angle cut some 40 to 50 feet in the air (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/b7_3.jpg) was cut with anything like that.

Pete >> Everytime someone shows you evidence that the cuts were not made by thermite, but by oxyacetylene you duck dodge ignore the evidence presented. Don't be frightened Terral, this is not an attack on you, just a contradiction of your theory.

The fact is that your ‘cutting torch’ assertions do nothing to challenge my WTC-7 OP Thesis, Claims, Evidence or Conclusions (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105459) one way or the other. Your job is to prove that WTC-7 collapsed due to BUILDING FIRES, which has nothing to do with any torches or any cleanup operation.

I have over a thousand Professional Architects, Engineers and Supporters (http://www.ae911truth.org/) agreeing with my “Controlled Demolition” Hypothesis. Prison Planet used Christopher Bollyn’s evidence to support ‘their’ CD explanations here (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/240406thermiteidentified.htm). Where are your professionals willing to put their reputations on the line by endorsing ‘your’ Building Fires Did It claims? :0) (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)

I swear one of you guys is going to make me bust a rib laughing . . . (http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/9030/laugh21ni.gif)

GL,

Terral

AMTMAN

6th February 2008, 03:09 PM

Notice in your other post, you said ALL (in nice caps even) but in his post you quoted: Terral states: Bolding mine. Does plenty equal ALL? Not in my book. In your book for some reason, plenty equates to ALL. BTW, thanks for the posting of that scorched shiny metal debris piece that does not have the rivet holes ripped away.

Aww twinstead, I only pointed out one piece of debris that doesn't look like it should ie, ripped rivet holes, indented rivet holes, scorch marks, etc. (Thanks again lapman for posting that pic.) And where did I even post what I thought the Pentagon crash site should look like? I'm giving Terral the benefit of doubt to see where this leads.

You’re giving Terral the benefit of the doubt? Well maybe you should ask him about one of his sources, rense.com. This link for example.

< http://home.att.net/~south.tower/PentagonWrongEngine1.htm >

As you can see they say that the two parts are "dead ringers". Do you notice any differences between the two? Hardly dead wringers by any means, maybe to the untrained eye.

beachnut

6th February 2008, 03:09 PM

Hi Pete:

Iron workers definitely used all kinds of torches during the WTC cleanup operation. Why would Pete intimate that I believe otherwise? This massive column (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/thermite.jpg) over the Confused Fireman’s head was NOT cut by any cutting torch. Christopher Bollyn (http://www.rense.com/general70/pphe.htm) showed the same picture to his experts and they came to the same exact conclusion. He writes,

Does Christopher Bollyn or his experts believe that “oxy acetylene flame cutters” were NOT used in the aftermath of these attacks? Only if they are MORONS. :0) The reason we draw this conclusion is because of the molten metal residue that frothed up and literally boiled over (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/cut3.jpg) on the outside ‘and’ the inside of the column. This massive column was ‘cut’ chemically and not physically using any kind of cutting torch at all. Practically every steel-frame building demolition job includes cutting torches, but that does not mean this 45-degree angle cut some 40 to 50 feet in the air (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/b7_3.jpg) was cut with anything like that.

The fact is that your ‘cutting torch’ assertions do nothing to challenge my WTC-7 OP Thesis, Claims, Evidence or Conclusions (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105459) one way or the other. Your job is to prove that WTC-7 collapsed due to BUILDING FIRES, which has nothing to do with any torches or any cleanup operation.

I have over a thousand Professional Architects, Engineers and Supporters (http://www.ae911truth.org/) agreeing with my “Controlled Demolition” Hypothesis. Prison Planet used Christopher Bollyn’s evidence to support ‘their’ CD explanations here (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/240406thermiteidentified.htm). Where are your professionals willing to put their reputations on the line by endorsing ‘your’ Building Fires Did It claims? :0) (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)

I swear one of you guys is going to make me bust a rib laughing . . . (http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/9030/laugh21ni.gif)

GL,

Terral
You are making up lies based on ridiculous hearsay. Are you making this up on your own? Are your dumb posts your own, or are you getting help making the dumbest posts on the internet about 9/11? Not very good either. (you better check the names, many are fake; but 1000 idiots who say it is so, are still 1000 idiots who have been wrong)
You do not even take time to support your rants of hearsay. Not a single thing you say makes sense. How can you post so much ridicules hearsay without checking it out?

DGM

6th February 2008, 03:10 PM

Terral don't forget to add that it's not necessary to talk to these people (iron workers on site)because you know the "truth".:confused:

peteweaver

6th February 2008, 03:17 PM

Terral, I don't care what Christopher Bollyn said, the mans a buffoon. I've used cutting torches and they are the only things which were in that area which could have made those cuts.

Thermite burns downwards and it is VERY VERY messy.

Its also the case that number of firefighters remained at ground zero for months during the clean up so they could search for their fallen comrades.

That photo you show Terral, shows firefighters at the scene AFTER the cleanup had begun, and the dismantling of the remaining structure had begun.

There is no evidence whatsoever that thermite is even capable of making a cut like that. The Truthburn project bottled out of trying to demonstrate that at the burning man festival last year. Cuts like that cannot be done with thermite, they can however be done with oxy acetylene, and thats how those cuts were made.

dudalb

6th February 2008, 03:18 PM

I have over a thousand Professional Architects, Engineers and Supporters agreeing with my “Controlled Demolition” Hypothesis. Prison Planet used Christopher Bollyn’s evidence to support ‘their’ CD explanations here. Where are your professionals willing to put their reputations on the line by endorsing ‘your’ Building Fires Did It claims? :0)

A.There are damn few REAL Architecs or Engineers at that site . It's like 1% real engineers and Architects (whom have sadly allowed their politics to overrule their professional judgement) and 99% wackjob supporters.
B. Of all the kooky websites there are on the Web,you would be hard pressed to find one that is kookier the "Prison Planet". Alex Jones is such a total wackjob that some truthers consider him a "disinfo" agent.
I am amazed that Terral has not learned that by citing crackpot CT websites for his sources of Information he is only digging himself deeper into a hole..although he should be reaching China by about now.

Terral

6th February 2008, 03:22 PM

Hi AMTMAN:

AMT >> As you can see they say that the two parts are "dead ringers". Do you notice any differences between the two? Hardly dead wringers by any means, maybe to the untrained eye.

Someone else mentioned in another thread that I ‘should not use’ specific links, because the author there drew a different set of conclusions. I say “poppycock!” We can all benefit from the ‘evidence’ gathered by many different 911Truthers, even if we draw ‘different conclusions.’ Do I believe an A-3 hit the Pentagon? No! :0) The DoD retrofitted a retired Jet to mirror ‘their’ version of a real 100-Ton Jetliner with lots of new framework, sheet metal, paint and AA decals. The finished product looked more like a real AA Jetliner than anything else. However, the EVIDENCE shows Pratt and Whitney Jet parts (http://home.att.net/~carlson.jon/PentagonA3wreckage1.htm) common to military jets, which are much cheaper and more common than the pricey Rolls Royce engines. The DoD can go out and retrofit a retired military jet to make it look like just about anything, but in this case they needed one that looked like a real 100-Ton Jetliner. Their eyewitnesses would not be trained military people, but regular Joe’s going to work simply driving by the Pentagon.

GL,

Terral

beachnut

6th February 2008, 03:31 PM

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/757-americanlogo.jpg/757-americanlogo-full.jpg
Do no post plane parts, Swing will be confused, he has never see a 500 mph aircraft crash, he is ignorant on the subject as is bofors, terral, and the entire cast of 9/11 truth. If they had knowledge of high speed aircraft crashes they would see all the parts. Are these guys no plane dolt idea people?

Pieces of the jet indicative of a 500 mph aircraft crash will only confuse those who are prone to believe the lies and hearsay of 9/11 truth.

DGM

6th February 2008, 03:31 PM

By Terral
I have over a thousand Professional Architects, Engineers and Supporters agreeing with my “Controlled Demolition” Hypothesis. Prison Planet used Christopher Bollyn’s evidence to support ‘their’ CD explanations here. Where are your professionals willing to put their reputations on the line by endorsing ‘your’ Building Fires Did It claims? :0)

Have you ever heard of NIST. There are more engineers involved in that report then aetwoofers will ever have. So to answer your question, Look at the NIST contributors.

beachnut

6th February 2008, 03:38 PM

Hi AMTMAN:
Someone else mentioned in another thread that I ‘should not use’ specific links, because the author there drew a different set of conclusions. I say “poppycock!” We can all benefit from the ‘evidence’ gathered by many different 911Truthers, even if we draw ‘different conclusions.’ Do I believe an A-3 hit the Pentagon? No! :0) The DoD retrofitted a retired Jet to mirror ‘their’ version of a real 100-Ton Jetliner with lots of new framework, sheet metal, paint and AA decals. The finished product looked more like a real AA Jetliner than anything else. However, the EVIDENCE shows Pratt and Whitney Jet parts (http://home.att.net/~carlson.jon/PentagonA3wreckage1.htm) common to military jets, which are much cheaper and more common than the pricey Rolls Royce engines. The DoD can go out and retrofit a retired military jet to make it look like just about anything, but in this case they needed one that looked like a real 100-Ton Jetliner. Their eyewitnesses would not be trained military people, but regular Joe’s going to work simply driving by the Pentagon.
GL, Terral
A post of pure ignorance on this subject. Lies and implying people were in on it without evidence is an ignorant thing to do. Since 77 hit the Pentagon, your lies are exposed.

You say you do not care if your own references debunk you, you stand by your lies.

Your post proven wrong by thousands of pieces of evidence, your ideas backed by thousands of idiots on 9/11 who are as ill informed as you are on 9/11.
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

Corsair 115

6th February 2008, 03:39 PM

Do I believe an A-3 hit the Pentagon? No! :0) The DoD retrofitted a retired Jet... Well, then what kind of jet was used? What was the make and model? To date you've kept talking about the Douglas A-3 Skywarrior.

...to mirror ‘their’ version of a real 100-Ton Jetliner with lots of new framework, sheet metal, paint and AA decals.You do realize that doing that would seriously change the aerodynamics of the aircraft model so modified? You can't slap a bunch of new exterior parts onto an airframe thereby changing its shape and expect it to fly just the same as it always did.

Wouldn't it just be easier to use an actual 757 rather than go through all the trouble of trying to disguise some other jet type?

JimBenArm

6th February 2008, 03:41 PM

peteweaver

6th February 2008, 03:46 PM

Er Rolls Royce RB211-535e's are EXTREMELY COMMON POWERPLANTS.

The RB211 was initially developed for the Lockheed L1011 tristar in the 1970's, and saved Rolls Royce from bankrupcy. The RB211 proved to be an excellent engine, which was test flown in 1974 on a modified Super VC 10, with 1 RB211 on one side, and two Conways on the other, it provided almost as much thurst as the two Conways conbined, and warped the airframe of VC10 registration G-AXLR.

http://www.vc10.net/History/Individual/XR809.html

The RB211-535e is used on everything from Boeing 747's to Tupolevs. It is an excellent workhorse and can be found on airliners the world over.

757's in the American Airlines fleet are fitted with RB211-535e's, and the wreckage matches RB211-535e parts, which are manufactured in the UK.

The RB211-535e can generate 43100 pounds per square foot of thrust.

Incidentally the JT8D, was never used on A3 Skywarriors, but was used on boeing 727's, 737's, DC9's and other airliners, it was based upon the P&W J52 turbojet which was developed for the Grumman A6 Intruder.

And look at this Terral, http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml
RB211-535e parts in pentagon wreckage matched to spares catalogue.

Skibum

6th February 2008, 04:40 PM

Christopher Bollyn showed the same picture to his experts and they came to the same exact conclusion.

Strange, I showed the same pic to my experts and all 10,329 of them disagree with his.

Who are his "experts"?

My guess would be they are similar to the other "experts" the idiot movement trots out, experts at nothing, only fellow idiots.

6th February 2008, 04:52 PM

Maybe we should all concentrate on one fact at a time, repeating it until Terral either runs screaming to a dark corner where the facts can't find him, or is forced to admit the error.

I vote we start with the fact that Therm?te cannot burn sideways, but that's just me.
Maybe someone has an easier start-point for us to use. Something simple, to test the idea out.

twinstead

6th February 2008, 04:59 PM

;3409181']Maybe we should all concentrate on one fact at a time, repeating it until Terral either runs screaming to a dark corner where the facts can't find him, or is forced to admit the error.

I vote we start with the fact that Therm?te cannot burn sideways, but that's just me.
Maybe someone has an easier start-point for us to use. Something simple, to test the idea out.

It's no use. He knows he is right, and for crying out loud he's delusional enough to think he has THOUSANDS of experts to support him! He's beyond hope.

On an up note, he of course will never do more than spread this crap on an internet forum, and his movement will NEVER be able to garner support from anybody who can even begin to do anything about anything.

That's kind of our little revenge for having to put up with him.

pomeroo

6th February 2008, 05:06 PM

Hi Pete:

Iron workers definitely used all kinds of torches during the WTC cleanup operation. Why would Pete intimate that I believe otherwise? This massive column (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/thermite.jpg) over the Confused Fireman’s head was NOT cut by any cutting torch. Christopher Bollyn (http://www.rense.com/general70/pphe.htm) showed the same picture to his experts and they came to the same exact conclusion. He writes,

Does Christopher Bollyn or his experts believe that “oxy acetylene flame cutters” were NOT used in the aftermath of these attacks? Only if they are MORONS. :0) The reason we draw this conclusion is because of the molten metal residue that frothed up and literally boiled over (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/cut3.jpg) on the outside ‘and’ the inside of the column. This massive column was ‘cut’ chemically and not physically using any kind of cutting torch at all. Practically every steel-frame building demolition job includes cutting torches, but that does not mean this 45-degree angle cut some 40 to 50 feet in the air (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/b7_3.jpg) was cut with anything like that.

The fact is that your ‘cutting torch’ assertions do nothing to challenge my WTC-7 OP Thesis, Claims, Evidence or Conclusions (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105459) one way or the other. Your job is to prove that WTC-7 collapsed due to BUILDING FIRES, which has nothing to do with any torches or any cleanup operation.

I have over a thousand Professional Architects, Engineers and Supporters (http://www.ae911truth.org/) agreeing with my “Controlled Demolition” Hypothesis. Prison Planet used Christopher Bollyn’s evidence to support ‘their’ CD explanations here (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/240406thermiteidentified.htm). Where are your professionals willing to put their reputations on the line by endorsing ‘your’ Building Fires Did It claims? :0) (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)

I swear one of you guys is going to make me bust a rib laughing . . . (http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/9030/laugh21ni.gif)

GL,

Terral

But the Neo-Nazi Bollyn has no experts. No demolition experts believe that thermite was used at the WTC complex on the day of the jihadist attacks because thermite is not used in demolition and there no evidence of thermite. Why do you continue to lie?

MIKILLINI

6th February 2008, 05:22 PM

Lets see...here's a question Terral asks himself..and he answers it right away:

Do I believe an A-3 hit the Pentagon? No!

So Terral doesn't believe an A-3 hit the Pentagon. He does claim the Department of Defense practices jet retrofitting to make their planes replicate commercial airliners.

The DoD retrofitted a retired Jet to mirror ‘their’ version of a real 100-Ton Jetliner with lots of new framework, sheet metal, paint and AA decals. The finished product looked more like a real AA Jetliner than anything else.

Gee Terral, who made the decision to retrofit the planes? How would they select those that did the retrofitting without raising suspicion from co-workers? Why haven't there been leaks or allegations from the DoD? Who decided American Airlines was the company of choice to replicate?
Oh wait! There is something...

However, the EVIDENCE shows

What?? Evidence?? You understand what REAL evidence means???
Lets observe YOUR evidence (cough..speculation...cough).

[url=http://home.att.net/~carlson.jon/PentagonA3wreckage1.htm]

Wait a minute..what did you say above?

Do I believe an A-3 hit the Pentagon? No!

Why have you posted a URL that makes this claim; PentagonA3wreckage??

And this claim...

Pratt and Whitney Jet parts are common to military jets, which are much cheaper and more common than the pricey Rolls Royce engines. The DoD can go out and retrofit a retired military jet to make it look like just about anything

Sure thing, they can go out and make a military jet look like....a military jet.
Back in the retrofitting department, they are operating on a budget so the decision is made to use Pratt & Whitney engines. Rolls Royce engines will break the DoD inside job bank, therefore the plan was made to exclude them.
Terral do you suppose any of those in the retrofitting group had a question about the engine choice? A question like RetroRays;

Ray: Since we are using Pratt & Whitney engines, and fabricating the plane to be a replicate of a civilian airliner, why would we have them believe it was an airliner when the crash evidence will show it to be a military plane instead of an airliner?

Supervisor: Because the American Airlines paint scheme will fool the witnesses.

Ray: But if they find Pratt & Whitney engines instead of the Rolls Royce ones used on airliners, they won't believe it was an airliner. Don't we want them to believe it was an airliner?

Supervisor: The paint scheme will fool the witnesses. That is all we need.

Ray: How are we going to switch this with an actual passenger plane at the airport without AA or their ground crew noticing or the pilot noticing when he does a pre-flight check?

Supervisor: Stop asking questions and get to work!!

http://www.lafferty.ca/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/fail-24.jpg

AMTMAN

6th February 2008, 05:36 PM

Hi AMTMAN:

Someone else mentioned in another thread that I ‘should not use’ specific links, because the author there drew a different set of conclusions. I say “poppycock!” We can all benefit from the ‘evidence’ gathered by many different 911Truthers, even if we draw ‘different conclusions.’ Do I believe an A-3 hit the Pentagon? No! :0) The DoD retrofitted a retired Jet to mirror ‘their’ version of a real 100-Ton Jetliner with lots of new framework, sheet metal, paint and AA decals. The finished product looked more like a real AA Jetliner than anything else. However, the EVIDENCE shows Pratt and Whitney Jet parts (http://home.att.net/~carlson.jon/PentagonA3wreckage1.htm) common to military jets, which are much cheaper and more common than the pricey Rolls Royce engines. The DoD can go out and retrofit a retired military jet to make it look like just about anything, but in this case they needed one that looked like a real 100-Ton Jetliner. Their eyewitnesses would not be trained military people, but regular Joe’s going to work simply driving by the Pentagon.

GL,

Terral

You don't beleive an A-3 hit the Pentagon? Seems you are contradicting yourself at every turn.

What makes you think it's a Pratt motor? Do you know what a PW motor looks like compared to a RB211? I'm gussing you could not tell the difference between the two. I asked you before if you noticed a difference between the two engines in the picture on the rense link. Here's a little help.

< http://img507.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rb211he7.jpg >
< http://img507.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rb2113sy6.jpg >
< http://img135.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rb2112bp3.jpg >

AMTMAN

6th February 2008, 05:39 PM

Mel Odious

6th February 2008, 09:44 PM

Terral:

Take a look at this ...

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/real-world-tests-cut-through-steel.html

Also, please note the molten iron that appears beside the cut.

Can Christopher Bollyn give us a similar demonstration with thermite?

ElMondoHummus

6th February 2008, 09:59 PM

Chris Bollyn or his experts??

Experts?? What experts??

EvilBiker

6th February 2008, 11:38 PM

padragan

7th February 2008, 06:33 AM

One thing that has always bugged me about that pic:

If, like the CTs claim, the pillar was cut (by whatever means) to bring down the building, surely that would have meant a very very very large amount of material directly above the pillar in question.

Assuming that the building then fell down around this cut pillar, surely there would be some damage to the cut end? I don't notice any scores or marks that would have been made by debris smacking it on the way down. Hell, the first thing that would hit that pillar top would be the remainder of the pillar above it, which would leave some nice deep gouges, at the very least.

Also, this looks like a pillar from the very bottom of the tower. Since it's very clear that the towers collapsed from the top and not (like a "normal" demolition) by collapsed support from underneath. So, exactly WHEN was this pillar supposed to have been "thermited" (hmm, I think I just invented a new word)? When the upper half was on it's way down the place where this pillar resided were still unharmed (sort of).

Terral

7th February 2008, 07:19 AM

Hi Beachnut:

I provided a good answer to Pete’s Opening Post concerns in Post #5 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3408802&postcount=5) of this thread to which Beachnut writes,

Beachnut >> You are making up lies based on ridiculous hearsay. Are you making this up on your own? Are your dumb posts your own, or are you getting help making the dumbest posts on the internet about 9/11?

Please forgive, but we need a little bit of enforcement of the “attack the theory and not the theorist” guidelines that dominate all these Discussion Boards, when all Beachnut can do is come out here and attack my person (http://www.aspkin.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/hammer.jpg). Members often stoop to using these underhanded debating tactics, when they have no case for anything at all. I am sorry that ‘your’ explanations cannot withstand the test of meaningful debate (http://www.lacitycollege.edu/academic/departments/speech/forensics/DEBATE.gif), but that is no reason to begin attacking Terral over your own frustration . . .

Beachnut >> Not very good either. (you better check the names, many are fake; but 1000 idiots who say it is so, are still 1000 idiots who have been wrong).

Please forgive again, but ranting aimlessly about ‘dumb posts’ and ‘1000 idiots’ is not finding Beachnut in a very good Light this morning. Please try again when you ‘do’ come up with an opposing argument. Remember that we do have large numbers of ladies, gentlemen and their children (http://www.tneagleforum.org/images/npv-large%20crowd%20in%20the%20Opry%20House.jpg) reading the content of these threads.

GL,

Terral

DGM

7th February 2008, 07:21 AM

Terral:
Who are Bollyn's experts?

timhau

7th February 2008, 07:30 AM

Terral:
Who are Bollyn's experts?

Um... Himmler, Goering, Goebbels, and Heydrich?

Terral

7th February 2008, 07:43 AM

Hi DGM:

DGM >> Terral don't forget to add that it's not necessary to talk to these people (iron workers on site) because you know the "truth".

Please listen up ALL of you: I have shown you clear evidence of WTC-7 Controlled Demolition in Post #5 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3408802&postcount=5) of this thread to which you either have a “Building Fire Did It” rebuttal OR you simply DO NOT. Period. As already explained, I have over 1000 Architects, Engineers and Supporters (http://www.ae911truth.org/) that agree 100 percent with my WTC-7 Controlled Demolition Hypothesis (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105459). Dr. Steven Jones (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-281848486800635615) agrees 100 percent with my CD proposal and uses many of the same pictures in making his own CD case (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/WTC-Jones19mar06.htm). Interviewing WTC iron workers ‘after the fact’ is not going to change THE EVIDENCE pointing directly to a WTC-7 Demolition Job. Period! Do Americans have to worry about the steel-framed skyscraper where they work collapsing into its own footprint from building fires? No! This kind of skyscraper has burned like a Roman Candle (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/madrid_fire.jpg) for more than a day (story (http://www.infowars.com/articles/world/madrid_towering_inferno.htm)) and remained standing, because building fires do NOT burn hot enough (http://www.schwabcorp.com/faqs.htm#fire_safe) to melt Structural Red-iron Steel (http://www.911research.com/talks/wtc/meltdownre.html) AND the steel-frame network itself carries heat ‘away’ from the fuel source more quickly than any single component can be melted or softened or anything else.

These are the facts known to MANY Architectural and Engineering professionals and scientist/professors like Dr. Steven Jones, whether you guys ever decide to wake the heck up or not. If you disagree with Terral and all of these building professionals and supporting scientists, then your job is to begin proving how BUILDING FIRES took down WTC-7. Those are the only two theories on the table to my knowledge, so standing against Terral in ‘this debate’ means believing building fires took down WTC-7 ‘and’ in just a few cotton picking hours. If ‘you’ cannot make ‘that’ building fire case (that is impossible), then the time has come to begin accepting the CD Explanation adopted by all these professionals demanding a new 9/11 investigation.

GL,

Terral

e^n

7th February 2008, 07:49 AM

If ‘you’ cannot make ‘that’ building fire case (that is impossible), then the time has come to begin accepting the CD Explanation adopted by all these professionals demanding a new 9/11 investigation.

GL,

Terral

I believe I can make such a case to at least the same standards of evidence as you accept. For example I made an attempt to discuss this with you here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3406559&postcount=50) but you have not yet responded. If you would like a discussion on either topic I am more than happy to oblige.

DGM

7th February 2008, 07:51 AM

Terral:
Why do you feel the need to lie about that cut column. You have shown no evidence to support your theory on it. Saying a convicted felon thinks so is not evidence?

WHO ARE HIS EXPERTS?

Terral

7th February 2008, 07:51 AM

Hi Twinstead:

Twin >> It's no use. He knows he is right, and for crying out loud he's delusional enough to think he has THOUSANDS of experts to support him! He's beyond hope.

The facts in this case are made clear in this single little video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uNbKJofv3c).

GL,

Terral

Calcas

7th February 2008, 08:10 AM

As already explained, I have over 1000 Architects, Engineers and Supporters that agree 100 percent with my WTC-7 Controlled Demolition Hypothesis.

NO you don't. We've pointed this out to you before but you continue with this lie.

The vast majority of that site is "supporters." Apparently, they support the mission of ae911truth for a new investigation. WHO SAYS THEY SUPPORT YOUR THEORY? Only you say that.

BTW, quite a few of us here (myself included) joined up over there just to get on Gage's mailing list. His regular pleas for money are hilarious and disturbing at the same time. So, by your logic, I agree 100% with your hypothesis, right?

Additionally, I didn't just join as a supporter but am listed as an engineer...which I am not. Gage sure does a good job "verifying" credentials, doesn't he?

Why do you repeat the same lies over and over again? Why do you ignore even addressing posts like this?

You are really among the worst of the twoofers because you just keep slinging the same crap up against the wall hoping some of it will stick. Even when it's proven to be false (as in your "1000 people agree with my hypothesis" claim) you just keep right on repeating it.

Pathetic.

Terral

7th February 2008, 08:20 AM

Hi en:

En >> I believe I can make such a case to at least the same standards of evidence as you accept. For example I made an attempt to discuss this with you here but you have not yet responded. If you would like a discussion on either topic I am more than happy to oblige.

I read your post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3406559&postcount=50) that included the comments:

En >> You seem to imply that because the F4 is much smaller the two are not comparable, but the argument being made here is for the amount of plane destruction. With a much higher mass the kinetic energy involved is much greater, but a 757 is arguably much weaker, it is not designed to handle anywhere near the same G forces as an F4 and as such is not designed with such heavy reinforcement.

Nothing in your entire post means anything, because your job is to prove that a real 100-Ton Jetliner passed through this 18-feet 3-inch second story entry hole (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NoWayBaby.jpg). Do you see those large cable spools (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/fire_spools.jpg) talker than a man??!! Okay then. How did your almost 50-feet tall Jetliner pass over those spools ‘and’ under the still-intact second floor? How did your 100-Ton Jetliner crash into this E-Ring wall (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NoPlaneHere.jpg) without breaking a single window on the third floor (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/impact_scale.jpg)? You are talking about little baby F-4 Jets versus 100-Ton Jetliners, which is a watermelon to apple comparison at best. Begin a real comparison by crashing a real Jetliner like this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NotAtPentagon.jpg) (the movie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKhBzAh_eeA)) and then start squawking (http://www.zelophotography.com/zeloblog/wp-content/uploads/cadynate05.jpg) like that means something AFTER you have made the appropriate damage assessment report. My job is to defend attacks against ‘my’ OP hypothesis, which your F-4 nonsense does not begin to do even a little tiny bit.

If anyone here thinks their rebuttal to ANYTHING from my work deserves a thoughtful reply, then the Private Messaging System appears to be working just fine. Simply send me a PM with the link to your post and I will decide if a response is even necessary. When I show up here to begin defending my positions in these debates, AND I see a big goose egg in the PM box, then I am free to answer any post I wish. Anyone unwilling to send the PM is not concerned enough about the topic or his reply to consider himself worthy of anything . . .

GL,

Terral

DGM

7th February 2008, 08:28 AM

Hi en:

I read your post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3406559&postcount=50) that included the comments:

Nothing in your entire post means anything, because your job is to prove that a real 100-Ton Jetliner passed through this 18-feet 3-inch second story entry hole (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NoWayBaby.jpg). Do you see those large cable spools (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/fire_spools.jpg) talker than a man??!! Okay then. How did your almost 50-feet tall Jetliner pass over those spools ‘and’ under the still-intact second floor? How did your 100-Ton Jetliner crash into this E-Ring wall (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NoPlaneHere.jpg) without breaking a single window on the third floor (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/impact_scale.jpg)? You are talking about little baby F-4 Jets versus 100-Ton Jetliners, which is a watermelon to apple comparison at best. Begin a real comparison by crashing a real Jetliner like this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NotAtPentagon.jpg) (the movie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKhBzAh_eeA)) and then start squawking (http://www.zelophotography.com/zeloblog/wp-content/uploads/cadynate05.jpg) like that means something AFTER you have made the appropriate damage assessment report. My job is to defend attacks against ‘my’ OP hypothesis, which your F-4 nonsense does not begin to do even a little tiny bit.

If anyone here thinks their rebuttal to ANYTHING from my work deserves a thoughtful reply, then the Private Messaging System appears to be working just fine. Simply send me a PM with the link to your post and I will decide if a response is even necessary. When I show up here to begin defending my positions in these debates, AND I see a big goose egg in the PM box, then I am free to answer any post I wish. Anyone unwilling to send the PM is not concerned enough about the topic or his reply to consider himself worthy of anything . . .

GL,

Terral
No! YOUR job is to prove the plane (757) didn't hit there. So far you FAIL miserably.

FACTS prove it did as with the FACT the physical EVIDENCE PROVES it

Note the use of BOLD so it has to be TRUE.

e^n

7th February 2008, 08:47 AM

My job is to defend attacks against ‘my’ OP hypothesis, which your F-4 nonsense does not begin to do even a little tiny bit.

I'm afraid not Terral, as a person making claims about the happenings at the Pentagon that day, the burden of proof is on you. You may feel you are entitled to be the arbiter and judge of opinions however this is irrelevant. Your theory is little more than a few pictures which often don't imply what you believe coupled with your own arrogant dictation of events.

Tell me, what value does X have here? (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/a1-Frame1a.jpg)

Quad4_72

7th February 2008, 08:53 AM

Hey terral, out of your 1000 "architects, engineers, and supporters", how many of them have published work in a scientific journal regarding their belief that WTC7 was a CD? Have any of them ever had a paper scientifically peer reviewed by anyone other than themselves?

AMTMAN

7th February 2008, 08:56 AM

Terral:

Do you need more IPC references? Or do you still continue to insist on believing anything rense.com puts out?

Terral

7th February 2008, 08:57 AM

Hi Calcus with Gravy:

Terral Original >> As already explained, I have over 1000 Architects, Engineers and Supporters that agree 100 percent with my WTC-7 Controlled Demolition Hypothesis.

Calcus >> NO you don't. We've pointed this out to you before but you continue with this lie. The vast majority of that site is "supporters." Apparently, they support the mission of ae911truth for a new investigation. WHO SAYS THEY SUPPORT YOUR THEORY? Only you say that.

No sir. A look at ‘our’ AE911truth.org Webpage (http://www.ae911truth.org/) shows exactly 264 A/E professionals and 899 Supporters, which is exactly 1263 Architects, Engineers and Supporters. My statement above mentioned only 1000 Architects, Engineers and Supporters, so the missing 263 are part of the “OVER 1000 . . .”.

Welcome to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth!

"264 architectural and engineering professionals and 899 other supporters including A/E students have signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation."

There are only TWO THEORIES for what took WTC-7 down and those are:

1. Controlled Demolition.
2. Building Fires.

Anyone believing theory number 2 has no reason to be signing any petition for a new investigation, because that is the Official Government Cover Story. All you will see from the top to the bottom of the AE911Truth Webpage is Controlled Demolition Explanations, because that is the only theory we believe has any basis in reality. My WTC-7 Thesis paper was the very first one posted on the AE Website in the WTC-7 Forum, so I have the knowledge contained in the responses from other AE members that YOU have perhaps never seen. Maybe Calcus does NOT have access to all the facts to be making these kinds of ridiculous statements, OR to be drawing these kinds of conclusions. The idea that we have “Building Fires Did It” theorists running around the AE site is nothing more than RIDICULOUS. However, Terral is my real name and my membership status and credentials have been part of the equation from the beginning, but Calcus can say he is anybody. :0) Right away these readers should realize that members using their real names have MUCH more credibility than people hiding behind tags like Gravy, Calcus and other nonsense.

Calcus >> BTW, quite a few of us here (myself included) joined up over there just to get on Gage's mailing list. His regular pleas for money are hilarious and disturbing at the same time. So, by your logic, I agree 100% with your hypothesis, right?

My logic? Nonsense. I can tell by the evidence that a large number of JREF members disagree with ‘our’ CD hypothesis, which does not require any genius IQ. :0) Yes. The ‘real’ AE members agree with ‘our’ CD Explanations, but obviously that does not include JREF “Building Fires Did IT” debunkers (heh (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/funny.gif)) like you. Let's see: We have Richard Gage a professional architect (http://www.ae911truth.org/) versus Calcus (http://forums.randi.org/customavatars/avatar10871_5.gif) . . . Hmmmm . . . (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)

Calcus >> Additionally, I didn't just join as a supporter but am listed as an engineer...which I am not. Gage sure does a good job "verifying" credentials, doesn't he? Why do you repeat the same lies over and over again? Why do you ignore even addressing posts like this?

Anyone willing to lie to Richard and the AE membership is certainly willing to lie to everyone here the very same way. What would elpresidente Bush (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/Bushie.gif) say about that? :0) (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU) Thank you for helping these readers define Calcus who once again sent me a post containing no argument for anything at all.

GL,

Terral

Quad4_72

7th February 2008, 08:57 AM

Hi Twinstead:

The facts in this case are made clear in this single little video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uNbKJofv3c).

GL,

Terral

By the way i watched the first 30 seconds of that video and could already tell that it was completely false. It is suggesting that the official story says that jet fuel melted the steel core. This is false, and no where in the NIST report does it say that jet fuel melted steel. Your video is a sham.

chillzero

7th February 2008, 09:00 AM

I have merged these two practically identical threads. Another reason why these 'call-out' threads are a bad idea.

Terral

7th February 2008, 09:19 AM

Hi Quad:

Quad >> Hey terral, out of your 1000 "architects, engineers, and supporters", how many of them have published work in a scientific journal regarding their belief that WTC7 was a CD? Have any of them ever had a paper scientifically peer reviewed by anyone other than themselves?

AE architects and engineers are professional architects and engineers and not scientists, but you can see this picture (http://www.ae911truth.org/images/other/sjonessm.jpg) of Dr. Steven Jones and this one (http://www.ae911truth.org/images/other/rgagesm.jpg) of Richard Gage side-by-side on the AE911Truth Webpage (http://www.ae911truth.org/), because both share the same CD explanations. Yes. Dr. Steven Jones’ (http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/) work is published here (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/WTC-Jones19mar06.htm) for your examination (archived here (http://web.archive.org/web/20051124011753/http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html)). There you will find pictures of giant molten metal bricks (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/WTC-Jones19mar0605.jpg) that ‘you’ say were formed from Building Fires. :0) However, you do not believe Terral, Richard Gage or Dr. Steven Jones all saying the exact same thing. Right? :0) And for what reason? Oh yea. You believe a guys with names like George Bush, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Larry Silverstein, etc., etc. . . .

Where exactly do we find their scientific reports? :0) (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)

GL,

Terral

Calcas

7th February 2008, 09:29 AM

Thank you for helping these readers define Calcus who once again sent me a post containing no argument for anything at all.

No one is "sending you a post" any more than someone is likely to PM you either. Your rantings are disturbing enough on a BB without getting into a PM dialog with you.

At least it's clear to everyone here that you lied when you said "over 1000..." agreed with your hypothesis. Your refusal to admit it is noted.

I also find it humorous that you spend so much time linking pictures to the most trivial words. It's quite an interesting neurosis...

And, it's Calcas not Calcus. Deliberate misspellings of a sn is a no-no.

DGM

7th February 2008, 09:31 AM

Terral:
Are you not licensed? You do not show up in the Florida data base. I thought you said you we're licensed in the mid 80"s. The data base shows all licenses issued active or not.

Note: I searched using your ae911truth profile.

ElMondoHummus

7th February 2008, 09:36 AM

You believe a guys with names like George Bush, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Larry Silverstein, etc., etc. . . .

Where exactly do we find their scientific reports? :0) (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)

GL,

Terral

None of them made scientific or engineering claims.

However, these people did: http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/

Their reports can be found here: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/

You should realize that Bush, Rove, or Cheney have not spoken about any of the engineering or scientific issues regarding the WTC collapse, so invoking their names in the context of such is not merely a straw man, it's a red herring. You should try building logically consistent arguments and make proper comparisons. Otherwise, it's hard to take you for anything other than a blind believer in long disproved claims.

Par

7th February 2008, 09:46 AM

However, you do not believe Terral...

I see. We have another irrationalist who talks about himself in the third person. Why does the conspiracy theorists’ camp include a disproportionate contingent of narcissists?

Par

7th February 2008, 09:51 AM

I see. We have another irrationalist who talks about himself in the third person. Why does the conspiracy theorists’ camp include a disproportionate contingent of narcissists?

Heh. I just saw this:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105740

Swing Dangler

7th February 2008, 09:55 AM

So much stupidity in one post. Interesting how you provide not one piece of evidence from a similar crash that shows the burns. You also forget the when a biggie objeco crash into da water, water separates in the splashie. Then da is no waterie to stop it from going big baddaboom. So if da partie is from da inside or da outside, burn markies would be there. It is da interestin' dat you 'pletely ignore the holes in da shiny metal that you claim are not there.

Thank you for proving that comprehension is a skill that you haven't even started to acquire yet.

One piece of evidence from a similar crash, but you post a picture of a swamp in comparison to a building. :lolsign:

Here are some picture of debris albeit not crashing into a cement building. I couldn't find one piece of shiny un-scorched 'skin' separated from the body of the plane without tears in the rivet holes. In the picture above, I could see what appears to be one tear in a single rivet hole, while 2 lines of rivet holes appear to be untouched or even indented at all.
Now in order to return the favor, can you post a link or picture to a fiery crash that has a pristine shiny metal skin removed from the plane without a hint of a burn mark? Thanks!
For your enjoyment...

Terral

7th February 2008, 10:00 AM

Hi DGM:

DGM >> Terral: Are you not licensed? You do not show up in the Florida data base. I thought you said you we're licensed in the mid 80"s. The data base shows all licenses issued active or not. Note: I search using you ae911truth profile.

DGM is looking for ammunition to begin attacking my person, because he has no “Building Fires Did It” case and no "AA77 Hit The Pentagon" case supported by any evidence. ZERO. My first GC license was granted from a state other than Florida, but no, I am not handing out any personal information to the likes of you. If you refuse to believe the architects, engineers (http://www.ae911truth.org/) and their supporting scientific authorities (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/WTC-Jones19mar06.htm), then you also have no reason to believe a 911Truther like me. What’s the matter? The credentials of Dr. Steven Jones (http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/) are not good enough? :0) How about if DGM gives ‘his’ explanation and I give mine ‘and’ everyone else decides for themselves if either side knows these 911Truth topics or not? Sound fair? (http://www.lacitycollege.edu/academic/departments/speech/forensics/DEBATE.gif) Of course not! And do you know the reason why? I do. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C02dE5VKeck) DGM has NO CASE. :0) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C02dE5VKeck) Deal with it . . .

Terral is my real name given to me by my mommy at birth, but this nonsense comes from a guy named DGM. Try looking that up in the records . . . Heh . . . (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/YoSoFunny.gif) Some “master poster” . . .

GL,

Terral

Lennart Hyland

7th February 2008, 10:02 AM

Terral:

Did you even look at this site?

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/real-world-tests-cut-through-steel.html

I suggest you look at the pictures of the guy cutting a steel slab. The result looks exactly as this picture:
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/thermite.jpg

Summary:

The cuts on the steel (confused fireman picture) looks like cuts made by a torch, which also have been seen and tested.

Now if you ask a fireman that was there that day, about that picture, and he said that it was cutted by a oxy-acetylene torch what conclusion will you make?

twinstead

7th February 2008, 10:07 AM

Now if you ask a fireman that was there that day, about that picture, and he said that it was cutted by a oxy-acetylene torch what conclusion will you make?

Why he's covering the crime up because he doesn't want to lose his job, of course

Belz...

7th February 2008, 10:10 AM

There is nothing anyone here can do to prove a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed into this Limestone Masonry Wall, because this side of the debate already knows what really happened at the Pentagon.

Translation: "Evidence cannot convince me. Leave me to my comfy fantasy!"

DGM

7th February 2008, 10:12 AM

Hi DGM:

DGM is looking for ammunition to begin attacking my person, because he has no “Building Fires Did It” case and no "AA77 Hit The Pentagon" case supported by any evidence. ZERO. My first GC license was granted from a state other than Florida, but no, I am not handing out any personal information to the likes of you. If you refuse to believe the architects, engineers (http://www.ae911truth.org/) and their supporting scientific authorities (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/WTC-Jones19mar06.htm), then you also have no reason to believe a 911Truther like me. What’s the matter? The credentials of Dr. Steven Jones (http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/) are not good enough? :0) How about if DGM gives ‘his’ explanation and I give mine ‘and’ everyone else decides for themselves if either side knows these 911Truth topics or not? Sound fair? (http://www.lacitycollege.edu/academic/departments/speech/forensics/DEBATE.gif) Of course not! And do you know the reason why? I do. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C02dE5VKeck) DGM has NO CASE. :0) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C02dE5VKeck) Deal with it . . .

Terral is my real name given to me by my mommy at birth, but this nonsense comes from a guy named DGM. Try looking that up in the records . . . Heh . . . (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/YoSoFunny.gif) Some “master poster” . . .

GL,

Terral
Why do you show in your profile that you are a general contractor/demolition supervisor in Florida if you are not?

Yes I can explain what happened to the buildings and why fires can cause a building to collapse. As far as doing a point by point refutation of your crap why bother when you fail on your first point. You have been ripped apart on this and every other forum, it's clear you have no clue and are just trolling of some sick reason.

funk de fino

7th February 2008, 10:15 AM

AMTMAN

7th February 2008, 10:15 AM

Terral

7th February 2008, 10:19 AM

Hi Par:

Let’s see . . . DGM and Par have personal ‘off-topic’ criticisms . . . :0)

Par >> I see. We have another irrationalist who talks about himself in the third person. Why does the conspiracy theorists’ camp include a disproportionate contingent of narcissists?--------

My Teacher is a guy name Jesus Christ for Whom I write most mornings before coming to this JREF Board. He says,

"This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do. Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.” John 17:3-5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn%2017:1-5;&version=49;).

They had a big conspiracy take place about 2000 years ago when another Narcissistic Conspiracy Theorist was walking this earth making third-party references to Himself. The idea that a real live Christian (means Christ-like) would have the audacity to do the same thing seems another good reason for everyone here to begin building crosses for their own crucifixion. :0)

These ‘three-letter’ members (hide behind your little tags you cowards (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/YoSoFunny.gif)) are chucking stones at Terral (I rather like my name actually . . . heh . . .) , because they have NO CASE for anything. They have already lost the debate, when cartoon characters like DGM and PAR are attacking the ‘theorist’ and not his ‘theory.’

GL,

Terral

bje

7th February 2008, 10:35 AM

Now in order to return the favor, can you post a link or picture to a fiery crash that has a pristine shiny metal skin removed from the plane without a hint of a burn mark? Thanks!

Of course, that is entirely irrelevant. A high speed crash against a solid object resulting in an explosion is entirely different than a low-speed crash in which the damage includes burning.

It is not unusual at all in explosions that aircraft parts are exploded outwards into non-burning areas long before any fire touches them (measured in milliseconds.) Just as it is not at all unexpected that a passport was found intact from one of hijackers from the WTC crashes.

You're getting rather desperate, SwingDangler, when you have to resort to subject matters in which you are entirely clueless.

e^n

7th February 2008, 10:45 AM

They have already lost the debate, when cartoon characters like DGM and PAR are attacking the ‘theorist’ and not his ‘theory.’

Dear Terral,
I have not insulted you directly and have attacked the theory you present. Can you please go back to my earlier post and show me where you provide evidence for an A3 beyond a photoshopped picture of a Global Hawk.

Thank you

Quad4_72

7th February 2008, 10:52 AM

Hi Quad:

AE architects and engineers are professional architects and engineers and not scientists, but you can see this picture (http://www.ae911truth.org/images/other/sjonessm.jpg) of Dr. Steven Jones and this one (http://www.ae911truth.org/images/other/rgagesm.jpg) of Richard Gage side-by-side on the AE911Truth Webpage (http://www.ae911truth.org/), because both share the same CD explanations. Yes. Dr. Steven Jones’ (http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/) work is published here (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/WTC-Jones19mar06.htm) for your examination (archived here (http://web.archive.org/web/20051124011753/http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html)). There you will find pictures of giant molten metal bricks (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/WTC-Jones19mar0605.jpg) that ‘you’ say were formed from Building Fires. :0) However, you do not believe Terral, Richard Gage or Dr. Steven Jones all saying the exact same thing. Right? :0) And for what reason? Oh yea. You believe a guys with names like George Bush, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Larry Silverstein, etc., etc. . . .

Where exactly do we find their scientific reports? :0) (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)

GL,

Terral

So basically, the answer is no, they have not published anything in a scientific journal or been peer reviewed. Thanks for clearing that up. (The paper you linked by Jones has NOT undergone scientific peer review and has NOT been published in a journal). Out of curiosity, when are you and your 1000 """"experts"""" (I thought the extra quotation marks were necessary) going to produce some work worthy of scientific peer review? Again, you and your buddies do not count as credible peer review. It must be done by unbiased scientists.

twinstead

7th February 2008, 10:54 AM

They have already lost the debate, when cartoon characters like DGM and PAR are attacking the ‘theorist’ and not his ‘theory.’

Yea, kind of like accusing anybody who disagrees with you of being a 'bushie', huh? Oh, you would never stoop to insulting anybody, Terral, would you? According to you, anybody who dares question what you consider the absolute truth is just a stooge. You don't even bother reading or understanding bushie stooges' theories, much less attacking it instead of the person, do you?

lapman

7th February 2008, 01:12 PM

One piece of evidence from a similar crash, but you post a picture of a swamp in comparison to a building. :lolsign:
That is the only comparison of an airliner hitting a relatively solid object at ~500MPH.

Here are some picture of debris albeit not crashing into a cement building. I couldn't find one piece of shiny un-scorched 'skin' separated from the body of the plane without tears in the rivet holes. In the picture above, I could see what appears to be one tear in a single rivet hole, while 2 lines of rivet holes appear to be untouched or even indented at all.
Now in order to return the favor, can you post a link or picture to a fiery crash that has a pristine shiny metal skin removed from the plane without a hint of a burn mark? Thanks!
For your enjoyment... So you show crashes where the aircraft parts were burned for a time as opposed to just a few milliseconds. Not a good comparison. The wing and large debris on this picture (http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200709/r176907_674643.jpg) looks pretty unburned to me.

aggle-rithm

7th February 2008, 01:37 PM

Terral:

I have some unsettling news for you.

The world is not as cool as you think it is.

That's right. It's not.

In fact, the world is pretty boring most of the time. There are no people in high places plotting to secretly destroy buildings for purposes only they could guess at. There is no clandestine retrofitting of military aircraft to resemble airliners. There are just a bunch of folks going to often dreary jobs and attending boring meetings about budgets and demographics.

I think where you got confused was when you spent so much time watching movies and TV and playing video games. I need to tell you something about that, and it's going to shock you: That stuff isn't real. That's what the world would be like if it were really, really cool, so cool that people would pay money to see it.

But it isn't. Instead, you actually have to pay people to get out of bed and go out and do something productive. It's a boring world, and we all have to live in it.

It's not as cool as fantasy, but at least it has the advantage of being real.

Sorry to be the one to break it to you.

twinstead

7th February 2008, 02:29 PM

Sorry to be the one to break it to you.

No need to be sorry; somebody had to do it.

funk de fino

7th February 2008, 02:31 PM

Terral has been shown to be a blatant liar and everyone who is reading his posts can see this regardless of how gullible they are. I refuse to believe any of the lurkers are taken in by his performance on here.

The funny thing is seeing him and the CIT lot duking it out over at LCF.

crazy against crazy, liar against liar

Quad4_72

7th February 2008, 04:29 PM

MIKILLINI

7th February 2008, 05:49 PM

Hi Par:

Let’s see . . . DGM and Par have personal ‘off-topic’ criticisms . . . :0)

My Teacher is a guy name Jesus Christ for Whom I write most mornings before coming to this JREF Board. He says,

They had a big conspiracy take place about 2000 years ago when another Narcissistic Conspiracy Theorist was walking this earth making third-party references to Himself. The idea that a real live Christian (means Christ-like) would have the audacity to do the same thing seems another good reason for everyone here to begin building crosses for their own crucifixion. :0)

These ‘three-letter’ members (hide behind your little tags you cowards (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/YoSoFunny.gif)) are chucking stones at Terral (I rather like my name actually . . . heh . . .) , because they have NO CASE for anything. They have already lost the debate, when cartoon characters like DGM and PAR are attacking the ‘theorist’ and not his ‘theory.’

GL,

Terral

Oh boy..are you high? First of all, the evidence presented here by you to prove your case has been disproved many times on this forum.

What you don't get Terral is that the evidence you provide is a mirror presentation other truthers have used in the past.

We have seen this same exact "evidence" before, so it's nothing new or riveting to us.
The bigger problem is in how tightly you grasp this "evidence" of yours. You are so convinced 9/11 was an inside job that you fail to see evidence that undercuts and proves you wrong.

To use your own words as proof of how blind you are to actual truth, even after you have taken a real beating by actual truth, proves My point:

because they have NO CASE for anything. They have already lost the debate

pomeroo

7th February 2008, 06:56 PM

Hi Calcus with Gravy:

No sir. A look at ‘our’ AE911truth.org Webpage (http://www.ae911truth.org/) shows exactly 264 A/E professionals and 899 Supporters, which is exactly 1263 Architects, Engineers and Supporters. My statement above mentioned only 1000 Architects, Engineers and Supporters, so the missing 263 are part of the “OVER 1000 . . .”.

There are only TWO THEORIES for what took WTC-7 down and those are:

1. Controlled Demolition.
2. Building Fires.

Anyone believing theory number 2 has no reason to be signing any petition for a new investigation, because that is the Official Government Cover Story. All you will see from the top to the bottom of the AE911Truth Webpage is Controlled Demolition Explanations, because that is the only theory we believe has any basis in reality. My WTC-7 Thesis paper was the very first one posted on the AE Website in the WTC-7 Forum, so I have the knowledge contained in the responses from other AE members that YOU have perhaps never seen. Maybe Calcus does NOT have access to all the facts to be making these kinds of ridiculous statements, OR to be drawing these kinds of conclusions. The idea that we have “Building Fires Did It” theorists running around the AE site is nothing more than RIDICULOUS. However, Terral is my real name and my membership status and credentials have been part of the equation from the beginning, but Calcus can say he is anybody. :0) Right away these readers should realize that members using their real names have MUCH more credibility than people hiding behind tags like Gravy, Calcus and other nonsense.

My logic? Nonsense. I can tell by the evidence that a large number of JREF members disagree with ‘our’ CD hypothesis, which does not require any genius IQ. :0) Yes. The ‘real’ AE members agree with ‘our’ CD Explanations, but obviously that does not include JREF “Building Fires Did IT” debunkers (heh (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/funny.gif)) like you. Let's see: We have Richard Gage a professional architect (http://www.ae911truth.org/) versus Calcus (http://forums.randi.org/customavatars/avatar10871_5.gif) . . . Hmmmm . . . (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)

Anyone willing to lie to Richard and the AE membership is certainly willing to lie to everyone here the very same way. What would elpresidente Bush (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/Bushie.gif) say about that? :0) (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU) Thank you for helping these readers define Calcus who once again sent me a post containing no argument for anything at all.

GL,

Terral

You were caught lying about Larry Silverstein. Why is it impossible to find a conspiracy liar with the stones to peddle his snake oil to Mark Roberts and Arthur Scheuerman? The BBC is willing to let one of you frauds try to con a worldwide audience and you cringing cowards are all hiding under your desks. How do you account for this embarrassing state of affairs?

Slayhamlet

7th February 2008, 07:14 PM

Wait, is this the same guy that did the chicken wire + small fire + cement block "experiment" that disproved the "OT"?

padragan

8th February 2008, 03:41 AM

There are only TWO THEORIES for what took WTC-7 down and those are:

1. Controlled Demolition.
2. Building Fires.

That's funny, because I've been under the impression that most people actually believes in:

3. Fire in combination with the structural damage WTC7 received from falling debris

was what took it down. Or do you imply that WTC7 was in essence undamage by the falling towers? No open holes for many floors? No missing corner? Two of the largest buildings in the world collapsed not to far away, but hey it's all business as usual?

And as always the question arise why so many of the firefighters KNEW that WTC7 was doomed? I mean, if the building was in mint condition or at least stable enough to survive, WHY were they such pesky pessimists? My little cracy theory is that they used their experience and expertise in the field and realised that the damage WTC7 had taken were enough to expect a collapse.

twinstead

8th February 2008, 04:47 AM

And as always the question arise why so many of the firefighters KNEW that WTC7 was doomed? I mean, if the building was in mint condition or at least stable enough to survive, WHY were they such pesky pessimists? My little cracy theory is that they used their experience and expertise in the field and realised that the damage WTC7 had taken were enough to expect a collapse.

Well, according to miragememories at least, they had no idea what they were doing and were confused by the sheer magnitude of what was happening. They just crumbled under the pressure of their superiors to see things that weren't there.

I would hope that the FDNY invested a little more on training after 9/11 ;)

padragan

8th February 2008, 05:10 AM

Well, according to miragememories at least, they had no idea what they were doing and were confused by the sheer magnitude of what was happening. They just crumbled under the pressure of their superiors to see things that weren't there.

ok?

Well, that sounds plausible.... or maybe not.

twinstead

8th February 2008, 05:36 AM

ok?

Well, that sounds plausible.... or maybe not.

It's certainly plausible...in woo woo fantasy land.

Terral

8th February 2008, 06:32 AM

Hi Lennart:

Lennart >> Terral: Did you even look at this site? http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/200...ugh-steel.html

Of course not. My mind was made up about the WTC-7 Controlled Demolition (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105459) ‘and’ What Really Happened At The Pentagon (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104792) LONG AGO. You are here trying to prove ‘your case’ to the ‘unbiased’ third-party reader yet to make up his or her mind either way.

Those of you (http://bp1.blogger.com/_RXOe66bINiM/Rnjn0-Q8EII/AAAAAAAAAm4/CHXcMMLNKAY/s1600-h/Futility_Strangelove_Demons_Motivation.jpg) pushing the Official Bush Administration Cover Stories (http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/76819/1/) (like here (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary)) are out of your cotton picking minds IF you really expect to convince me of anything at all (http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/POP/MP6615~It-Can-t-Happen-Here-Posters.jpg). If my mind was not made up already, then I would make a poor debating opponent in this deliberation process.

You give ‘your case’ and I will give ‘my case’ and everyone else can decide if either of us knows what the heck we are talking about. :0)

GL in the debate,

Terral

Par

8th February 2008, 06:42 AM

Hi Par: My Teacher is a guy name Jesus Christ for Whom I write most mornings before coming to this JREF Board... They had a big conspiracy take place about 2000 years ago when another Narcissistic Conspiracy Theorist was walking this earth making third-party references to Himself...

I see. You’re not only a narcissist, but also a religious nutcase who thinks of himself in quasi-divine terms.

Par

8th February 2008, 06:46 AM

Terral: Did you even look at this site?... I suggest you look at the pictures of the guy cutting a steel slab...
Of course not. My mind was made up about the WTC-7 Controlled Demolition ‘and’ What Really Happened At The Pentagon LONG AGO.

That’s just gorgeous; you’re simply not open to evidence or argument. I’m sure it’ll make an appearance in someone’s signature soon!

Par

8th February 2008, 06:51 AM

You give ‘your case’ and I will give ‘my case’ and everyone else can decide if either of us knows what the heck we are talking about.

I’d be happy to leave it right here. Be sure to publicise this thread!

Terral

8th February 2008, 06:51 AM

Hi AMT:

AMT >> Why don't you tell me which looks more like an RB211 disk and which one does not.

This is the kind of nonsense I am talking about right here. Why is AMT talking about a little ‘disc,’ when he should be talking about the whereabouts of ‘all’ the components of a real 100-Ton Jetliner? :0)

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/boeing2.jpg

Okay sports fans, try to guess the size of AMT’s little disc ‘versus’ the 60 tons of high grade aluminum/titanium frame, the two 5.5 ton engines (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/PW2000.jpg), wing sections, landing gear components (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/landingGear757-i.jpg), over 200 seats, cargo and massive tail section (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/phillipines_373.jpg) standing almost 50-feet tall off the tarmac (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/purdue1_sim.jpg). AMT is saying one of these bad boys (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/ThisIsVeryBig.jpg) did one of these numbers (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NotAtPentagon.jpg) (see the movie version (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKhBzAh_eeA)) going 533 miles per hour (now THAT is fast) to completely disappear inside this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NoWayBaby.jpg) 18-feet 3-inch second story entry hole (another view (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/pentmorris.jpg)). :0) (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/YoSoFunny.gif)

Again. Why is AMT talking about a little itsy bitsy disc, when he cannot show us where the 100-Ton Jetliner passed through this E-Ring wall (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NoPlaneHere.jpg) ‘and’ he cannot even locate the 60 tons of high grade Jetliner frame, engines, seats, cargo, wing sections, tail section or anything else remotely resembling a real 100-Ton Jetliner? He is trying to razzle dazzle you with nonsense, because he has NO CASE for AA77 crashing ANYWHERE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C02dE5VKeck). Let’s see AMT start his ‘debunking’ to even the 911Truth presented in this single itsy bitsy post. :0) (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)

Lordy. I need one of these babies (http://www.corsetsandcrinolines.com/Tidbits/November2004/pix/girdle.jpg) to keep my side from splitting over all the laughter . . .

GL,

Terral

ElMondoHummus

8th February 2008, 07:06 AM

You give ‘your case’ and I will give ‘my case’ and everyone else can decide if either of us knows what the heck we are talking about. :0)

Done.

First argument - Terrral's inability to properly interpret a single frame of video, and to account for lens curvature distortion ("curvillinear" distortion):
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3027115#post3027115

Second argument - Terral's photoshop skills, demonstrating how to disguise an A-3 as a 757:
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/AA_Painted_A3_Jet.jpg

... taken from this thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3388285

Third argument - This thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105459

Fourth - These two posts:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3407453#post3407453
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3407453#post3407453

... Terral attempted to rebut here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3408156#post3408156

... but failed to do so, as I noted here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3408302#post3408302
... and noted that his argument is unsupported and merely a combination of irrelevant appeals and arguments from incredulity.

My point is this: We've already presented our arguments, and proven Terral wrong on all his points. For new participants, lurkers and bystanders who are unaware of those threads, don't let him fool you into thinking his arguments haven't been answered yet. They have. See above.

Calcas

8th February 2008, 07:18 AM

Hi Lennart:

Quote:
Lennart >> Terral: Did you even look at this site? http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/200...ugh-steel.html

Of course not. My mind was made up about the WTC-7 Controlled Demolition (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105459) ‘and’ What Really Happened At The Pentagon (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104792) LONG AGO. You are here trying to prove ‘your case’ to the ‘unbiased’ third-party reader yet to make up his or her mind either way.

GL in the debate,

Terral

That's classic.

Terral says he wants to debate but openly acknowledges he won't even click on links to read the opposing evidence.

That's akin to sitcking your fingers in your ears and saying "nah nah nah...I'm not listening" while your opponent is presenting their side.

You call us "loyal Bushies"...what the hell do you think this makes you?

You don't want to debate so stop pretending that you do.

What you're doing is simply spam.

Calcas

8th February 2008, 07:20 AM

dup post

Terral

8th February 2008, 07:23 AM

Hi Par:

Par >> I see. You’re not only a narcissist, but also a religious nutcase who thinks of himself in quasi-divine terms.

Thank you very much. (http://images.etsy.com/all_images/d/d4d/d32/il_430xN.8716702.jpg) Par must attack my person (http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/attack.jpg), because he has NO CASE for WTC-7 collapsing from building fires (heh (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/YoSoFunny.gif)), OR AA77 crashing anywhere. Keep up the nice work (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU).

Par >> That’s just gorgeous; you’re simply not open to evidence or argument. I’m sure it’ll make an appearance in someone’s signature soon!

Nothing you say will allow a 125-feet wide 100-Ton Jetliner going 533 MPH to completely disappear through this itsy little hole (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/simulation.jpg). What you call ‘evidence’ is more of Par’s Bullony . . . (http://www.sillyjokes.co.uk/images/p-jokes/toilet/cat-crap-big.jpg)

GL,

Terral

padragan

8th February 2008, 07:26 AM

Of course not. My mind was made up about the WTC-7 Controlled Demolition (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105459) ‘and’ What Really Happened At The Pentagon (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104792) LONG AGO. You are here trying to prove ‘your case’ to the ‘unbiased’ third-party reader yet to make up his or her mind either way.

So, just to make this perfectly clear... You're actually saying that if we hypothetically assume that you're wrong, there is no way to change your mind? You will not accept any evidence, any logic or any reasoning that will make you change your beliefs? I'm flabbergasted here...

The reason I believe (more or less) in the official theory is not because "I've made my mind up", it's because no real evidence for any alternative have proved to withstand even a quick inspection. If anyone presented evidence (you know the kind that would hold up in court or similar) that proved an inside job I would change my mind. I wouldn't believe Watergate either if it was all talk and no proof.

So, am I correct in my assumption? And that you furthermore actively are avoiding arguments that may interfere with your beliefs?

If indeed I am correct you cannot call yourself a truther but must start calling yourself "dogmatic believer".

HawksFan

8th February 2008, 07:26 AM

So...we have no evidence of an A-3 yet? Shocking.

Oh, and happy b-day, Calcas!

padragan

8th February 2008, 07:29 AM

Second argument - Terral's photoshop skills, demonstrating how to disguise an A-3 as a 757:
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/AA_Painted_A3_Jet.jpg

For the love of god, tell me that one was a joke... It cannot be true... must control laughter... must not laugh...

Seriously?

HawksFan

8th February 2008, 07:29 AM

Oh, and let me ask you this, Terral. If, as you say, a "125 feet wide 100 tone airliner doing 533MPH" didn't pass through that "18 foot wide hole", then how did a 72 foot wide A-3 bomber do it?

Hmmm?

Par

8th February 2008, 07:38 AM

Par must attack my person, because he has NO CASE for WTC-7 collapsing from building fires... What you call ‘evidence’ is more of Par’s Bullony . . .

“Bullhorny?” Do you mean “bologna”?

In any event, if you think you’ve made such a compelling case, then start publicising this thread. Do it now!

Terral

8th February 2008, 08:02 AM

Hi Calcus:

Calcus >> That's classic. Terral says he wants to debate but openly acknowledges he won't even click on links to read the opposing evidence.

Where is Calcus’s evidence for anything? Every time I see one of your meager offerings, here comes Calcus with a hammer in his hand to do me in (http://www.aspkin.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/hammer.jpg). :0) Did I start writing on these 911Truth topics yesterday? No! So stop pretending that these JREF debunkers (heh) are presenting anything new. I have written thousands of posts on these topics and you very well know it . . .

Calcus >> That's akin to sitcking your fingers in your ears and saying "nah nah nah...I'm not listening" while your opponent is presenting their side.

No sir. The reason Scripture says “knowledge makes arrogant” (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Cor%208:1;&version=49;) is because ‘knowing’ the way to the corner grocery store eliminates ALL the other probabilities. No thank you. I already ‘know’ what happened on 9/11 for these ‘two’ related WTC-7 and Pentagon cases ‘and’ know MUCH more than what is being presented on this Board. If the unbiased third-party readers want to rummage through ‘all’ of your Official Cover Story nonsense, then ‘that’ is completely up to them. No sir. I did not develop my own 911Truth explanations by putting fingers in my ears, but your Official Cover Story nonsense will certainly NOT work on me . . . GL deceiving others . . .

Calcus >> You call us "loyal Bushies"...what the hell do you think this makes you?

I am a real live 911Truther writing ‘against’ the Loyal Bushie LIES oozing from every pore and orifice of Calcus’ Official Cover Story body. Can Calcus show us how a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed into this empty field (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/93crash2.jpg) (Flight 93 empty hole (http://www.letsroll911.org/phpwebsite/files/documents/Day_1_-_Pittsburg_Crash_01.swf)), OR through this itsy bitsy hole (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/compmix2.jpg)? No. So stop kidding yourself and everyone here.

Calcus >> You don't want to debate so stop pretending that you do.

Debate is about the ‘presentation of opposing views’ and my explanations directly oppose yours on this thread. Right? Calcus and everyone here is invited to present ‘your’ case for anything at all AND I will be presenting ‘my views’ the very same way. That does NOT mean I will be following Calcus down every ‘off-topic’ and ‘tangent’ rabbit hole to begin drafting replies about something else . . . Calcus is saying, “Hey, write about ‘my case’ (if he even had one) and forget about presenting ‘your’ own Pentagon and WTC-7 cases . . .”. Where is Calcus’ “AA77 Crashed Into The Pentagon” Thread or Calcus’ “WTC-7 Collapsed From Building Fires” Threads, so I can come behind and present ‘my’ opposing views? Do any such animals even exist? No! We know one another from the old Loose Change Board. Right? Of course. Here is a picture of the Old Pentagon Forum (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?act=SF&f=12&st=) (change 'last 30 days' to 'the beginning') where everyone here is encouraged to look down the “Topic Starter” list to see Calcus refused to post a single Pentagon Explanation about ANYTHING. What? Are you chicken? :0) And yet, you are looking at Topics started and defended by me where I ‘did’ defend my Pentagon explanations. Right? Of course. What about the LC WTC-7 Forum (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?act=SF&f=12&st=)? Everyone can see my old WTC-7 Controlled Demolition Topic, but where is even one Topic started and defended by Calcus? :0) The fact is that I am defending ‘my’ WTC-7 CD hypothesis ‘and’ my Pentagon Two Attack hypothesis even on this JREF Conspiracies Board, but I cannot find a thesis paper from you on either topic.

Calcus >> What you're doing is simply spam.

Bullony! Calcus is posting is ‘off-topic’ Terral-bashing spam to my threads where I am presenting ‘my side’ of these WTC-7 and Pentagon debates. If Calcus really wants to begin proving ANYTHING (he is just a talk, talk, talk spammer), then start your own threads on these very important and controversial topics. The problem is that requires Calcus to actually begin doing research to support ‘his’ explanations, but we know all he can do is ‘talk, talk, talk’ on threads started by others without even a clue as to what he is talking about . . .

Should I conclude that Calcus is investigating the content of my third-party supporting references in search of 'the' 911Truth? No! Do you know the reason why? I do. Your mind is already made up . . . too . . . :0) (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/YoSoFunny.gif)

GL,

Terral

lapman

8th February 2008, 08:27 AM

Calcus is saying, “Hey, write about ‘my case’ (if he even had one) and forget about presenting ‘your’ own Pentagon and WTC-7 cases . . .”. Where is Calcus’ “AA77 Crashed Into The Pentagon” Thread or Calcus’ “WTC-7 Collapsed From Building Fires” Threads, so I can come behind and present ‘my’ opposing views? Do any such animals even exist? No! Why would they exist when it's already been covered? It's already been shown that what you "know" is based on fantasy and you refuse to live in the real world. Sheeze. :boggled:

Terral

8th February 2008, 08:46 AM

Hi Par:

Par >> “Bullhorny?” Do you mean “bologna”? In any event, if you think you’ve made such a compelling case, then start publicising this thread. Do it now!

You just do not get it. Congress already knows 9/11 was in inside-job like the FBI, CIA, NORAD, the Joint-chiefs and every other major player in our Federal government and they DO NOT CARE. I have contacted my State representatives and the California State Representatives (location of the next 9/11-like attack near Oakland) and the New York State Representatives and the Virginia State Representatives and guess what? They do not care either. I have contacted every department of the Navy and everyone from the Virginia State Attorney General down to the Arlington County Fire Department and guess what? They do not care what hit the Pentagon, OR what caused WTC-7 to collapse any more than you do. Only one aspect of my work here is to present ‘the’ 911Truth for the benefit of these readers. Beyond that point, every single word is given for the sole purpose of JUDGMENT (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn%2016:7-9;&version=49;). While ‘some’ of you are indeed deceived (hook, line, sinker and tackle box), others among you are actually going out to deceive others; and my work here is a sharp sword (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%2010:34;&version=49;) dividing these deluded groups (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Cor%2011:14-15;&version=49;) accordingly. So, you really want to believe that a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed into this empty hole (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/93crash2.jpg). Great! (http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s167/julius_075/Tony20the20Tiger.jpg) Now the question is whether you want to crawl back into your little rabbit hole (http://www.rabbitholeonline.com/rabbittrim.jpg) believing that nonsense, OR if you want to spread that LIE (http://img482.imageshack.us/img482/3987/teleliberals4wf0vu.jpg) to everyone else.

Those of you so ready to stand with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice (http://www.oldamericancentury.org/images3/warprofiteers.jpg), Ashcroft/Gonzales (http://graphics.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Globe_Graphic/2004/11/13/1100406237_1643.gif), Silverstein/Giuliani (http://chronicle.augusta.com/images/headlines/091103/10170_512.jpg) and the rest of the ‘inside-job’ gang (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/12/13/books/13cnd-bush.html) are very much encouraged to do so, because a big fat surprise (http://www.inplainsite.org/assets/images/Lake-of-Fire-Bg.jpg) is waiting just on the other side of the veil (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev%2021:8;&version=49;).

But hey, I am “not only a narcissist, but also a religious nutcase who thinks of himself in quasi-divine terms.” (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3413979&postcount=153) Right? :0) (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/YoSoFunny.gif) In that nutcase (http://www.geocities.com/vdgaines/images/nutcase.gif), then nobody need heed a word from my direction anyway . . .

GL,

Terral

ElMondoHummus

8th February 2008, 08:58 AM

For the love of god, tell me that one was a joke... It cannot be true... must control laughter... must not laugh...

Seriously?

To be charitable, I believe the context of that photo set is that such a disguise is possible, that he's demonstrating the possibility, and that the image is an example. Not that it's the actual image of the supposed disguised A-3.

Then again, he hasn't clarified that. I could be wrong about this. My point is that he's disguising a left banking plane with imagry from a right banking one, and the effect ("Look, it's possible") is failing due to the poor selection of images to manipulate.

Terral

8th February 2008, 09:07 AM

Hi HawksFan:

HawksFan >> Oh, and let me ask you this, Terral. If, as you say, a "125 feet wide 100 tone airliner doing 533MPH" didn't pass through that "18 foot wide hole", then how did a 72 foot wide A-3 bomber do it? Hmmm?

Thank you for asking this very good question. First of all, the retired DoD Military Jet was ‘retrofitted’ (http://web.archive.org/web/20070221061504/http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/318250.shtml) and given a completely new look to resemble their version of a real AA Jetliner (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/AA_Painted_A3_Jet.jpg), so the wingspan could have been much larger than just 72 feet. Secondly, the DoD Jet struck the Pentagon at 9:36:27 AM to create this damage (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/BeforeAndAfter.jpg) (bottom pic) and create this Jet Debris (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/DebunkedNothing.jpg). Thirdly, the DoD Jet struck the E-Ring wall at the second-story concrete slab elevation shown in the first picture here (http://home.att.net/~carlson.jon/PentagonA3wreckage1.htm) and in my diagram here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/compmix2.jpg). You can see the outline of the DoD Jet wreckage in this picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/A-3JetDebris.jpg) taken from this one (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/afterplane.jpg) taken just after the 9:36:27 AM Jet attack.

Only one of the two engines (the starboard engine) passed under the second story slab to enter the Pentagon, while portside engine struck the second story concrete slab and fell straight down in front of Column Line 9 shown here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/JT8DEngineCL9a.jpg) and here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/JT8DEngineCL9.jpg). The DoD/FBI inside-job bad guys refuse to produce a single ‘time-change’ part (http://physics911.net/georgenelson) from ANY of these related 9/11 attacks, because then we would know the Jet debris came from a retired Navy Jet using Pratt and Whitney engines (http://home.att.net/~south.tower/PentagonWrongEngine1.htm). No. I do not agree with all of Karl Schwarz’s conclusions, but he was on the right track in identifying the parts as coming from the cheaper Pratt and Whitney engines (http://www.rense.com/general67/911eng.htm) and NOT any Rolls Royce engine at all.

GL,

Terral

Calcas

8th February 2008, 09:09 AM

Terral, I don't need to start my own threads defending the official explanations for what happened on 9-11. That's because they are well known and accepted by most.

Me thinks you protest too much.

Researching my posting history on another forum? Wow. That usually means someone hit a nerve...

You've shot yourself in the foot with your admission that NOTHING will change your mind. You're toast.

Oh, and I asked you nicely not to purposely misspell my sn in post #122 but then you went and did it again at least a dozen times.

Reported.

stateofgrace

8th February 2008, 09:10 AM

beachnut

8th February 2008, 09:11 AM

Thank you for asking this very good question. First of all, the retired DoD Military Jet was ‘retrofitted’ (http://web.archive.org/web/20070221061504/http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/318250.shtml) and given a completely new look to resemble their version of a real AA Jetliner (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/AA_Painted_A3_Jet.jpg), so the wingspan could have been much larger than just 72 feet. Secondly, the DoD Jet struck the Pentagon at 9:36:27 AM to create this damage (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/BeforeAndAfter.jpg) (bottom pic) and create this Jet Debris (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/DebunkedNothing.jpg). Thirdly, the DoD Jet struck the E-Ring wall at the second-story concrete slab elevation shown in the first picture here (http://home.att.net/~carlson.jon/PentagonA3wreckage1.htm) and in my diagram here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/compmix2.jpg). You can see the outline of the DoD Jet wreckage in this picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/A-3JetDebris.jpg) taken from this one (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/afterplane.jpg) taken just after the 9:36:27 AM Jet attack.

Only one of the two engines (the starboard engine) passed under the second story slab to enter the Pentagon, while portside engine struck the second story concrete slab and fell straight down in front of Column Line 9 shown here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/JT8DEngineCL9a.jpg) and here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/JT8DEngineCL9.jpg). The DoD/FBI inside-job bad guys refuse to produce a single ‘time-change’ part (http://physics911.net/georgenelson) from ANY of these related 9/11 attacks, because then we would know the Jet debris came from a retired Navy Jet using Pratt and Whitney engines (http://home.att.net/~south.tower/PentagonWrongEngine1.htm). No. I do not agree with all of Karl Schwarz’s conclusions, but he was on the right track in identifying the parts as coming from the cheaper Pratt and Whitney engines (http://www.rense.com/general67/911eng.htm) and NOT any Rolls Royce engine at all.

GL,TerralWhy do you act like Bush? Your avatar looks like Bush. Why do your posts sound like something Bush would say? Are you just like Bush, unable to think rationally?
Why do you post false information? How can you get everything wrong? Please explain how this can be done and you make up more lies as you go?

You sound exactly like President Bush. How can you post like Bush would and miss everysingle fact? Just like Bush. JLB! u r JLB. Supid post and all. Are you doing it on purpose, or are you always like Bush?

Terral

8th February 2008, 09:15 AM

Hi ElMondo:

Elmondo >> To be charitable, I believe the context of that photo set is that such a disguise is possible, that he's demonstrating the possibility, and that the image is an example. Not that it's the actual image of the supposed disguised A-3.

If you are talking about this picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/AA_Painted_A3_Jet.jpg), then you are absolutely correct. These two images were sewn together in order to demonstrate that a ‘change’ was made in the appearance of a retired A-3 Jet into something looking very much like a real AA Jetliner with plenty of paint and all the appropriate decals, etc., etc.. This is the only explanation allowing all of these witnesses (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.html) to see an AA Jetliner, when in reality they were looking at a DoD decoy. If anyone has a better selection of pictures to use for this demonstration, then I am all eyes and ears. :0)

GL,

Terral

Jonnyclueless

8th February 2008, 09:19 AM

Oh the picture just makes it funnier!

Par

8th February 2008, 09:25 AM

These two images were sewn together in order to demonstrate that a ‘change’ was made in the appearance of a retired A-3 Jet into something looking very much like a real AA Jetliner with plenty of paint and all the appropriate decals, etc., etc.. This is the only explanation allowing all of these witnesses to see an AA Jetliner, when in reality they were looking at a DoD decoy.

This is an example of the begging the question fallacy.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html

beachnut

8th February 2008, 09:26 AM

If you are talking about this picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/AA_Painted_A3_Jet.jpg), then you are absolutely correct. These two images were sewn together in order to demonstrate that a ‘change’ was made in the appearance of a retired A-3 Jet into something looking very much like a real AA Jetliner with plenty of paint and all the appropriate decals, etc., etc.. This is the only explanation allowing all of these witnesses (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.html) to see an AA Jetliner, when in reality they were looking at a DoD decoy. If anyone has a better selection of pictures to use for this demonstration, then I am all eyes and ears. :0)

GL,Terral
Sounds just like Bush. Your post, logically just like Bush is making this up. No real stuff, just fantasy, like a post by Bush. Did you go to the same school of bad ideas like Bush? How can you do this so effortlessly?

Sorry, got DNA to prove each person who boarded 77 was found in the Pentagon. Oops, the parts of the jet were from 77. Oops. The radar shows 77 at the Pentagon. Oops, the serial number on the FDR was from …………. 77.

Darn, your president Bush impression is perfect; posting real dumb stuff. Bush and you need to do more work before presenting information. How did you get so good at doing Bushisms.

lapman

8th February 2008, 09:27 AM

Hi ElMondo:

If you are talking about this picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/AA_Painted_A3_Jet.jpg), then you are absolutely correct. These two images were sewn together in order to demonstrate that a ‘change’ was made in the appearance of a retired A-3 Jet into something looking very much like a real AA Jetliner with plenty of paint and all the appropriate decals, etc., etc.. This is the only explanation allowing all of these witnesses (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.html) to see an AA Jetliner, when in reality they were looking at a DoD decoy. If anyone has a better selection of pictures to use for this demonstration, then I am all eyes and ears. :0)

GL,

Terral
Yeah, that Global Hawk looks so much like a 757. :rolleyes: Get real. So what you are saying is that the DOD took a military aircraft. Completely dismantled it and rebuilt it from the ground up with different parts so it would look like a 757 even though they could have just acquired a real 757 for the job. Is it pretty in your fantasy world?

ElMondoHummus

8th February 2008, 09:35 AM

Just for the record: I'm not agreeing that the A-3 "disguise" is possible, I'm merely stating what I think Terral's purpose in the photoshop job is.

His next step is to demonstrate how they get two very different looking and different sized jets to look alike. Then to document where the original 757 went. Because if he knows it's an inside job, he's got proof of all that, right? ;)

funk de fino

8th February 2008, 09:48 AM

Hi HawksFan:

Thank you for asking this very good question. First of all, the retired DoD Military Jet was ‘retrofitted’ (http://web.archive.org/web/20070221061504/http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/318250.shtml) and given a completely new look to resemble their version of a real AA Jetliner (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/AA_Painted_A3_Jet.jpg), so the wingspan could have been much larger than just 72 feet. Secondly, the DoD Jet struck the Pentagon at 9:36:27 AM to create this damage (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/BeforeAndAfter.jpg) (bottom pic) and create this Jet Debris (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/DebunkedNothing.jpg). Thirdly, the DoD Jet struck the E-Ring wall at the second-story concrete slab elevation shown in the first picture here (http://home.att.net/~carlson.jon/PentagonA3wreckage1.htm) and in my diagram here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/compmix2.jpg). You can see the outline of the DoD Jet wreckage in this picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/A-3JetDebris.jpg) taken from this one (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/afterplane.jpg) taken just after the 9:36:27 AM Jet attack.

Only one of the two engines (the starboard engine) passed under the second story slab to enter the Pentagon, while portside engine struck the second story concrete slab and fell straight down in front of Column Line 9 shown here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/JT8DEngineCL9a.jpg) and here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/JT8DEngineCL9.jpg). The DoD/FBI inside-job bad guys refuse to produce a single ‘time-change’ part (http://physics911.net/georgenelson) from ANY of these related 9/11 attacks, because then we would know the Jet debris came from a retired Navy Jet using Pratt and Whitney engines (http://home.att.net/~south.tower/PentagonWrongEngine1.htm). No. I do not agree with all of Karl Schwarz’s conclusions, but he was on the right track in identifying the parts as coming from the cheaper Pratt and Whitney engines (http://www.rense.com/general67/911eng.htm) and NOT any Rolls Royce engine at all.

GL,

Terral

your first statement makes no sense

if the hole is not big enough for the large airliner how can it be large enough for the jet mocked up to be the same size as the airliner? not very bright are you?

you know nothing about aircraft and continue to parrot rubbish you have seen on truther sites, it really is pathetic

have you any idea how many people you are accusing of murder?

Terral

8th February 2008, 09:50 AM

Hi Beachnut:

Beachnut >> Why do you act like Bush? Your avatar looks like Bush. Why do your posts sound like something Bush would say? Are you just like Bush, unable to think rationally?

Senor Bushie is the bad guy on the left and his evil puppeteers (http://www.cgfocus.com/gal_images/RianChen/Evil-War_4b46ce0f90dc26554a5e3e7a3252522a.jpg) are represented by the fire transformed into exactly what is gripping (http://www.marvel.com/universe3zx/images/thumb/2/2d/MastersofEvil442.jpg/440px-MastersofEvil442.jpg) this once great nation even as we speak. Our best jobs are being outsourced overseas and 20 million illegal aliens are running around loose displacing middle and lower class Americans from jobs right under our noses. The American middle class is being exterminated out of existence and McCain wants to give the illegals Social Security, before Senor Bushie even makes them citizens. Millions of Americans are losing their homes, as our economy gradually implodes to collapse upon itself bit by bit with every passing day. A crew of illegal Mexicans and one white guy build several houses in my neighborhood over a year ago and now they sit empty, after the For Sale signs were removed over lack of interest. Two houses down a guy tried to build a house for resale, and he stopped and boarded the thing up to avoid losing even more money. Who is going to buy the houses, when the masons, carpenters, drywallers, painters and roofers are all displaced by illegal Mexicans and wages are lower than over 10 years ago? Nobody is enforcing the immigration laws or employment laws already on the books. The local sheriff is looking the other way, the mayor is blind as a bat, the local chamber of commerce wants more illegals, the building inspectors seeing a hundred illegal Mexicans running around is looking the other way, the Governor could not care less and Senor Bushie wants to make everyone a citizen, so what is a bricklayer or carpenter to do? And yet, ‘you’ really believe I am thinking like Bush? Give me a break . . .

Beachnut >> Why do you post false information? How can you get everything wrong?

Guess what Beachnut? You forgot to ‘quote >>’ any errors in my work to prove one thing errant at all. You are supposed to be showing us how WTC-7 collapsed in 6.6 seconds from building fires ‘and’ how AA77 really did crash into the Pentagon. Where is you case? :0) Do not make me start laughing again . . .

Beachnut >> Please explain how this can be done and you make up more lies as you go?

Please forgive, but my posts contain more supported statements with more links to third-party references than all my debating opponents combined. You and I simply disagree about what happened on 9/11 and we ‘are’ allowed to disagree. Right? Of course. This would be a boring place if everyone agreed on everything . . .

Beachnut >> You sound exactly like President Bush. How can you post like Bush would and miss every single fact? Just like Bush. JLB! u r JLB. Supid post and all.

I was going to skip answering your silly post, but this last comment struck me as more foolish than those in your typical rant posts. Here I am accusing the Bushie Administration of taking an active role in these 9/11 Attacks, but Mr. Beachnut here says I am sounding like President Bush. :0) Where did I say 19 Bearded Jihadist Radicals (http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/3320063.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=86F19F6C94FCC84F80381553BD8DFACBA55A1E4F32AD3138 ) pulled off 9/11? Hmmmmm? Where did I ever say one time that Flight 93 crashed into this empty hole (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/93crash2.jpg)? When did I ever agree with Bush that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon to make this little hole (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/pent-ricostruzionedannouw0.jpg) on 9/11 or any other day?

The fact is that Beachnut’s 911Truth explanations are so weak, that he does not know whether to soil himself or go blind. Right? :0) Just give us ‘your case’ for WTC-7 falling down ‘demolition-style’ from building fires, OR ‘your case’ for AA77 crashing anywhere at all. Then everyone else can judge Beachnut and Terral on the merits of our individual presentations (http://www.lacitycollege.edu/academic/departments/speech/forensics/DEBATE.gif). Fair? Great!

GL,

Terral

HawksFan

8th February 2008, 09:57 AM

Hi HawksFan:

Thank you for asking this very good question. First of all, the retired DoD Military Jet was ‘retrofitted’ (http://web.archive.org/web/20070221061504/http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/318250.shtml) and given a completely new look to resemble their version of a real AA Jetliner (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/AA_Painted_A3_Jet.jpg), so the wingspan could have been much larger than just 72 feet. Secondly, the DoD Jet struck the Pentagon at 9:36:27 AM to create this damage (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/BeforeAndAfter.jpg) (bottom pic) and create this Jet Debris (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/DebunkedNothing.jpg). Thirdly, the DoD Jet struck the E-Ring wall at the second-story concrete slab elevation shown in the first picture here (http://home.att.net/~carlson.jon/PentagonA3wreckage1.htm) and in my diagram here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/compmix2.jpg). You can see the outline of the DoD Jet wreckage in this picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/A-3JetDebris.jpg) taken from this one (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/afterplane.jpg) taken just after the 9:36:27 AM Jet attack.

Only one of the two engines (the starboard engine) passed under the second story slab to enter the Pentagon, while portside engine struck the second story concrete slab and fell straight down in front of Column Line 9 shown here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/JT8DEngineCL9a.jpg) and here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/JT8DEngineCL9.jpg). The DoD/FBI inside-job bad guys refuse to produce a single ‘time-change’ part (http://physics911.net/georgenelson) from ANY of these related 9/11 attacks, because then we would know the Jet debris came from a retired Navy Jet using Pratt and Whitney engines (http://home.att.net/~south.tower/PentagonWrongEngine1.htm). No. I do not agree with all of Karl Schwarz’s conclusions, but he was on the right track in identifying the parts as coming from the cheaper Pratt and Whitney engines (http://www.rense.com/general67/911eng.htm) and NOT any Rolls Royce engine at all.

GL,

Terral

It doesn't matter how you think it was "retrofitted". It still has to pass through the same hole you claim that AA77 couldn't. How did that happen?

So, you're saying that an actual 757 couldn't possibly do that damage, but some military plane mocked up to look like a 757, including wingspan apparently, could do that damage?

That doesn't make any sense at all. Please explain.

Jonnyclueless

8th February 2008, 09:59 AM

"thinking outside of the box". I think that box got lost a long time ago.

stateofgrace

8th February 2008, 10:09 AM

Hi Calcus:

Where is Calcus’s evidence for anything? Every time I see one of your meager offerings, here comes Calcus with a hammer in his hand to do me in (http://www.aspkin.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/hammer.jpg). :0) Did I start writing on these 911Truth topics yesterday? No! So stop pretending that these JREF debunkers (heh) are presenting anything new. I have written thousands of posts on these topics and you very well know it . . .

No sir. The reason Scripture says “knowledge makes arrogant” (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Cor%208:1;&version=49;) is because ‘knowing’ the way to the corner grocery store eliminates ALL the other probabilities. No thank you. I already ‘know’ what happened on 9/11 for these ‘two’ related WTC-7 and Pentagon cases ‘and’ know MUCH more than what is being presented on this Board. If the unbiased third-party readers want to rummage through ‘all’ of your Official Cover Story nonsense, then ‘that’ is completely up to them. No sir. I did not develop my own 911Truth explanations by putting fingers in my ears, but your Official Cover Story nonsense will certainly NOT work on me . . . GL deceiving others . . .

I am a real live 911Truther writing ‘against’ the Loyal Bushie LIES oozing from every pore and orifice of Calcus’ Official Cover Story body. Can Calcus show us how a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed into this empty field (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/93crash2.jpg) (Flight 93 empty hole (http://www.letsroll911.org/phpwebsite/files/documents/Day_1_-_Pittsburg_Crash_01.swf)), OR through this itsy bitsy hole (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/compmix2.jpg)? No. So stop kidding yourself and everyone here.

Debate is about the ‘presentation of opposing views’ and my explanations directly oppose yours on this thread. Right? Calcus and everyone here is invited to present ‘your’ case for anything at all AND I will be presenting ‘my views’ the very same way. That does NOT mean I will be following Calcus down every ‘off-topic’ and ‘tangent’ rabbit hole to begin drafting replies about something else . . . Calcus is saying, “Hey, write about ‘my case’ (if he even had one) and forget about presenting ‘your’ own Pentagon and WTC-7 cases . . .”. Where is Calcus’ “AA77 Crashed Into The Pentagon” Thread or Calcus’ “WTC-7 Collapsed From Building Fires” Threads, so I can come behind and present ‘my’ opposing views? Do any such animals even exist? No! We know one another from the old Loose Change Board. Right? Of course. Here is a picture of the Old Pentagon Forum (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?act=SF&f=12&st=) (change 'last 30 days' to 'the beginning') where everyone here is encouraged to look down the “Topic Starter” list to see Calcus refused to post a single Pentagon Explanation about ANYTHING. What? Are you chicken? :0) And yet, you are looking at Topics started and defended by me where I ‘did’ defend my Pentagon explanations. Right? Of course. What about the LC WTC-7 Forum (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?act=SF&f=12&st=)? Everyone can see my old WTC-7 Controlled Demolition Topic, but where is even one Topic started and defended by Calcus? :0) The fact is that I am defending ‘my’ WTC-7 CD hypothesis ‘and’ my Pentagon Two Attack hypothesis even on this JREF Conspiracies Board, but I cannot find a thesis paper from you on either topic.

Bullony! Calcus is posting is ‘off-topic’ Terral-bashing spam to my threads where I am presenting ‘my side’ of these WTC-7 and Pentagon debates. If Calcus really wants to begin proving ANYTHING (he is just a talk, talk, talk spammer), then start your own threads on these very important and controversial topics. The problem is that requires Calcus to actually begin doing research to support ‘his’ explanations, but we know all he can do is ‘talk, talk, talk’ on threads started by others without even a clue as to what he is talking about . . .

Should I conclude that Calcus is investigating the content of my third-party supporting references in search of 'the' 911Truth? No! Do you know the reason why? I do. Your mind is already made up . . . too . . . :0) (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/YoSoFunny.gif)

GL,

Terral

Do you actually realise how childish you come across ? Have you actually any notion?

Your continual reference to Bush and people blindly following him borders on absurd. You are completely destroying any argument you have by doing so. It is almost laughable that anybody would take you seriously. This " If you don’t support me and my theories, you all love Bush and agree with everything he does", is the utter desperation you have to sink to,to be heard.

How about me? I am not even from the US, I cannot stand Bush, so how does it work?

It is you that is continually blowing Bushes trumpet, continually telling everybody how wonderful he is, how he is almost a god to be able to carry out such a dastardly act and have such an Iron grip on the US, in fact the entire planet.

Why do you love Bush so much? Is he your God?

Terral

8th February 2008, 10:45 AM

Hi Funk:

Funk’s Evidence for ANYTHING >> None.

Here I am looking at yet another empty post with no evidence for anything at all. Where is Funk’s “AA77 Crashed Into The Pentagon” Case? Oh, that’s right. He is here to bash Terral’s head in (http://www.boingboing.net/images/indianprint.jpg) like many of these other dazed and confused (http://dvdbelgorama.wifeo.com/images/Dazed-and-Confused-HD-DVD.jpg) wantabe 911Truther Investigators . . . Lordy . . . (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2023:34;&version=49;)

Hi Funk >> Your first statement makes no sense. If the hole is not big enough for the large airliner how can it be large enough for the jet mocked up to be the same size as the airliner? not very bright are you?

I refuse to continue repeating myself, so please pay closer attention: Real 100-Ton Jetliners (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/ThisIsVeryBig.jpg) are designed using 60 tons of high grade aluminum/titanium alloy to stay together and protect the passengers and crew. This DoD Flying BOMB was designed using a minimum of materials intended to go BOOM (http://www.trex2003.de/gallerie/photos/explosion.jpg) on impact. No Jet went through this E-Ring Wall (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NoPlaneHere.jpg). No Jet went through the little bitty E-Ring hole (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NoWayBaby.jpg). A missile went through the E-Ring wall between Column Line (CL) 13 and CL 15 on a 45-degree angle from the south at 9:31:39 AM, while the DoD Jet impacted the same E-Ring wall at 9:36:27 AM (bottom pic (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/BeforeAndAfter.jpg)). Can you people see the differences between this 9:33 AM picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/PreFireRoute27.jpg) and this 9:38 AM picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/afterplane.jpg)? Obviously MANY of you are BLIND as bats . . . If the cotton picking PLANE had gone into the Pentagon, then we WOULD NOT have over 350 feet of fire and brimstone on the OUTSIDE of the Pentagon after the SECOND ATTACK. The ‘first’ 9:31:39 AM attack created ONLY “inside-the-building fires” (Barbara Honegger’s work (http://blog.lege.net/content/Seven_Hours_in_September.pdf)) and a single smoke plume. Do you people know what a single smoke plume looks like? Let’s try it again (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/PreFireRoute27.jpg). Now here is the ‘Second DoD Jet Attack’ picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/afterplane.jpg) again. We have all of this FIRE and JET DEBRIS (http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/13.jpg) on the OUTSIDE of the Pentagon, because the cotton picking DoD Jet went BOOM outside the Pentagon against the E-Ring wall. None of this has anything to do with ANY 100-Ton Jetliner. Period! If 'your' 100-Ton Jetliner crashed into the Pentagon (never happened), then why is all this debris on the OUTSIDE? :jaw-dropp

Funk >> You know nothing about aircraft and continue to parrot rubbish you have seen on truther sites, it really is pathetic.

Please forgive, but I know enough about aircraft design and physics to know NO 100-Ton Jetliner crashed anywhere near the Pentagon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C02dE5VKeck). These 110 military people (http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/#Clark) agree with my side of this debate starting with General Wesley Clark. I suppose they do not know anything about aircraft either. :0) These military experts (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKhBzAh_eeA) also agree with my side of this debate and obviously they know more about aircraft than anyone here.

Funk >> Have you any idea how many people you are accusing of murder?

God has the hairs on every 9/11 murderer numbered, but we are here today finding out who among you is helping spread Loyal Bushie LIES. Please present ‘your’ case for AA77 crashing anywhere, OR WTC-7 collapsing from building fires. Please do that right away, because we want to ensure that you are placed in the right group.

GL in the debates,

Terral

Par

8th February 2008, 10:49 AM

Please forgive, but my posts contain more supported statements with more links to third-party references than all my debating opponents combined.

I see. You’ve been labouring under the misconception that “truth” is merely the plural of “link”. That would explain your hypertext hyperactivity, I suppose.

Par

8th February 2008, 11:09 AM

I refuse to continue repeating myself...

No you don’t.

beachnut

8th February 2008, 11:38 AM

Senor Bushie is the bad guy on the left and his evil puppeteers (http://www.cgfocus.com/gal_images/RianChen/Evil-War_4b46ce0f90dc26554a5e3e7a3252522a.jpg) are represented by the fire transformed into exactly what is gripping (http://www.marvel.com/universe3zx/images/thumb/2/2d/MastersofEvil442.jpg/440px-MastersofEvil442.jpg) this once great nation even as we speak. Our best jobs are being outsourced overseas and 20 million illegal aliens are running around loose displacing middle and lower class Americans from jobs right under our noses. The American middle class is being exterminated out of existence and McCain wants to give the illegals Social Security, before Senor Bushie even makes them citizens. Millions of Americans are losing their homes, as our economy gradually implodes to collapse upon itself bit by bit with every passing day. A crew of illegal Mexicans and one white guy build several houses in my neighborhood over a year ago and now they sit empty, after the For Sale signs were removed over lack of interest. Two houses down a guy tried to build a house for resale, and he stopped and boarded the thing up to avoid losing even more money. Who is going to buy the houses, when the masons, carpenters, drywallers, painters and roofers are all displaced by illegal Mexicans and wages are lower than over 10 years ago? Nobody is enforcing the immigration laws or employment laws already on the books. The local sheriff is looking the other way, the mayor is blind as a bat, the local chamber of commerce wants more illegals, the building inspectors seeing a hundred illegal Mexicans running around is looking the other way, the Governor could not care less and Senor Bushie wants to make everyone a citizen, so what is a bricklayer or carpenter to do? And yet, ‘you’ really believe I am thinking like Bush? Give me a break . . . You are exactly like Bush, telling much bigger lies. Are you doing it like Bush, I mean you have the exact same type of disorder. Failure to make a point. Bush like. You even have his photo as if you are honoring your likeness. Why? Your posts are so messed up. You are a singular disgrace to 9/11, just ordinary people, heroes to me figured out 9/11 in minutes, and it seem you have not wasted a single second messing up 9/11 for 6 years. The passengers of 93 figure out 9/11 in minutes, you have messed it up taking 6 years not to miss on single lie or falsehood. Bush like! What does immigration have to do with you being like Bush and totally wrong on 9/11? Not a good argument, Bush like truth guy.

Guess what Beachnut? You forgot to ‘quote >>’ any errors in my work to prove one thing errant at all. You are supposed to be showing us how WTC-7 collapsed in 6.6 seconds from building fires ‘and’ how AA77 really did crash into the Pentagon. Where is you case? :0) Do not make me start laughing again . . . Wrong, I told you up front your work is totally in error. And Bush like. He always makes errors like you, mainly in logic and false talk. Your rampant use of hearsay and pure lies is the only thing that makes you one up on the President, I think he is not trying to say stupid things, but you seem to have taken Bushism one step further, trying to say stupid things.

Please forgive, but my posts contain more supported statements with more links to third-party references than all my debating opponents combined. You and I simply disagree about what happened on 9/11 and we ‘are’ allowed to disagree. Right? Of course. This would be a boring place if everyone agreed on everything . . . Your links to third party stupid is a task only someone like Bush can make. I see you honor Bush with his very image on your avator with that devilish grin like telling us all you can post more lies than Bush can, and you are as good as he is. We do not disagree about 9/11. You fail miserably to even post one single idea that make sense. I mean just like Bush, when has he made sense. I bet you even voted for him, you must of, you are just like him. Pushing stupid ideas with ease. How can you get every single thing wrong about 9/11; if you are not exactly like Bush, I fail to see who is a better candidate. Misleading information, bad advisors (your third party nut cases). Just like Bush. JLB

I was going to skip answering your silly post, but this last comment struck me as more foolish than those in your typical rant posts. Here I am accusing the Bushie Administration of taking an active role in these 9/11 Attacks, but Mr. Beachnut here says I am sounding like President Bush. :0) Where did I say 19 Bearded Jihadist Radicals (http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/3320063.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=86F19F6C94FCC84F80381553BD8DFACBA55A1E4F32AD3138 ) pulled off 9/11? Hmmmmm? Where did I ever say one time that Flight 93 crashed into this empty hole (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/93crash2.jpg)? When did I ever agree with Bush that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon to make this little hole (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/pent-ricostruzionedannouw0.jpg) on 9/11 or any other day? You are just like Bush. Making giant errors. Ranting about some fake ideas. Not being rational. You are making dumb statements like an empty hole in PA, when it was proven 93 crashed there. Just like Bush you make statements that make no sense. You continue to say stupid things, like Bush, despite being proven wrong. Bush.

The fact is that Beachnut’s 911Truth explanations are so weak, that he does not know whether to soil himself or go blind. Right? :0) Just give us ‘your case’ for WTC-7 falling down ‘demolition-style’ from building fires, OR ‘your case’ for AA77 crashing anywhere at all. Then everyone else can judge Beachnut and Terral on the merits of our individual presentations (http://www.lacitycollege.edu/academic/departments/speech/forensics/DEBATE.gif). Fair? Great!

GL,Terral I have to say, you have no clue what happen on 9/11. You cut and paste, post idiots junk from third person failures. Not a thing you post makes sense. There is nothing to debunk. You present no substance, just like Bush. Your avatar is appropriate, you are just like Bush. How do you do it so effortlessly?

Has anyone, in the whole world, found anything, this Bush want to be has, that is backed with evidence? NO

But he sure makes great Bush like posts!
God has the hairs on every 9/11 murderer numbered, but we are here today finding out who among you is helping spread Loyal Bushie LIES. You debate just like Bush. You sound just like Bush. Ironic Bush fetish, shows you are just like Bush. Perfectly wrong on everything you say. (just like bush, a God fearing right wing poster of false information to mislead other? )

HawksFan

8th February 2008, 11:39 AM

:jaw:

So...there was a missile and 5 minutes later the plane hit??? And the plane didn't...go in?

So, there must be hundreds of military plane parts lying all over the Pentagon lawn, right? Any pictures of those? Surely there must be hundreds of witnesses to this missile as well. Got statements?

And if they hit it with a missile, what was the point of the plane 5 minutes later?

Oh, and while yer at it, why would they pick a high-winged plane to try to "retrofit" into a low-winged plane?

kthnks.

twinstead

8th February 2008, 11:51 AM

Maybe the Pentagon part of the false flag was a last-minute decision and they didn't have time to procure an actual 757 to crash into the Pentagon. The only thing they had laying around was some red and white paint, scotch tape, bubble gum, cardboard, a tin of sardines, and an old A-3 they were saving to do some chemtrail spraying later.

Hey. It worked, didn't it? If it's good enough for MacGyvar, it's good enough for the NWO.

dudalb

8th February 2008, 11:59 AM

What gets to me about Terral is his firm belief that anybody who thinks that 9/11 conspiracies are a bunch of crap is automatically a Loyal Supporter of George Bush.

HawksFan

8th February 2008, 12:04 PM

Par

8th February 2008, 12:07 PM

What gets to me about Terral is his firm belief that anybody who thinks that 9/11 conspiracies are a bunch of crap is automatically a Loyal Supporter of George Bush.

Have you only just noticed this trope? :)

funk de fino

8th February 2008, 12:26 PM

Hi Funk:

Here I am looking at yet another empty post with no evidence for anything at all. Where is Funk’s “AA77 Crashed Into The Pentagon” Case? Oh, that’s right. He is here to bash Terral’s head in (http://www.boingboing.net/images/indianprint.jpg) like many of these other dazed and confused (http://dvdbelgorama.wifeo.com/images/Dazed-and-Confused-HD-DVD.jpg) wantabe 911Truther Investigators . . . Lordy . . . (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2023:34;&version=49;)

Gibberish

I refuse to continue repeating myself, so please pay closer attention: Real 100-Ton Jetliners (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/ThisIsVeryBig.jpg) are designed using 60 tons of high grade aluminum/titanium alloy to stay together and protect the passengers and crew. This DoD Flying BOMB was designed using a minimum of materials intended to go BOOM (http://www.trex2003.de/gallerie/photos/explosion.jpg) on impact. No Jet went through this E-Ring Wall (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NoPlaneHere.jpg). No Jet went through the little bitty E-Ring hole (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NoWayBaby.jpg). A missile went through the E-Ring wall between Column Line (CL) 13 and CL 15 on a 45-degree angle from the south at 9:31:39 AM, while the DoD Jet impacted the same E-Ring wall at 9:36:27 AM (bottom pic (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/BeforeAndAfter.jpg)). Can you people see the differences between this 9:33 AM picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/PreFireRoute27.jpg) and this 9:38 AM picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/afterplane.jpg)? Obviously MANY of you are BLIND as bats . . . If the cotton picking PLANE had gone into the Pentagon, then we WOULD NOT have over 350 feet of fire and brimstone on the OUTSIDE of the Pentagon after the SECOND ATTACK. The ‘first’ 9:31:39 AM attack created ONLY “inside-the-building fires” (Barbara Honegger’s work (http://blog.lege.net/content/Seven_Hours_in_September.pdf)) and a single smoke plume. Do you people know what a single smoke plume looks like? Let’s try it again (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/PreFireRoute27.jpg). Now here is the ‘Second DoD Jet Attack’ picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/afterplane.jpg) again. We have all of this FIRE and JET DEBRIS (http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/13.jpg) on the OUTSIDE of the Pentagon, because the cotton picking DoD Jet went BOOM outside the Pentagon against the E-Ring wall. None of this has anything to do with ANY 100-Ton Jetliner. Period! If 'your' 100-Ton Jetliner crashed into the Pentagon (never happened), then why is all this debris on the OUTSIDE? :jaw-dropp

Yet, you do repeat the same stuff every post and have no evidence for it. You cannot retro fit the smaller jet, it would not get off the ground. There was no second attack. There is a video of the pentagon being hit, it only shows one attack. There was no missile. Your Pratt and Whitney engines is false stupidity and you are gullible enough to believe it, while at the same time knowing nothing about aircraft. I worked on fast jet arcraft for 12 years which had Rolls Royce engines and you are wrong.

Please forgive, but I know enough about aircraft design and physics to know NO 100-Ton Jetliner crashed anywhere near the Pentagon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C02dE5VKeck). These 110 military people (http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/#Clark) agree with my side of this debate starting with General Wesley Clark. I suppose they do not know anything about aircraft either. :0) These military experts (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKhBzAh_eeA) also agree with my side of this debate and obviously they know more about aircraft than anyone here.

See above, I know considerably more than you about aircraft. You believe stupid people and dishonest people. You are blind to the stupidity you believe. Most of those patriots would not know their arse from their elbow. I know more than them.

God has the hairs on every 9/11 murderer numbered, but we are here today finding out who among you is helping spread Loyal Bushie LIES. Please present ‘your’ case for AA77 crashing anywhere, OR WTC-7 collapsing from building fires. Please do that right away, because we want to ensure that you are placed in the right group.

I'm sorry but murderers from that day are dead. I do not believe in god or any higher being. No way god could have created one as gullible and ignorant about facts as you. I am no loyal Bushie. I am scottish. I am a nationalist. I support the SNP. I think Bush is the worst president the US has had in my lifetime. I honestly would not piss on him if he was on fire. Your arguments are flawed, dishonest and lacking even elementary intelligence. You will not place me in any group apart from one that is further up the evolutionary chain than than you. You are a coward.

The case is already there for F77 and you have provided nothing to disprove it therefore I do not need to make a case I just have to show your false arguments and poor knowledge. You provide a link to Jamie McIntyre who debunks you also when he says he saw the airliner in the Pentagon. Self debunking is not the best debating policy on here especially when you are so far behind to begin with.

ElMondoHummus

8th February 2008, 12:58 PM

These 110 military people (http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/#Clark) agree with my side of this debate starting with General Wesley Clark.

That's a stretch. Everyone: Even if you ignore Terral's misconceptions regarding aircraft disguise, a good deal of the quotes and stances attributed to many on the "Patriots Question 9/11 list are not wholesale buy-ins of the conspiracy fantasy - and especially not of some of the more extreme fantasies like the "no planes" arguments - but rather disagreements about specific points. And not all of them are disbelief of the "official story", but rather complaints about what took place that day. Take Mary Schiavo, for instance. The owners of the PQ9/11 page take her one quote:

"We don't have an NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) investigation here, and they ordinarily dissect the timeline to the thousandth of a second."

... and turn it into a questioning of the timeline of Flight 93, when in reality it was a complaint about the (then) lack of an NTSB investigation (the NTSB released their findings (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/index.htm) in 2006, although the documents were written well before that (they were given to the 9/11 Commision first)).

The whole "bio" of Schiavo on the PQ9/11 page is an attempt to make her sound like she's LIHOP'ing her stance on 9/11, when in fact, when you chase down original quotes and testimony, she's LIHOI'ing (Let It Happen Out of Incompetence) any and every aircraft hijacking by radical Islamic terrorists since the mid '70's. You'll see in her interviews and stories on her complaining over and over about the fact radical Islamic terrorists have promised time and time again to hijack airliners, among other threats. To her, 9/11/01 was just the latest in a long line of events starting with the "September 12" hijackings back in 1970 (actually, a series of hijackings starting on the 6th in Brussels (Pan Am 93) and Jordan (TWA 741) and going to the 12th (El Al 219)). But the "foreknowledge" she continually cites isn't the sort of "foreknowledge" truthers cite (i.e. MIHOP - the US government planned 9/11, or LIHOP - US government allowed 9/11), but rather simple air safety ignorance. In short, she's LIHOI - the US government should've known better and passed air safety laws, like strong cockpit doors, among other safety improvements.

Kind of hard to translate all that into disguising airplanes to hit the Pentagon, no?

Take a look at who Terral links: General Wesley Clark. "Misused intelligence". Right there at the link Terral provides for us. Again, hard to translate all that into disguising aircraft.

The point is, trying to use her, or Wes Clark, or many people on that list to support a "No Plane" argument, or even a LIHOP, let along a MIHOP argument is, to put it bluntly, overreaching. Go look for yourselves, then trace down the actual context of their quotes.

Terral, given that you invoked Wesley Clark, mind pointing out where he says anything even remotely connected to the idea of disguising planes used at the Pentagon? Or for that matter, since I brought her up, Mary Schiavo? I'd like to see where their statements are that say the government actually committed 9/11, as opposed to LIHOI.

twinstead

8th February 2008, 03:09 PM

I love it when Terral says, "bushie".

It positively gives me thah Vapahs.

8th February 2008, 03:23 PM

Hi Par:

You just do not get it. Congress already knows 9/11 was in inside-job like the FBI, CIA, NORAD, the Joint-chiefs and every other major player in our Federal government and they DO NOT CARE. I have contacted my State representatives and the California State Representatives (location of the next 9/11-like attack near Oakland) and the New York State Representatives and the Virginia State Representatives and guess what? They do not care either. I have contacted every department of the Navy and everyone from the Virginia State Attorney General down to the Arlington County Fire Department and guess what? They do not care what hit the Pentagon, OR what caused WTC-7 to collapse any more than you do. Only one aspect of my work here is to present ‘the’ 911Truth for the benefit of these readers. Beyond that point, every single word is given for the sole purpose of JUDGMENT (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn%2016:7-9;&version=49;). While ‘some’ of you are indeed deceived (hook, line, sinker and tackle box), others among you are actually going out to deceive others; and my work here is a sharp sword (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%2010:34;&version=49;) dividing these deluded groups (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Cor%2011:14-15;&version=49;) accordingly. So, you really want to believe that a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed into this empty hole (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/93crash2.jpg). Great! (http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s167/julius_075/Tony20the20Tiger.jpg) Now the question is whether you want to crawl back into your little rabbit hole (http://www.rabbitholeonline.com/rabbittrim.jpg) believing that nonsense, OR if you want to spread that LIE (http://img482.imageshack.us/img482/3987/teleliberals4wf0vu.jpg) to everyone else.

<self-aggrandizing darned-near insulting section removed>

So, nobody of importance wanted to listen to you? And this, in your mind, proves they are in on it? All the government workers, civilians, firefighters and everyone else who lost lives, loved ones, friends and family on that day were in on it?

I wonder, Terral, whether you've considered that the people in power you keep pestering ignore you because you are wrong and they don't want to waste their time?

<snip>

Please forgive, but I know enough about aircraft design and physics to know NO 100-Ton Jetliner crashed anywhere near the Pentagon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C02dE5VKeck). These 110 military people (http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/#Clark) agree with my side of this debate starting with General Wesley Clark. I suppose they do not know anything about aircraft either. :0) These military experts (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKhBzAh_eeA) also agree with my side of this debate and obviously they know more about aircraft than anyone here.

<snip>

I'm not going to bother explaining why the concept of two attacks, 5 minutes apart is wrong. I'm not even sure it qualifies as wrong, to be honest.
(clicky for Wikipedia article on "Not Even Wrong" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong))

I just wanted to bring to attention your claim to knowledge of physics and aerodynamics.

Given how much of your so-called "evidence" has already been shown to be utterly wrong, almost to the poitnt of incompetance, I find it laughable that you now claim expertise in these fields.
Your knowledge of physics is sub-standard, as evidenced by your ignorance of basic thermodynamics.
And I fail to see how "aerodynamics" prove the plane could not have crashed at the Pentagon. Seriously, enlighten me on this. I can see no way that aerodynamics can make any comment on the crash, or the impossiblity thereof. Did I mention I'm studying Aerospace Engineering? Or take the word of any of a number of people specialezed in the aerospace/aeronautical fields. We have pilots, engineers and mechanics whom I've seen post here. It could be that I'm overlooking some application of aerodynamics, but I just can't see how it would favor the crash of a missile and A-3 while proving impossible the crash of a 757.

I realize this seems a little terse.
However, since as you've basically said "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts!", as well as the borderline-insulting nature of your posts (every post I read, I get a little closer to the "report" button), I figure being agreeable is pointless.

DGM

8th February 2008, 04:00 PM

;3415497']So, nobody of importance wanted to listen to you? And his, in your mind, proves they are in on it? All the government workers, civilians, firefighters and everyone else who lost lives, loved ones, friends and family on that day were in on it?

I wonder, Terral, whether you've considered that the people in power you keep pestering ignore you because you are wrong and they don't want to waste their time?

I'm not going to bother explaining why the concept of two attacks, 5 mintues apart is wrong. I'm not even sure it qualifies as wrong, to be honest.
(clicky for Wikipedia article on "Not Even Wrong" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong))

I just wanted to bring to attention your claim to knowledge of physics and aerodynamics.

Given how much of your so-called "evidence" has already been shown to be utterly wrong, almost to the poitnt of incompetance, I find it laughable that you now claim expertise in these fields.
Your knowledge of physics is sub-standard, as evidenced by your ignorance of basic thermodynamics.
And I fail to see how "aerodynamics" prove the plane could not have crashed at the Pentagon. Seriously, enlighten me on this. I can see no way that aerodynamics can make any comment on the crash, or the impossiblity thereof. Did I mention I'm studying Aerospace Engineering? Or take the word of any of a number of people specialezed in the aerospace/aeronautical fields. We have pilots, engineers and mechanics whom I've seen post here. It could be that I'm overlooking some application of aerodynamics, but I just can't see how it would favor the crash of a missile and A-3 while proving impossible the crash of a 757.

I realize this seems a little terse.
However, since as you've basically said "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts!", as well as the borderline-insulting nature of your posts (every post I read, I get a little closer to the "report" button), I figure being agreeable is pointless.
In all fairness he is right. Take another look at his claim.

but I know enough about aircraft design and physics to know NO 100-Ton Jetliner crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.

He does not actually say he knows anything. Someone that knows nothing could make that same statement.

Nice post though.

Dave Rogers

8th February 2008, 04:13 PM

God has the hairs on every 9/11 murderer numbered, but we are here today finding out who among you is helping spread Loyal Bushie LIES. Please present ‘your’ case for AA77 crashing anywhere, OR WTC-7 collapsing from building fires. Please do that right away, because we want to ensure that you are placed in the right group.

Terral, is there some way you could just add me to your list of people you have delusions about, without me actually having to go to the bother of posting a load of information you won't even bother to read? Because, you see, it seems a bit of a waste of effort, but I'd hate to have anyone think I agree with a single word you say.

Oh, and all this "Senor Bushie" stuff - shouldn't it be "Junor Bushie"?

Dave

padragan

8th February 2008, 06:54 PM

To be charitable, I believe the context of that photo set is that such a disguise is possible, that he's demonstrating the possibility, and that the image is an example. Not that it's the actual image of the supposed disguised A-3.

Then again, he hasn't clarified that. I could be wrong about this. My point is that he's disguising a left banking plane with imagry from a right banking one, and the effect ("Look, it's possible") is failing due to the poor selection of images to manipulate.

Yes, that was how I interpreted the image as well, and I still find it hilarious. Like putting make-up on a pig and think that you will get away with it. It's amazing what people will do to try to squeeze the reality to fit their theories instead of the other way around.

pomeroo

8th February 2008, 07:31 PM

Hi Par:

You just do not get it. Congress already knows 9/11 was in inside-job like the FBI, CIA, NORAD, the Joint-chiefs and every other major player in our Federal government and they DO NOT CARE. I have contacted my State representatives and the California State Representatives (location of the next 9/11-like attack near Oakland) and the New York State Representatives and the Virginia State Representatives and guess what? They do not care either. I have contacted every department of the Navy and everyone from the Virginia State Attorney General down to the Arlington County Fire Department and guess what? They do not care what hit the Pentagon, OR what caused WTC-7 to collapse any more than you do. Only one aspect of my work here is to present ‘the’ 911Truth for the benefit of these readers. Beyond that point, every single word is given for the sole purpose of JUDGMENT (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn%2016:7-9;&version=49;). While ‘some’ of you are indeed deceived (hook, line, sinker and tackle box), others among you are actually going out to deceive others; and my work here is a sharp sword (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%2010:34;&version=49;) dividing these deluded groups (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Cor%2011:14-15;&version=49;) accordingly. So, you really want to believe that a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed into this empty hole (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/93crash2.jpg). Great! (http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s167/julius_075/Tony20the20Tiger.jpg) Now the question is whether you want to crawl back into your little rabbit hole (http://www.rabbitholeonline.com/rabbittrim.jpg) believing that nonsense, OR if you want to spread that LIE (http://img482.imageshack.us/img482/3987/teleliberals4wf0vu.jpg) to everyone else.

Those of you so ready to stand with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice (http://www.oldamericancentury.org/images3/warprofiteers.jpg), Ashcroft/Gonzales (http://graphics.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Globe_Graphic/2004/11/13/1100406237_1643.gif), Silverstein/Giuliani (http://chronicle.augusta.com/images/headlines/091103/10170_512.jpg) and the rest of the ‘inside-job’ gang (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/12/13/books/13cnd-bush.html) are very much encouraged to do so, because a big fat surprise (http://www.inplainsite.org/assets/images/Lake-of-Fire-Bg.jpg) is waiting just on the other side of the veil (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev%2021:8;&version=49;).

But hey, I am “not only a narcissist, but also a religious nutcase who thinks of himself in quasi-divine terms.” (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3413979&postcount=153) Right? :0) (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/YoSoFunny.gif) In that nutcase (http://www.geocities.com/vdgaines/images/nutcase.gif), then nobody need heed a word from my direction anyway . . .

GL,

Terral

Here's what you don't get:

You were caught lying about Larry Silverstein. You have not retracted your falsehoods.
Your ludicrous errors regarding the collapse of WTC 7 and the crash of Flight 77 into the Pentagon have been exposed. You have not retracted any of them.
You have brought absolutely nothing to the table except debunked rubbish.

pomeroo

8th February 2008, 07:36 PM

Do you actually realise how childish you come across ? Have you actually any notion?

Your continual reference to Bush and people blindly following him borders on absurd. You are completely destroying any argument you have by doing so. It is almost laughable that anybody would take you seriously. This " If you don’t support me and my theories, you all love Bush and agree with everything he does", is the utter desperation you have to sink to,to be heard.

How about me? I am not even from the US, I cannot stand Bush, so how does it work?

It is you that is continually blowing Bushes trumpet, continually telling everybody how wonderful he is, how he is almost a god to be able to carry out such a dastardly act and have such an Iron grip on the US, in fact the entire planet.

Why do you love Bush so much? Is he your God?

It's one thing to debate the faux "engineers" who use pseudo-science to promote their nonexistent case. It's another to spend time with the Christopheras, Malcolm Kirkmans, and Terrals. These people are seriously ill.

MIKILLINI

8th February 2008, 08:51 PM

Ok Terral (sport fan??) you claim the plane, similar to the one below, did not hit the Pentagon.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/b757/b757_15.jpg

Flight 77 did takeoff from Washington Dulles International Airport.....so where did it go??
And there were passengers on that plane...where are they? Have you some information to share with their families, Terral?

ElMondoHummus

8th February 2008, 10:03 PM

Yes, that was how I interpreted the image as well, and I still find it hilarious. Like putting make-up on a pig and think that you will get away with it. It's amazing what people will do to try to squeeze the reality to fit their theories instead of the other way around.

Yeah, it is still laughworthy at that. I mean... repaint an airplane... and change the engines... and elongate the wings... then run it into the Pentagon... and somehow "plant" all that evidence, including DNA and an FDR... good God...

But in spite of his "disguised jet" sillyness (silliness? sp?) I still find this to be his penultimate work:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3027115#post3027115

Sure, it doesn't rival Spooked and the chicken-wire modeling (now that's classic!), but the fact that he goes to the extent he does with that image... I mean, wow! There are times I believe that Terral actually knows he's wrong but he just wants to pull our chain, and I think this because of that "analysis". Who didn't learn about perspective in art class? And who really can't tell that the consequence of that misguided and abused logic is that the Pentagon is less than 5 feet tall at one end?

Yes, he doesn't redefine jaw-dropping illogic like Spooked does, nor does he echo that guy's number of variations-on-the-same-theme-experiments with his photoanalysis. He doesn't squeeze out the sheer "WTF??-to-word" ratio that someone like ZENSMACK or Christophera managed, or that the recent iAmerican is somehow born to. And he doesn't pull of the "endless cling" anywhere near as tenatiously as MaGZ or Christophera did (although in Christophera's favor, he did have that super-super long thread to demonstrate his stubborness in). But still, Terral is starting to carve out a little Christophera-type niche in terms of repetativeness of argument, if not in providing actual supporting "evidence" (I mean, at least C posted all those pictures; Terral's idea of supporting evidence is "a plane like this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/AA_Painted_A3_Jet.jpg) couldn't make a hole (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NoWayBaby.jpg) like this. Look, I used third party links for my argument!").

He's not quite ready for classic status yet - I mean, for the love of God: Killtown, Kirkman, Christophera, ZENSMACK, etc., that's rare air to be in... I don't even have him in P'Doh's class yet - but he's really working at it. That LCF thread (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=14796&st=50) where he tried to tell YCHTT - a firefighter at the Pentagon on 9/11 - what "really" happened and what the firefighters were doing - in detail! - should at least get him on the nomination list all by itself.

Well, anyway... as a heroically mighty weak attempt to rerail: I'm still waiting to see photos of that A-3 debris. Wouldn't it be funny if he posted our own pictures and just claimed it was really an A-3? Or has he done that already, and I just didn't notice? Think I'll go back and reread some of his posts and see; problem is, I kept getting severe MEGO reading through his stuff, so I may have missed it.

1337m4n

8th February 2008, 10:37 PM

Corsair 115

8th February 2008, 10:57 PM

I mean... repaint an airplane... and change the engines... and elongate the wings... then run it into the Pentagon... It doesn't matter if the wings are elongated or the fuselage painted, the aircraft is still only half as long as a 757 and is still the wrong shape (wings joining to the fuselage at its top, horizontal stabilizers attached to the vertical stabilizer). One need only refer to the comparison drawings I posted earlier to see that no amount of disguising is going to get someone to confuse an A-3 with a 757.

How Terral can actually believe that is mind boggling.

leftysergeant

9th February 2008, 03:11 AM

One piece of evidence from a similar crash, but you post a picture of a swamp in comparison to a building. :lolsign:

Here are some picture of debris albeit not crashing into a cement building. I couldn't find one piece of shiny un-scorched 'skin' separated from the body of the plane without tears in the rivet holes. In the picture above, I could see what appears to be one tear in a single rivet hole, while 2 lines of rivet holes appear to be untouched or even indented at all.

That it did not crash into a building makes these engine parts useless for comparison insofar as the conditions of the engines is concerned. The provenance of the photos would also be of some use in my analysis. I am guessing that this is something on the order of a DC 10, or at least some similar aircraft with one engine in the empenage. I would really be happier to have a shot of the wing-orfuselage-mounted engines for comparison. I doubt that they would have survived in such good shape.

I would, further, expect the fuselage to react differently to this sort of crash, which would appear at first glance to have been a controlled flight into terrain or possibly a collision with another aircraft on the ground.

A good deal of the damage to the aircraft seems to have been done by fire. That kind of destroys the evidentiary value of the photos in arguing facts about flight 77. Certainly this plane would not have been compressed as severely from end to end as was FL 77, thus would not have popped open like an inflated and smacked paper bag.

Now in order to return the favor, can you post a link or picture to a fiery crash that has a pristine shiny metal skin removed from the plane without a hint of a burn mark?

This is sort of a snipe hunt. There would be no such thing. The metal of FL 77 pealed away before the fires started.

Alt+F4

9th February 2008, 07:20 AM

Only one aspect of my work here is to present ‘the’ 911Truth for the benefit of these readers. Beyond that point, every single word is given for the sole purpose of JUDGMENT (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn%2016:7-9;&version=49;).

I can never get these Jesus freaks. If 9/11 was an "inside job" then God already knows this and will punish those accordingly (or not). God certainly doesn't need YOU to tell him/her how to judge anyone.

This reminds me of the episode of "The Simpsons" where Maude Flanders goes to Bible camp to learn to be more judgemental.

Terral

9th February 2008, 08:15 AM

Hi Mikillini:

Mikillini >> Flight 77 did takeoff from Washington Dulles International Airport.....so where did it go?? And there were passengers on that plane...where are they? Have you some information to share with their families, Terral?

The Bureau of Transportation records say AA77 was canceled on 9/11 shown here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x182246#182248).

You start off with Bushie Fantasies and just keep the ball rolling . . .

GL,

Terral

Alt+F4

9th February 2008, 08:20 AM

The Bureau of Transportation records say AA77 was canceled on 9/11 shown here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x182246#182248).

You start off with Bushie Fantasies and just keep the ball rolling . . .

GL,

Terral

But you said everyone in the federal government is in on it, therefore the Department of Transportation is lying.

BTW, please don't use the words "Bushie" and "Fantasies" in the same sentence. It's lunch time where some of us are.

calebprime

9th February 2008, 08:21 AM

Par

9th February 2008, 08:22 AM

It's simple: Terral is intellectually dishonest hypocrite. He thinks that because we don't have a photo of a COMPLETELY INTACT 757 at the Pentagon, that proves that no 757 struck the Pentagon. BUT he has yet to provide a photo of an intact A-3, or even any aircraft parts that are unique to an A-3. So by his own standard of evidence no A-3 hit the Pentagon.The Bureau of Transportation records say AA77 was canceled on 9/11 shown...

I notice that you’re still trying to avoid the issue at hand. Why can’t you address the issue, Terral?

Calcas

9th February 2008, 08:24 AM

I can never get these Jesus freaks. If 9/11 was an "inside job" then God already knows this and will punish those accordingly (or not). God certainly doesn't need YOU to tell him/her how to judge anyone.

Terral has been taking it easy on us here so far. Elsewhere, he flat out states,

"No sir. To believe Senor Bushie’s LIES is to bow to Satan and worship him."

Remember, according to Terral--- disbelief that 9-11 was an inside job=Senor Bushie lover=satan worshipper.

Check out his insane letter to the NYPD here.

http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=10876

BTW, his letter begins, "My name is Terral L. Croft and I am the son of a General Contractor who is also the son of a General Contractor with decades of experience in building demolition and construction."

Notice he doesn't say anything about HE being a contractor, just his father and grandfather. Yet, he clearly calls himself a contractor at the AE911 site.

http://www.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=999528

Could it be he's been LYING about himself all this time?

That wouldn't be very Christian, would it?

DGM

9th February 2008, 08:29 AM

twinstead

9th February 2008, 08:29 AM

Hi Mikillini:

The Bureau of Transportation records say AA77 was canceled on 9/11 shown here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x182246#182248).

This post in found a little lower in your link says it all.

Post 1 indicates that these flights were scheduled to fly on 9/11, contrary to the OP and post #2.

In fairness, Post 1 also indicates that these flights have no "Actual Departure Times" recorded in the Bureau of Transportation Statistics' database of On-Time Statistics. I'm wondering: do you think these flights should have "Actual Elapsed Time"s based on when (as some of us naively suppose) each one struck one of the towers? or do you think they should be reckoned as over six years late and counting? or is it possible that there is no meaningful way to calculate the "Actual Elapsed Time" for planes that never arrived, and that might explain why the departure times aren't recorded in the on-time statistics database either?

As a bonus question: considering the various lines of evidence that the planes did take off -- many of which, I suppose, you believe to be faked -- what would have protected the on-time statistics database from similar tampering?

In short: What, are you kidding me?

Terral

9th February 2008, 08:37 AM

Hi Elmondo:

Elmondo >> Yeah, it is still laughworthy at that. I mean... repaint an airplane... and change the engines... and elongate the wings... then run it into the Pentagon... and somehow "plant" all that evidence, including DNA and an FDR... good God...

Do us all a big favor and just show us one picture of AA77 crashed anywhere. If you could perform that simple task (and you cannot), then all of your ‘talk, talk, talk’ would not be required. Right? Please allow me to demonstrate not on the stupidity of the Official FBI/DoD AA77 Cover Story, but also the ridiculous nature of ‘your’ AA77 Crashed Into The Pentagon Claims. Are you ready?

We are talking about 60 tons of high-grade aluminum/titanium alloy 757 frame (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/boeing2.jpg) going 533 miles per hour even without the engines. Right? Nothing like that hit the Pentagon, or we would be looking at MUCH more damage than this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NoWayBaby.jpg). The bad guys are playing We The People as their fools by even attempting to pass off this damage (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NoPlaneHere.jpg) as being from any 100-Ton Jetliner. If they had any intention of actually pandering to our intelligence (which they are not), then they would have used tons more TNT to create MUCH more damage than any of these Pentagon pictures represent. Remember again that we are talking about one of these babies (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/ThisIsVeryBig.jpg) doing one of these numbers (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NotAtPentagon.jpg) (the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKhBzAh_eeA)) against a Limestone Masonry Office Building (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/simulation.jpg) only one-fifth defended by water sprinklers. My point is that two 6-ton engines going 533 MPH (782 feet per second (http://www.calculateme.com/Speed/MilesperHour/ToFeetperSecond.htm)) means the massive metal engines passed from the E-Ring to C-Ring wall (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/45DegreeTrajectory.jpg) (220 feet @45-degree angle = 311 feet) in under a half second (.3976 seconds).

You should realize that a 6-ton hunk of metal (http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/RB-211/RB2image.jpg) going this speed in any direction is impossible to turn left or right in 4/10ths of a second. Since the two engines obviously did NOT exit the C-Ring wall anywhere, then the only conclusion possible is that Flight 77 never crashed into the Pentagon at all. The C-Ring Exit Hole (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/bigCringhole.jpg) HAD to be created by something other than ANYTHING connected to a real 100-Ton Jetliner (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/landingGear757-i.jpg). Nothing on earth is going to slow 60 tons of 757 frame down going 533 miles per hour in any 4/10th’s of a second. Right? :0) When you plug the numbers into any computer, then the damage analysis report will NEVER point to a real 100-Ton Jetliner crash in a thousand years. The Official DoD/FBI Cover Story is perhaps the most ridiculous HOAX ever pulled on anyone, if you exclude the Flight 93 (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/93crash2.jpg) case. :0)

Just go ahead and admit that you have been DUPED (http://www.alphaadvertising.com/covers/images/Duped-2.jpg) by the DoD/FBI AA77 Cover Story from DAY ONE. No. There is no 100-Ton Jetliner (http://www.safecom.org.au/images/three-war-birds.jpg) in there either. :0) (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)

GL,

Terral

Par

9th February 2008, 08:39 AM

Do us all a big favor and just show us one picture of AA77 crashed anywhere. If you could perform that simple task...

I notice that you’re still trying to avoid the issue at hand (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3416636&postcount=205). Why can’t you address the issue, Terral?

tsig

9th February 2008, 08:42 AM

Calcas

9th February 2008, 08:44 AM

I notice that you’re still trying to avoid the issue at hand (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3416636&postcount=205). Why can’t you address the issue, Terral?

Of course he's dishonest.

I can't wait to hear how he tries to weasel out of his biggest lie.

Calling himself a contractor when really he's been using daddys credentials.

tsig

9th February 2008, 08:55 AM

"thinking outside of the box". I think that box got lost a long time ago.

Is there a cat in that box?

twinstead

9th February 2008, 09:01 AM

As a side note I'd like Terral's comments about what has been said about his claim that AA77 never left the ground, because it's a lie.

tsig

9th February 2008, 09:03 AM

Hi Funk:

Here I am looking at yet another empty post with no evidence for anything at all. Where is Funk’s “AA77 Crashed Into The Pentagon” Case? Oh, that’s right. He is here to bash Terral’s head in (http://www.boingboing.net/images/indianprint.jpg) like many of these other dazed and confused (http://dvdbelgorama.wifeo.com/images/Dazed-and-Confused-HD-DVD.jpg) wantabe 911Truther Investigators . . . Lordy . . . (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2023:34;&version=49;)

I refuse to continue repeating myself, so please pay closer attention: Real 100-Ton Jetliners (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/ThisIsVeryBig.jpg) are designed using 60 tons of high grade aluminum/titanium alloy to stay together and protect the passengers and crew. This DoD Flying BOMB was designed using a minimum of materials intended to go BOOM (http://www.trex2003.de/gallerie/photos/explosion.jpg) on impact. No Jet went through this E-Ring Wall (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NoPlaneHere.jpg). No Jet went through the little bitty E-Ring hole (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NoWayBaby.jpg). A missile went through the E-Ring wall between Column Line (CL) 13 and CL 15 on a 45-degree angle from the south at 9:31:39 AM, while the DoD Jet impacted the same E-Ring wall at 9:36:27 AM (bottom pic (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/BeforeAndAfter.jpg)). Can you people see the differences between this 9:33 AM picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/PreFireRoute27.jpg) and this 9:38 AM picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/afterplane.jpg)? Obviously MANY of you are BLIND as bats . . . If the cotton picking PLANE had gone into the Pentagon, then we WOULD NOT have over 350 feet of fire and brimstone on the OUTSIDE of the Pentagon after the SECOND ATTACK. The ‘first’ 9:31:39 AM attack created ONLY “inside-the-building fires” (Barbara Honegger’s work (http://blog.lege.net/content/Seven_Hours_in_September.pdf)) and a single smoke plume. Do you people know what a single smoke plume looks like? Let’s try it again (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/PreFireRoute27.jpg). Now here is the ‘Second DoD Jet Attack’ picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/afterplane.jpg) again. We have all of this FIRE and JET DEBRIS (http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/13.jpg) on the OUTSIDE of the Pentagon, because the cotton picking DoD Jet went BOOM outside the Pentagon against the E-Ring wall. None of this has anything to do with ANY 100-Ton Jetliner. Period! If 'your' 100-Ton Jetliner crashed into the Pentagon (never happened), then why is all this debris on the OUTSIDE? :jaw-dropp

Please forgive, but I know enough about aircraft design and physics to know NO 100-Ton Jetliner crashed anywhere near the Pentagon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C02dE5VKeck). These 110 military people (http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/#Clark) agree with my side of this debate starting with General Wesley Clark. I suppose they do not know anything about aircraft either. :0) These military experts (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKhBzAh_eeA) also agree with my side of this debate and obviously they know more about aircraft than anyone here.

God has the hairs on every 9/11 murderer numbered, but we are here today finding out who among you is helping spread Loyal Bushie LIES. Please present ‘your’ case for AA77 crashing anywhere, OR WTC-7 collapsing from building fires. Please do that right away, because we want to ensure that you are placed in the right group.

GL in the debates,

Terral

Are you now become divine and are separating the sheep from the goats?

If so make mine hellfire I do so like roasted goat. Got a great barbeque sauce.

Terral

9th February 2008, 09:12 AM

Hi DGM:

Great! Here we have yet another three letter Master Poster, which is about Par for the course around here.

DGM >> Nice job, state "on time statistics" for a plane that crashed. If you bothered to read what you link all the way back to the source you would know they explain this. Epic fail.

No sir. All the ‘zeroed’ out flights (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x182246#182248) were canceled. Period. The AA77 Cover Story has no basis in reality . . .

DBM >> Are you a Bush dis-info agent? Are you paid to do this?

No sir. I never made a dime presenting ‘the’ 911Truth to anyone. Bushie DoD/FBI field operatives push the Official AA77 Cover Story LIKE YOU. :0) DoD/FBI fo's point fingers at people like this (http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/3320063.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=86F19F6C94FCC84F80381553BD8DFACBA55A1E4F32AD3138 ) who supposedly carried out all of these 9/11 attacks. DoD field ops never use the 9:31 AM and 9:32 AM time frames in their disinformation offerings, as these times were sanitized from their Arlington County After-Action Report (http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/Fire/edu/about/docs/after_report.pdf) bible. FBI/DoD field ops work feverishly to corral the third-party reader back into their AA77 Hit The Pentagon sphere of influence, again, just like many OF YOU are doing right here on this thread. Many of you have never heard of the “Two Attack” Pentagon Explanation (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104792), because the ‘911Truth’ is not upon the lips of any FBI/CIA/DoD field operative working these Discussion Boards. If I am here to run diversion for the DoD, FBI, CIA or anyone in the out-of-control Bush Administration, then why am I pointing my finger at the DoD, FBI, CIA and Senor Bush for orchestrating these 9/11 attacks? :0) (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/YoSoFunny.gif)

You have MANY (about 2 dozen) FO’s running around this place and ‘all’ of them push a form of the AA77 Hit The Pentagon Stupidity drummed up by the real inside-job bad guys that carried out the attacks from inside our government in the first place. No sir. My 911Truth explanations are based upon THE EVIDENCE without regard to what anyone else thinks, says or does one way or the other. FO’s do everything to blend into the environment to avoid drawing suspicion to themselves and their handlers, but obviously I am here making a lot of commotion without regard to blending in with anyone.

These readers should be asking questions about why anyone comes to this Conspiracies Forum to agree with the Official DoD/FBI Cover Story LIKE YOU and your cohorts writing ‘against’ my 911Truth explanations. None of you are trying to produce even one picture of AA77 crashed anywhere, even though we are missing over 60 tons of Boeing frame, 11 tons of Rolls Royce engines, over 200 seats, massive wing sections, cargo, landing gear assembly and an almost 50-feet tall tail section. You ‘talk, talk, talk’ like the Official Cover Story has some basis in reality, when the 911Truth is that the government story is based upon nothing but FBI/CIA/DoD fabricated LIES. But then for you to accuse me of being a DoD/FBI field operative at the same time? :0) These readers are much smarter than you give them credit and their conclusions will ultimately be based upon THE EVIDENCE ‘and’ you have no evidence for a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashing anywhere near the Pentagon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C02dE5VKeck). Deal with it . . . (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)

GL,

Terral

Par

9th February 2008, 09:20 AM

Great! Here we have yet another three letter Master Poster...

I notice that you’re still trying to avoid the issue at hand (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3416636&postcount=205). Why can’t you address the issue, Terral?

DGM

9th February 2008, 09:21 AM

Hi DGM:

Great! Here we have yet another three letter Master Poster, which is about Par for the course around here.

No sir. All the ‘zeroed’ out flights (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x182246#182248) were canceled. Period. The AA77 Cover Story has no basis in reality . . .

Why don't you post the original source and stop trying to deceive people?
http://www.bts.gov/xml/ontimesummarystatis...ryDepatures.xml

That way they can decide and not have to sift through the propaganda of your "truther" sites.

AMTMAN

9th February 2008, 09:23 AM

Hi AMT:

This is the kind of nonsense I am talking about right here. Why is AMT talking about a little ‘disc,’ when he should be talking about the whereabouts of ‘all’ the components of a real 100-Ton Jetliner? :0)

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/boeing2.jpg

Okay sports fans, try to guess the size of AMT’s little disc ‘versus’ the 60 tons of high grade aluminum/titanium frame, the two 5.5 ton engines (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/PW2000.jpg), wing sections, landing gear components (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/landingGear757-i.jpg), over 200 seats, cargo and massive tail section (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/phillipines_373.jpg) standing almost 50-feet tall off the tarmac (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/purdue1_sim.jpg). AMT is saying one of these bad boys (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/ThisIsVeryBig.jpg) did one of these numbers (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NotAtPentagon.jpg) (see the movie version (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKhBzAh_eeA)) going 533 miles per hour (now THAT is fast) to completely disappear inside this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NoWayBaby.jpg) 18-feet 3-inch second story entry hole (another view (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/pentmorris.jpg)). :0) (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/YoSoFunny.gif)

Again. Why is AMT talking about a little itsy bitsy disc, when he cannot show us where the 100-Ton Jetliner passed through this E-Ring wall (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NoPlaneHere.jpg) ‘and’ he cannot even locate the 60 tons of high grade Jetliner frame, engines, seats, cargo, wing sections, tail section or anything else remotely resembling a real 100-Ton Jetliner? He is trying to razzle dazzle you with nonsense, because he has NO CASE for AA77 crashing ANYWHERE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C02dE5VKeck). Let’s see AMT start his ‘debunking’ to even the 911Truth presented in this single itsy bitsy post. :0) (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)

Lordy. I need one of these babies (http://www.corsetsandcrinolines.com/Tidbits/November2004/pix/girdle.jpg) to keep my side from splitting over all the laughter . . .

GL,

Terral

Typical truther response. When someone gives you information you don't like you talk about everything else but the subject at hand.

The picture of that "itsy bitsy" disc is from one the sites you post links to. First you talk up the importance of it because you mistakenly think it's a picture of a JT8D disc at the Pentagon. When you are given information that shows it is not a disc from an RB211 you dismiss its importance. Why is that Terrral, are you that dishonest?

So far the evidence you provide is either from sites like rense or photos of aircraft and engines which support nothing. You say where are the pictures of the engines and landing gear. Well I guess you are not looking hard enough Terral. Even rense.com has pictures of the landing gear and engines.

Another thing Terral, when you post links like this it shows you really don't know what you are talking about when it comes to aviation.

< http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/PW2000.jpg >

That's not an RB211 engine. I would have thought an expert like you would know that.

Here's another one.

< http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/phillipines_373.jpg >

Are you trying to tell us that in every accident the empennage is supposed to survive? Well Terral I hate to burst your bubble but that is not the case.

But wait there's more!

< http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NotAtPentagon.jpg >

Why did you even post this? This is a picture of a 707 crashing into the ground at landing speeds. Not a 757 smashing into a building like the Pentagon at a high rate of speed.

One last thing Terral. Don't you think that AA would have figured out that it was not one of their aircraft that hit the Pentagon? If what you are saying is true, it's not, there can only be two possibilities. One, AA is in on the conspiracy. Two, AA is totally and completely clueless.

AMTMAN

9th February 2008, 09:35 AM

Terral:

Remember when I said that rense had pictures of the engines and landing gear and engines?

< http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm >

See that piece of wrekage with the round holes in it? That's from the engine.

AMTMAN

9th February 2008, 09:38 AM

I love it when Terral says, "bushie".

It positively gives me thah Vapahs.

That seems to be the standard repsonse of his, and other truthers, to people who disagree with him.

Terral

9th February 2008, 09:44 AM

Hi Twinstead:

Twin >> As a side note I'd like Terral's comments about what has been said about his claim that AA77 never left the ground, because it's a lie.

I am happy to walk these readers through the process of knowing for certain that AA77 and AA11 never even left the airport on 9/11 (detailed here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x182246#182248)) by simply using online Bureau of Transportation records available to everyone.

1. Begin at the BTS Website here (http://www.bts.gov/xml/ontimesummarystatistics/src/dstat/OntimeSummaryDepatures.xml) showing Detailed Statistics Departures.

Here you have the option to request any information from “Scheduled Departure Time” to “Actual Departure Time,” to “Departure Delays” and “Wheels-off Times.” There are no tricks involved by using this website at all, but you simply plug in the requests for any given day and the information database provides you with the information.

2. Statistics: Since we want all the data possible, then simply select “All Statistics” and all the boxes will automatically fill in for you.

3. Origin Airport: We are looking for data on Washington, DC – Washington Dulles International (IAD) for this AA77 Flight.

4. Airline: You want to select American Airlines (AA) for this field, because obviously AA77 is an American Airlines Flight.

5. Month: We want to select the month of September, i.e., 9/11.

6. Day: Again, we want to find information for 9/11, so 11 is the right day.

7. Year. We need information from 2001.

8. When all the fields are selected properly, then hit the “Submit” button.

Now you are looking at a chart (like this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/aa77departure.jpg)) of AA (American Airlines) Flights ‘scheduled’ to take off on 9/11. Everything appears normal, until you begin looking down the “Tail Number” column and see “Unknown” in big fat letters. Note that the real tail numbers are recorded in the same horizontal rows as the “Wheels-off Time” and “Actual Departure Time” numbers, because that ‘tail number’ was read by a real live human being charged with accurately filling out the data sheets for all of these flights. You obviously cannot read the tail number off any ‘canceled’ flights, because they never made their way to the runway. There is no “Wheel’s-off Time” filled in for flights that were canceled, so we find those field boxes “zeroed out” to contain no value at all.

Next, we can see AA 0077 in the second row from the top with the accurate 8:10 Scheduled Departure Time with the 0326 (3 hours and 26 minutes) Scheduled Elapsed Time duly noted. However, the Actual Elapsed Time is also zeroed out, because this flight WAS CANCELED like every other “zeroed-out” Flight you see on this chart. The 911Truth is that the FBI/DoD Cover Story people have been using a canceled flight to make their “AA77 Hit The Pentagon” Case from the very beginning. This is what the evidence is saying, which everyone can see clearly for themselves; even those among you pushing the Official FBI/DoD Cover Story . . .

GL,

Terral

DGM

9th February 2008, 09:48 AM

Hi Twinstead:

I am happy to walk these readers through the process of knowing for certain that AA77 and AA11 never even left the airport on 9/11 (detailed here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x182246#182248)) by simply using online Bureau of Transportation records available to everyone.

1. Begin at the BTS Website here (http://www.bts.gov/xml/ontimesummarystatistics/src/dstat/OntimeSummaryDepatures.xml) showing Detailed Statistics Departures.

Here you have the option to request any information from “Scheduled Departure Time” to “Actual Departure Time,” to “Departure Delays” and “Wheels-off Times.” There are no tricks involved by using this website at all, but you simply plug in the requests for any given day and the information database provides you with the information.

2. Statistics: Since we want all the data possible, then simply select “All Statistics” and all the boxes will automatically fill in for you.

3. Origin Airport: We are looking for data on Washington, DC – Washington Dulles International (IAD) for this AA77 Flight.

4. Airline: You want to select American Airlines (AA) for this field, because obviously AA77 is an American Airlines Flight.

5. Month: We want to select the month of September, i.e., 9/11.

6. Day: Again, we want to find information for 9/11, so 11 is the right day.

7. Year. We need information from 2001.

8. When all the fields are selected properly, then hit the “Submit” button.

Now you are looking at a chart (like this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/aa77departure.jpg)) of AA (American Airlines) Flights ‘scheduled’ to take off on 9/11. Everything appears normal, until you begin looking down the “Tail Number” column and see “Unknown” in big fat letters. Note that the real tail numbers are recorded in the same horizontal rows as the “Wheels-off Time” and “Actual Departure Time” numbers, because that ‘tail number’ was read by a real live human being charged with accurately filling out the data sheets for all of these flights. You obviously cannot read the tail number off any ‘canceled’ flights, because they never made their way to the runway. There is no “Wheel’s-off Time” filled in for flights that were canceled, so we find those field boxes “zeroed out” to contain no value at all.

Next, we can see AA 0077 in the second row from the top with the accurate 8:10 Scheduled Departure Time with the 0326 (3 hours and 26 minutes) Scheduled Elapsed Time duly noted. However, the Actual Elapsed Time is also zeroed out, because this flight WAS CANCELED like every other “zeroed-out” Flight you see on this chart. The 911Truth is that the FBI/DoD Cover Story people have been using a canceled flight to make their “AA77 Hit The Pentagon” Case from the very beginning. This is what the evidence is saying, which everyone can see clearly for themselves; even those among you pushing the Official FBI/DoD Cover Story . . .

GL,

Terral
Would there be an elapsed time if the plane never reached it's destination? I would think that even you could figure that out.

Par

9th February 2008, 09:48 AM

I am happy to walk these readers through the process of knowing for certain that AA77 and AA11...

I notice that you’re still trying to avoid the issue at hand (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3416636&postcount=205). Why can’t you address the issue, Terral?

Calcas

9th February 2008, 09:54 AM

I notice that you’re still trying to avoid the issue at hand (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3416636&postcount=205). Why can’t you address the issue, Terral?

I would also like him to address why he lies about being a contractor. Using daddys credentials at ae911truth as your own is a sin. WWJD?

AMTMAN

9th February 2008, 09:55 AM

Hi HawksFan:

Thank you for asking this very good question. First of all, the retired DoD Military Jet was ‘retrofitted’ (http://web.archive.org/web/20070221061504/http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/318250.shtml) and given a completely new look to resemble their version of a real AA Jetliner (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/AA_Painted_A3_Jet.jpg), so the wingspan could have been much larger than just 72 feet. Secondly, the DoD Jet struck the Pentagon at 9:36:27 AM to create this damage (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/BeforeAndAfter.jpg) (bottom pic) and create this Jet Debris (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/DebunkedNothing.jpg). Thirdly, the DoD Jet struck the E-Ring wall at the second-story concrete slab elevation shown in the first picture here (http://home.att.net/~carlson.jon/PentagonA3wreckage1.htm) and in my diagram here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/compmix2.jpg). You can see the outline of the DoD Jet wreckage in this picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/A-3JetDebris.jpg) taken from this one (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/afterplane.jpg) taken just after the 9:36:27 AM Jet attack.

Only one of the two engines (the starboard engine) passed under the second story slab to enter the Pentagon, while portside engine struck the second story concrete slab and fell straight down in front of Column Line 9 shown here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/JT8DEngineCL9a.jpg) and here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/JT8DEngineCL9.jpg). The DoD/FBI inside-job bad guys refuse to produce a single ‘time-change’ part (http://physics911.net/georgenelson) from ANY of these related 9/11 attacks, because then we would know the Jet debris came from a retired Navy Jet using Pratt and Whitney engines (http://home.att.net/~south.tower/PentagonWrongEngine1.htm). No. I do not agree with all of Karl Schwarz’s conclusions, but he was on the right track in identifying the parts as coming from the cheaper Pratt and Whitney engines (http://www.rense.com/general67/911eng.htm) and NOT any Rolls Royce engine at all.

GL,

Terral

Your own picture contradicts the story you tell.

< http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/AA_Painted_A3_Jet.jpg >

As I pointed out in a previous post all you did was take a pictureof a GLobal Hawk and put AA colors on it. Your claim that they "retorfitted" something like an A-3 to look like a Global Hawk is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. Notice some of the differences between the two? One is a high wing aircraft the other is a low wing aircraft. One has two engines the other has one. Also the Global Hawk uses a single Allison/RR AE3007 engine, not a Pratt and Whitney engine.

twinstead

9th February 2008, 09:57 AM

H
I am happy to walk these readers through the process of knowing for certain that AA77 and AA11 never even left the airport on 9/11 (detailed here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x182246#182248)) by simply using online Bureau of Transportation records available to everyone.

Exactly what would you expect to find if you punch in a request for information about a plane that never reached its destination and was involved in a crash?

I can't believe you try to spin this to mean the flight was canceled, especially considering all the other incontrovertible evidence the flight took off as advertised. I suppose this means that Ong's phone calls were faked or her husband is in on it and lying about her calls FROM AA77.

For crying out loud, man--get a clue! With 'research' like this, and 'investigators' like you, its no wonder your movement is going nowhere.

Terral

9th February 2008, 10:14 AM

Hi AMTMAN:

AMT >> Remember when I said that rense had pictures of the engines and landing gear and engines? < http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm > See that piece of wrekage with the round holes in it? That's from the engine.

No sir. You are looking at DoD Military Jet parts (http://home.att.net/~carlson.jon/PentagonA3wreckage1.htm) from the 9:36:27 AM Jet attack (bottom pic (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/BeforeAndAfter.jpg)) having nothing to do with any 100-Ton Jetliner. Here is your problem in a nutshell:

Composite Picture: (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/pent-ricostruzionedannouw0.jpg)

This picture was put together from several pictures detailing the ‘pre-collapse’ damage to the Wedge One E-Ring Pentagon Wall, which is the topic of discussion on this Loose Change Thread (http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/45080/1/). The most important cut from this picture is this one (http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/Murru_Columns_8-10.jpg) showing Column #9 pushed back in our direction ‘and’ Column #10 still standing and very much intact. The problem for the Official AA77 Cover Story is that the Jetliner supposedly struck the Pentagon at a 45-degree angle from the south like this:

Damage Schematic: (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/simulation.jpg)

Are you beginning to see your problem? We are looking at a 233 feet section of the Wedge One E-Ring wall where these numbered columns are positioned exactly on 10-feet centers ‘and’ are exactly 21-inches square. That means center-to-center we have exactly 90 feet from the center of Column #1 to Column #10. Since this AA77 Jetliner is 125 feet wide and 155 feet long (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757#Specifications), and this attack is on a 45-degree angle, then your damage should run all the way over to Column #5. The fact is that the centerline of impact is Column #14 and we just saw the pictures of Column #10 still standing ‘after’ the supposed 100-Ton Jetliner crashed here. The distance from Column #14 to Column #10 is only forty cotton picking feet, or less than half the distance to where we ‘should’ be seeing portside wing impact. Remember again that we have no windows broken on the third floor (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/impact_scale.jpg) and only two missing from the second floor. Remember again that your 100-Ton Jetliner passed ‘over’ the top of this Green SUV (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/leftsidedamage.jpg) without even touching it AND over the tops of these cable spools (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/fire_spools.jpg) without touching them either AND somehow managed to pass ‘under’ the still-standing second story concrete slab.

AMT man cannot begin hauling out real 100-Ton Jetliner (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/ThisIsVeryBig.jpg) debris, until he can show us how anything like that passed through this standing E-Ring wall (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NoPlaneHere.jpg) first.

GL,

Terral

Par

9th February 2008, 10:31 AM

I would also like him to address why he lies about being a contractor. Using daddys credentials at ae911truth as your own is a sin. WWJD?

I don’t think I’m aware of this particular controversy. Can you link me to a relevant post?

Terral

9th February 2008, 10:41 AM

Hi Calcus:

Calcus >> I would also like him to address why he lies about being a contractor. Using daddys credentials at ae911truth as your own is a sin. WWJD?

Does Calcus have a case for AA77 crashing anywhere? No. Does Calcus have a case for building fires taking down WTC-7? No. And yet, he really feels that attacking my person is going to make his case? :0) Every word of my building credentials is 100 percent truth. AE911Truth has listed my ‘experience’ for more than the past 30 years, which has nothing to do with my current ‘semi-retired’ status. Yes. My father is still a licensed Class-A General Contractor in the state of Florida and he handed me my first set of blueprints at the age of 12 years old. I worked in his GC Office and his Real Estate Office and designed my first commercial building for my first commercial property sold at the tender age of 22 years old. I used my first set of cutting torches on demolition jobs in my early teens, because my dad was one of the owners of the company and people did whatever he told them to do. I worked my way up the ladder, until becoming the supervisor of the show and I got my first GC license in the state of Georgia in the mid 1980’s. However, Calcus told Richard Gage that he is some kind of engineer. Right? :0) And he who is with the most sin here is casting the most stones . . .

BTW, my cases are built upon 'the evidence' and expert testimony OF OTHERS to support my proposals. If you had any kind of real 'rebuttal' to anything, then we would be looking at that an not your pitiful attempts to attack my person. Thank you for being on the other side of this and every 911Truth debate. Any future attempts at using these underhanded debating tactics will certainly be ignored . . .

GL,

Terral

EventHorizon

9th February 2008, 10:43 AM

bje

9th February 2008, 10:47 AM

Do us all a big favor and just show us one picture of AA77 crashed anywhere. If you could perform that simple task (and you cannot), then all of your ‘talk, talk, talk’ would not be required. Right? Please allow me to demonstrate not on the stupidity of the Official FBI/DoD AA77 Cover Story, but also the ridiculous nature of ‘your’ AA77 Crashed Into The Pentagon Claims. Are you ready?

Should I remind you, Terral, that we are still waiting for you to answer the question you steadfastly refuse to answer.

I'd be happy to.

Just what wreckage did the 1,000+ people see and/or recover from the Pentagon? What did these people say the wreckage was, Terral?

bje

9th February 2008, 10:58 AM

I am happy to walk these readers through the process of knowing for certain that AA77 and AA11 never even left the airport on 9/11 ...

But there are unanswered questions, Terral. You, remember, the ones you refused to answer. So let's review this question you haven't answered yet:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3401617&postcount=413

And the testimony from these people is exactly what, Terral?

AA reservations personnel
Family members
AA curbside baggage check in
AA Ticket Counter
Ticket stubs collected
AA baggage handlers
Gate check-in ticket takers
AA baggage loaders
AA maintenance personnel
Cabin cleaning crew
Food catering service
Plane fuelers
Aviation Fuel company billing personnel and records
Pilot check-in and flight planning personnel
Ground control gate push-back clearance
Tow/push truck driver
Ground control taxi clearance and instructions
Pilots of aircraft following taxiing AA77
Ground control handoff to tower control
Tower clearance for takeoff
Tower handoff to Departure Control
Departure Control handoff to Washington ARTCC
AA operations control personnel

These are just some of the people who would have to know of AA77's existence as a flight on 9/11/2001, a few hundred easily.

Add that to the testimony of the 1,000+ people who saw and/or removed the wreckage and you've got a lot of sources.

Tell us what all of these people saw and know.

Surely, you have their statements by now, correct, Terral?

bje

9th February 2008, 11:04 AM

BTW, my cases are built upon 'the evidence' and expert testimony OF OTHERS to support my proposals.

Except for evidence from 1,000+ people at the Pentagon and another 200+ at the airport who can tell you if AA77 took off and what the wreckage at the Pentagon was.

Surprisingly, you avoid this evidence continually which means that you actually do not know what the evidence is or you want to hide it from us.

Strange behavior for you, a "Truth Investigator". Don't you think it is time to address the evidence, Terral?

MIKILLINI

9th February 2008, 11:26 AM

Flight 77 did takeoff from Washington Dulles International Airport.....so where did it go??
And there were passengers on that plane...where are they? Have you some information to share with their families, Terral?
^
Bump for Terral.

DGM

9th February 2008, 11:44 AM

Hi Calcus:

Does Calcus have a case for AA77 crashing anywhere? No. Does Calcus have a case for building fires taking down WTC-7? No. And yet, he really feels that attacking my person is going to make his case? :0) Every word of my building credentials is 100 percent truth. AE911Truth has listed my ‘experience’ for more than the past 30 years, which has nothing to do with my current ‘semi-retired’ status. Yes. My father is still a licensed Class-A General Contractor in the state of Florida and he handed me my first set of blueprints at the age of 12 years old. I worked in his GC Office and his Real Estate Office and designed my first commercial building for my first commercial property sold at the tender age of 22 years old. I used my first set of cutting torches on demolition jobs in my early teens, because my dad was one of the owners of the company and people did whatever he told them to do. I worked my way up the ladder, until becoming the supervisor of the show and I got my first GC license in the state of Georgia in the mid 1980’s. However, Calcus told Richard Gage that he is some kind of engineer. Right? :0) And he who is with the most sin here is casting the most stones . . .

BTW, my cases are built upon 'the evidence' and expert testimony OF OTHERS to support my proposals. If you had any kind of real 'rebuttal' to anything, then we would be looking at that an not your pitiful attempts to attack my person. Thank you for being on the other side of this and every 911Truth debate. Any future attempts at using these underhanded debating tactics will certainly be ignored . . .

GL,

Terral
Terral:
I'm a bit confused. It seems the state of Georgia did not license general contractors until 2005.

Asbestos abatement and the mechanical trade contractors need a license in Georgia. The state is assembling a board in 2005 to begin the licensing of general and residential contractors as well.

http://www.contractors-license.org/

ETA As it turns out they still don't require a license
After July 2, 2007, application for licensure must be made by way of examination. Because licensure will be required for the practice of contracting in Georgia effective July 1, 2008, we strongly recommend that you apply as early as possible before that date to allow time for processing of your application and subsequent test taking and scoring. To download an application and to see further instructions and information on the examination

http://sos.georgia.gov/plb/contractors/default.htm

AMTMAN

9th February 2008, 12:27 PM

Hi AMTMAN:

No sir. You are looking at DoD Military Jet parts (http://home.att.net/~carlson.jon/PentagonA3wreckage1.htm) from the 9:36:27 AM Jet attack (bottom pic (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/BeforeAndAfter.jpg)) having nothing to do with any 100-Ton Jetliner. Here is your problem in a nutshell:

Composite Picture: (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/pent-ricostruzionedannouw0.jpg)

This picture was put together from several pictures detailing the ‘pre-collapse’ damage to the Wedge One E-Ring Pentagon Wall, which is the topic of discussion on this Loose Change Thread (http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/45080/1/). The most important cut from this picture is this one (http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/Murru_Columns_8-10.jpg) showing Column #9 pushed back in our direction ‘and’ Column #10 still standing and very much intact. The problem for the Official AA77 Cover Story is that the Jetliner supposedly struck the Pentagon at a 45-degree angle from the south like this:

Damage Schematic: (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/simulation.jpg)

Are you beginning to see your problem? We are looking at a 233 feet section of the Wedge One E-Ring wall where these numbered columns are positioned exactly on 10-feet centers ‘and’ are exactly 21-inches square. That means center-to-center we have exactly 90 feet from the center of Column #1 to Column #10. Since this AA77 Jetliner is 125 feet wide and 155 feet long (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757#Specifications), and this attack is on a 45-degree angle, then your damage should run all the way over to Column #5. The fact is that the centerline of impact is Column #14 and we just saw the pictures of Column #10 still standing ‘after’ the supposed 100-Ton Jetliner crashed here. The distance from Column #14 to Column #10 is only forty cotton picking feet, or less than half the distance to where we ‘should’ be seeing portside wing impact. Remember again that we have no windows broken on the third floor (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/impact_scale.jpg) and only two missing from the second floor. Remember again that your 100-Ton Jetliner passed ‘over’ the top of this Green SUV (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/leftsidedamage.jpg) without even touching it AND over the tops of these cable spools (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/fire_spools.jpg) without touching them either AND somehow managed to pass ‘under’ the still-standing second story concrete slab.

AMT man cannot begin hauling out real 100-Ton Jetliner (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/ThisIsVeryBig.jpg) debris, until he can show us how anything like that passed through this standing E-Ring wall (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NoPlaneHere.jpg) first.

GL,

Terral

Are you so arrogant that you think you know more about aircraft than someone who spent four years in the military and ten years in the civilian world working on a/c?

Hate to break the news to you Terral but that engine picture is of a RB211.

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

See the IPC reference. Care to explain this Terral?

AMTMAN

9th February 2008, 12:30 PM

Terral:

1337m4n said it best.

It's simple: Terral is intellectually dishonest hypocrite. He thinks that because we don't have a photo of a COMPLETELY INTACT 757 at the Pentagon, that proves that no 757 struck the Pentagon. BUT he has yet to provide a photo of an intact A-3, or even any aircraft parts that are unique to an A-3. So by his own standard of evidence no A-3 hit the Pentagon.

ElMondoHummus

9th February 2008, 02:06 PM

Hi Mikillini:

The Bureau of Transportation records say AA77 was canceled on 9/11 shown here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x182246#182248).

You start off with Bushie Fantasies and just keep the ball rolling . . .

GL,

Terral

To non-posting participants and other newbies unfamiliar with the history of topics in this forum: BTS statistics were tried as an argument before in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=97005). I remember posting the following:

Ahh, good point. Thank you for that. Yes, I did select "Scheduled" instead of "Actual".

Anyway, when I do a search by individual flight, I get the same result as AW Smith does:

On September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight #11 and #77 and United Airlines #93 and #175 were hijacked by terrorists. Therefore, these flights are not included in the on-time summary statistics.

Which is a little incorrect, as you pointed out: United reported their data. But even if you consider the 00:00 time listed, all that means is that the data wasn't entered. There are multiple explanations for that. Any attempt to make that lack of departure time entry conspiratorial is absurd.

That was regarding AW Smith's post:

from
http://www.bts.gov/xml/ontimesummarystatistics/src/ddisp/OntimeSummarySelect.xml?tname=OntimeSummaryFlightD ata (http://www.bts.gov/xml/ontimesummarystatistics/src/ddisp/OntimeSummarySelect.xml?tname=OntimeSummaryFlightD ata)

Summary Statistics
Flight Number

Airline: American Airlines (AA)Flight Number: 0011Time Period: September 11, 2001 to September 11, 2001
On-Time Flights:
NOTE: Late, cancelled and diverted flights are subtracted from total flights to determine on-time percent.
A complete listing of airline (http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/airline_ontime_statistics/DetailedStatistics/INFO/CarrierInfo.html) and airport (http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/airline_ontime_statistics/DetailedStatistics/INFO/AirportInfo.html) abbreviations is available. Times are reported in local time using a 24 hour clock.
On September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight #11 and #77 and United Airlines #93 and #175 were hijacked by terrorists. Therefore, these flights are not included in the on-time summary statistics.

In short, Terral is distorting yet another basic, verifiable fact. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics did not say that AA 77 was cancelled. The bureau said that the 9/11 flights were deliberately not included in the databases.

That's a rather large difference. Read that thread to see all the details of the argument. Bottom line is that the BTS databases do not report what Terral claims they report.