What is the relevance of what caused the hole in the C-Ring?

[1337m4n]

We know the following things from eyewitness testimony, physical evidence, and investigative reports:

1) Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

2) Nothing else crashed into the Pentagon.

Given these two things, what is the relevance of this debate (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=108972) with respect to the central question of whether there was a government conspiracy involved with 9/11?

[Cobalt]

I would imagine, that given the multitude of possibilities in the thread, that it's just to claim there's reason to doubt and keep "Asking questions."

[steve s]

The troofers have no trouble thinking a small, 3200 lb. cruise missile would penetrate all the way through the pentagon, but find it impossible to believe that a 200,000 lb. passenger jet would make it through. Just another example of their insanity.

Steve S.

[CHF]

The C-ring debate is a lot like the debate over whether the FDNY thought WTC7 would collapse due to their own observations or whether they were told by other FDNY.

It changes nothing when it comes to what happened on 9/11, and is simply an indication of just how desperate this pathetic "movement" has become.

[Myriad]

It's an implication of a logical fallacy (though the no-claimers never spell it out in full, because that makes its fallaciousness obvious) that goes something like this:

If one or more crashed airplane parts made the hole, there is probably no way for us to ever determine, with certainty, exactly which airplane part(s) did so.

On the other hand, if the crash were faked and we could someday capture the people responsible and force them to confess how they did it, then we would learn exactly how the hole was made.

Since the second hypothesis offers the speculative eventual future possibility of greater knowledge, it is to be preferred over the first.

I don't know if this fallacy has been named yet. "Appeal to Certainty," perhaps?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[CurtC]

The C-ring hole has the same relevance as the molten metal in the WTC rubble pile.

[TC329]

The troofers have no trouble thinking a small, 3200 lb. cruise missile would penetrate all the way through the pentagon, but find it impossible to believe that a 200,000 lb. passenger jet would make it through. Just another example of their insanity.

Steve S.

It's called a wall breaching kit. I think Terral is the only person still claiming a missile hit the pentagon in 2008.

[defaultdotxbe]

it always makes me think of u=omething i read on snopes, in the Clinton body count article

Make sure every inconsistency or unexplained detail you can dredge up is offered as evidence of a conspiracy, no matter how insignificant or pointless it may be. If an obvious suicide is discovered wearing only one shoe, ignore the physical evidence of self-inflicted death and dwell on the missing shoe. You don't have to establish an alternate theory of the death; just keep harping that the missing shoe "can't be explained."

[Totovader]

It's called a wall breaching kit. I think Terral is the only person still claiming a missile hit the pentagon in 2008.

If you could answer the OP: what is the relevance of this absurd wall-breaching kit claim?

[Mangoose]

It's called a wall breaching kit. I think Terral is the only person still claiming a missile hit the pentagon in 2008.

But, but, but, didn't Rummy say that a missle hit the Pentagon???? :( :confused: :boggled:

[Tirdun]

Ah, how lovely. I do so love it when a new CT arises from the cold, scattered ashes of an old claim. The certainty of yesterday finds a new home in the heart of the theorist, jumping like a carrion bird to the next rotting carcass.

Before it was a missile, or perhaps a small plane, that smashed into the Pentagon. Hundreds of well trained personnel leapt into action, dragging pieces of airplane wreckage and speaking to news crews about airplanes. Meanwhile a passenger aircraft landed somewhere secretive and gloomy. It would have to be gloomy.

But no. That was too simple. Now a professionally trained wall breaching team rushed to the wall of the pentagon and destroyed it, then another, then another, setting fire and killing their comrades in their offices. Eventually they reached the final wall and melted into the shadows. Then the news crews came and they took pictures and the Universities and Engineering groups collected their paychecks and wrote silly conclusions as spelled out by mustache-twirling persons of sinister minds.

[jhunter1163]

Ah, how lovely. I do so love it when a new CT arises from the cold, scattered ashes of an old claim. The certainty of yesterday finds a new home in the heart of the theorist, jumping like a carrion bird to the next rotting carcass.

Before it was a missile, or perhaps a small plane, that smashed into the Pentagon. Hundreds of well trained personnel leapt into action, dragging pieces of airplane wreckage and speaking to news crews about airplanes. Meanwhile a passenger aircraft landed somewhere secretive and gloomy. It would have to be gloomy.

But no. That was too simple. Now a professionally trained wall breaching team rushed to the wall of the pentagon and destroyed it, then another, then another, setting fire and killing their comrades in their offices. Eventually they reached the final wall and melted into the shadows. Then the news crews came and they took pictures and the Universities and Engineering groups collected their paychecks and wrote silly conclusions as spelled out by mustache-twirling persons of sinister minds.

Nominated, because it's beautifully written and dead-on accurate.

[Mince]

The troofers have no trouble thinking a small, 3200 lb. cruise missile would penetrate all the way through the pentagon, but find it impossible to believe that a 200,000 lb. passenger jet would make it through. Just another example of their insanity.

Steve S.


Uh, dude: You're giving insanity a bad name.




**emphasis added

[RedIbis]

I'll refrain from abject sarcasm and just try and answer the OP: it's just as relevant as studying the exit wound of a gunshot victim. Ask any forensic pathologist if there is something to be learned by studying the exit wound.

Obviously, the OP is an attempt to dismiss the relevance of the exit hole because an impact which completely destroys two very heavy and dense engines is difficult to reconcile with whatever scrap supposedly creates a very symetrical exit hole.

[Mince]

I'll refrain from abject sarcasm and just try and answer the OP...


Thank you. I was terribly fearful that you would exalt in abject sarcasm and not try to answer the OP. My fears have been allayed.

I'll refrain from abject sarcasm...someday.

[RedIbis]

Thank you. I was terribly fearful that you would exhalt in abject sarcasm and not try to answer the OP. My fears have been allayed.

I'll refrain from abject sarcasm...someday.

When you do, take a moment to think about how laughable it is that something as significant of an exit hole is to be dismissed by those who cannot explain its cause.

[thebestodb]

you need to be more subjective about exit wound. I saw how literal people can be here with their words.

[Totovader]

When you do, take a moment to think about how laughable it is that something as significant of an exit hole is to be dismissed by those who cannot explain its cause.

Who cannot explain its cause?

[Mince]

Who cannot explain its cause?

Apparently I can't. I guess in some people's world, "refuses to" is synonymous to "can't."

[Totovader]

I'll refrain from abject sarcasm and just try and answer the OP: it's just as relevant as studying the exit wound of a gunshot victim. Ask any forensic pathologist if there is something to be learned by studying the exit wound.

Obviously, the OP is an attempt to dismiss the relevance of the exit hole because an impact which completely destroys two very heavy and dense engines is difficult to reconcile with whatever scrap supposedly creates a very symetrical exit hole.

Been there, done that. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3540020#post3540020)

[RedIbis]

Who cannot explain its cause?

I don't wish to dismiss its relevance. Do you?

[thebestodb]

that's why I said subjective. Didn't want another bickering session by so many derailers. That thread took me like an hour and a half to get through and sooo many posts were uneeded

[RedIbis]

Been there, done that. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3540020#post3540020)

Apparently.

You said: Assuming that the Pentagon were a body, you have admitted- yourself- that it holds no meaning, and any suspicion you generate about it is pointless.

Perhaps, I should have asked this on the other thread, and I'll try to be polite, but, what the hell are you talking about? How did you get that I "admitted[...] that it holds no meaning"?

Where in my statements could you possibly draw that conclusion?

[Brainache]

I'll refrain from abject sarcasm and just try and answer the OP: it's just as relevant as studying the exit wound of a gunshot victim. Ask any forensic pathologist if there is something to be learned by studying the exit wound.

I believe it was studied as part of the building performance report. Guess what? It's the exit hole of whatever remained of flt 77 after it crashed through the ground floor of the Pentagon. They studied it and learned what happens to a building exactly like the Pentagon when a commercial jet liner crashes into it at high speed.


Obviously, the OP is an attempt to dismiss the relevance of the exit hole because an impact which completely destroys two very heavy and dense engines is difficult to reconcile with whatever scrap supposedly creates a very symetrical exit hole.

Why? are you saying that the C-ring wall was as strong as the outside wall of the E-ring?

[RedIbis]

Guess what? It's the exit hole of whatever remained of flt 77 after it crashed through the ground floor of the Pentagon.

Well now that's convenient. Mystery solved. I don't know why anyone would be curious.

[Totovader]

I don't wish to dismiss its relevance. Do you?

That's not an answer to my question. You implied that no one is able to give a cause as to the C-Ring hole, I would like for you to be specific and state who you think that is or clarify your implication.

[Totovader]

Apparently.

You said:

Perhaps, I should have asked this on the other thread, and I'll try to be polite, but, what the hell are you talking about? How did you get that I "admitted[...] that it holds no meaning"?

Where in my statements could you possibly draw that conclusion?

Perhaps you should have continued the discussion in that thread, then- I'm not going to allow this one to be derailed just because you were too afraid to answer the questions in the original thread.

I was simply pointing out that you made this claim before- had it addressed- and then ran away from the discussion.

[pomeroo]

Well now that's convenient. Mystery solved. I don't know why anyone would be curious.


The "mystery" was solved years ago. And the truth is, nobody is genuinely curious. The rationalists are satisifed with the conclusions reached by serious researchers and the conspiracy liars don't give a damn what the evidence shows.

[Brainache]

Well now that's convenient. Mystery solved. I don't know why anyone would be curious.

Unless they are in the business of investigating building performance in the case of high speed plane impacts, then neither do I. The building performance report has already been done, so if you are still curious, perhaps you could try getting a copy and reading it. I suspect it contains the answers you seek.

[DavidJames]

I'll refrain from abject sarcasm and just try and answer the OP: it's just as relevant as studying the exit wound of a gunshot victim. Ask any forensic pathologist if there is something to be learned by studying the exit wound.Of course this isn't a gunshot wound, but let's pretend your aren't a CTists and are able to construct a intelligent argument.

Please tell me exactly what is learned by studying an exit wound of a gunshot victim and tell me specifically how that applies to the Pentagon. Please be specific and cite reputable research to support your statements.

Thank you Good luck.

[CHF]

I don't wish to dismiss its relevance. Do you?

That's the question of the OP, Red.

What exactly is it's relevance? Any idea?

[stateofgrace]

We know the following things from eyewitness testimony, physical evidence, and investigative reports:

1) Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

2) Nothing else crashed into the Pentagon.

Given these two things, what is the relevance of this debate (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=108972) with respect to the central question of whether there was a government conspiracy involved with 9/11?

It is not important, other than to self styled, self important,youtube investigators who look at this hole and come out stuff like “Hey that hole, what part of the plane caused it? I bet nobody can answer that one, I bet if I keep asking the same stupid question over and over again, people will think I have discovered a great mystery. I want to over look the fact that a plane full of innocent people slammed into this building, killing everybody onboard and concentrate on this hole. This hole to me is a great mystery and deserves to be fully explained, because if it is not then it, for reasons that are so mind bogglingly stupid, means that a plane did not hit this building, somebody planted all the evidence to make it look like it did. And guess what? I did all this by looking at a picture and thinking up the most ridiculous question in the history of ridiculous questions".

[1337m4n]

RedIbis, I'm running out of patience with you. I'm sorry, but I really am.

You keep doing these things:

1) Claiming that the question of the C-ring hole is relevant
2) Subtly belittling anyone who suggests that it is irrelevant or questions whether it is relevant.
3) Failing to explain its relevance


See if you can spot the hypocrisy in that series. Can you? No? Well, let's take a look at your quotes:

I'll refrain from abject sarcasm and just try and answer the OP: it's just as relevant as studying the exit wound of a gunshot victim. Ask any forensic pathologist if there is something to be learned by studying the exit wound.

RedIbis makes an analogy suggesting the the cause of the C-ring hole is relevant: Yes

RedIbis explains his analogy: No. Instead he opts for the tiring "do your own research" dodge, suggesting he doesn't know the answer himself.

RedIbis answers the OP question: No

Obviously, the OP is an attempt to dismiss the relevance of the exit hole because an impact which completely destroys two very heavy and dense engines is difficult to reconcile with whatever scrap supposedly creates a very symetrical exit hole.

RedIbis performs a "weasel's insult" (words that appear civil, but contain a subtle insult): Yes

RedIbis answers the OP question: No

When you do, take a moment to think about how laughable it is that something as significant of an exit hole is to be dismissed by those who cannot explain its cause.

RedIbis subtly insults everyone: Yes

RedIbis answers the OP question: No

I don't wish to dismiss its relevance. Do you?

RedIbis answers the OP question: NO

Well now that's convenient. Mystery solved. I don't know why anyone would be curious.

RedIbis is a hypocrite: I'll refrain from abject sarcasm Yes

RedIbis answers the OP question: No, no, no, no, no, no.



You get one more chance, Red. Either give me a direct answer to my question, or don't reply at all. One more dodge and you're on Ignore. I don't need your subtle trolling.

The question, one more time:

What is the relevance of what caused the hole in the C-Ring, given that Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon, and nothing else did?

[1337m4n]

I ask everyone not to respond to dodgers, except to remind them of the question. Force them to answer.

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

i don't mean to barge in here, but I read the thread and couldn't help responding. Isn't the answer to the OP obvious?

Either a plane is or is not capable of causing the C-ring exit hole.

If the plane is not capable, then something else, for example explosives, caused the hole. If explosives caused the hole, then they must have been planted by someone with access to that part of the Pentagon. That's very relevant.

If the plane is capable of causing the hole, then the plane part which caused it should have passed through relatively intact, and would be discovered beyond the hole somewhere. Was such an item discovered? That's very relevant.

[lee5]

Just because you have evidence that a plane did hit the building doesn't mean you should dismiss other aspects of the event. All things should be investigated and deemed relevant.

I am pretty sure that all aspects of a crime are usually investigated. It doesn't usually stop at the first piece of evidence.

But I do see how it doesn't seem important due to the fact that no additional conclusions would arise as to what hit the building (I'm guessing).

It's a perplexing situation. Perhaps a member of law enforcement would better understand how investigations are done.

$.02

[Myriad]

Yep, exit wounds can be very relevant in forensic examination of a shooting.

So, here's a scenario. A person is shot. There is an entry wound, and an exit wound.

The position of the exit wound is in the projected path of the bullet through the victim's body, consistent with the position of the victim and the position of the shooter, as observed and reported by numerous witnesses.

Bullet fragments are recovered from the blood spatter beyond the exit wound. They are analyzed for trace elements and found to match the composition of other bullet fragments left inside the body. The blood itself also matches, as confirmed by DNA tests.

Forensic scientists and ballistics experts state decisively that the particular type of bullet fired at a man the victim's size in the angle and position observed by witnesses and striking at the position of the entry wound would penetrate the body and cause an exit wound.

You are the DA. The police detectives offer two theories, both, they claim, consistent with the above evidence.

Theory 1: The exit wound was caused by the bullet.

Theory 2: Someone planted a small explosive charge secretly inside the victim's body, either shortly before or immediately after the shooting, under the skin in a direct line with the eventual (or previous, depending on the timing) path of the bullet. Then, at the moment of the shooting (or perhaps shortly before, or shortly after), the explosive charge was set off, creating the exit wound. No theory is offered for who did this, when, how, or why. Nor is it explained why this didn't result in two exit wounds (though one detective suggests that the shooter's bullet was specially modified so as not to penetrate as far as that type of bullet normally would), why there were no burns on the victim's skin near the exit wound from the explosive charge, nor why the charge didn't cause a more widely dispersed blood spatter that would be consistent with such a scenario, rather than the more focused spatter that was actually found, consistent with a normal exit wound.

TC329 is arguing for Theory 2.

RedIbis is accusing the DA of improperly jumping to conclusions and failing to thoroughly investigate the case, by going with Theory 1.

Nice job, guys. Keep coming up with those analogies.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[WildCat]

That's the question of the OP, Red.

What exactly is it's relevance? Any idea?
I don't think RedIbis is bright enough to actually answer that question. Maybe another truther will give it a shot?

[WildCat]

If the plane is capable of causing the hole, then the plane part which caused it should have passed through relatively intact, and would be discovered beyond the hole somewhere. Was such an item discovered? That's very relevant.
There were many plane parts, Pentagon office furniture and equipment parts, and body parts of Flight 77 passengers and Pentagon employees found in the alley outside the C-Ring.

I have no idea why truthers think any one part caused the hole - it was most likely a combination of plane parts, material from inside the Pentagon, the pressure wave from the blast of the exploding fuel, and even body parts that caused the hole.

Now, can any truther explain the relevance? RedIbis has punted, who wants to give it a go?

[CurtC]

If the plane is capable of causing the hole, then the plane part which caused it should have passed through relatively intact, and would be discovered beyond the hole somewhere.

Intact???!!!???

[TjW]

Well, sure. Doesn't everything that breaks through a brick wall wind up on the other side, relatively intact? That's how it always worked on Tom and Jerry!

[lee5]

I don't think RedIbis is bright enough to actually answer that question. Maybe another truther will give it a shot?

I think two people tried to answer why it is relevant.

It doesn't take a truther to understand the importance of investigating every aspect of a crime scene.

[Brainache]

I think two people tried to answer why it is relevant.

It doesn't take a truther to understand the importance of investigating every aspect of a crime scene.

But it takes a Truther to ignore the fact that this crime scene has already been investigated in exhaustive detail, the report has been released and the perpetrators have been identified.

[lee5]

But it takes a Truther to ignore the fact that this crime scene has already been investigated in exhaustive detail, the report has been released and the perpetrators have been identified.

Agreed.

I was speaking in terms of what should have been done at the time.

At the moment, it doesn't matter unless evidence can be brought up that questions the original investigation.

And simply saying the original investigation was not complete is not a reason to have a new investigation unless you have evidence that their conclusion was wrong.

[LashL]

I was speaking in terms of what should have been done at the time.


Did you mean "what was done at the time"?

[beachnut]

When you do, take a moment to think about how laughable it is that something as significant of an exit hole is to be dismissed by those who cannot explain its cause.
77 caused the hole. Anyone who works at the Pentagon would think someone was nuts if they told them some of the 9/11 truth ideas on this subject. What has mainstream news told the people who try to float this insane ideas?

Fantasy ideas made up with zero evidence. What is the point. 77 caused the hole, and not one truther understands energy, or physics. That is the only smoking gun here, strange fantasy stories are a sign someone lacks the basics skills in math and physics. Why do 9/11 truthers have no analytical sills and experience to understand mass and velocity and calculate the energy. Instead of posting about it they need to go to college and gain skills and knowledge they lack that make the gullible follower of false information and fraud from 9/11 truth groups selling fraud to them.

The impact alone of 77 caused the hole. 9/11 truth will never have the ability to calculate that because it ruins a whole cottage industry of 9/11 truth products.

[lee5]

Did you mean "what was done at the time"?

Umm... sure :D

[LashL]

Umm... sure :D

It was a serious question, as the post of yours to which I responded seemed somewhat ambiguous. So, if it's not too much trouble, please answer it directly.

[lee5]

It was a serious question, as the post of yours to which I responded seemed somewhat ambiguous. So, if it's not too much trouble, would you answer it directly?

Now that I think about it, yes, "was" is a more fitting word for what I think.

The fact that the hole was not directly investigated may reflect a poor investigation but I really don't think it matters all that much.

Like I said, unless there is evidence that we came to the wrong conclusion, I see no reason to have a new investigation.

But to say the hole has no relevance is wrong.

Is that reasonable?

[Brainache]

Now that I think about it, yes, "was" is a more fitting word for what I think.

The fact that the hole was not directly investigated may reflect a poor investigation but I really don't think it matters all that much.

Like I said, unless there is evidence that we came to the wrong conclusion, I see no reason to have a new investigation.

But to say the hole has no relevance is wrong.

Is that reasonable?

Are you sure that the hole wasn't directly investigated?

[MRC_Hans]

I'll refrain from abject sarcasm and just try and answer the OP: it's just as relevant as studying the exit wound of a gunshot victim. Ask any forensic pathologist if there is something to be learned by studying the exit wound.

Except for a few things.

- We have an extensive reference basis for exit wounds, because forensic specialists have been studying them for ages. Therefore the study of an exit wound will tell us a lot about the type of projectile, the distance, the shooting angle, etc.

- In contrast we have no reference basis for exit holes after airliners in the Pentagon. Therefore, we have virtually no knowledge of what to expect. Instead, the actual observation becomes our only reference. It is like we were looking at the first exit would ever observed.


Obviously, the OP is an attempt to dismiss the relevance of the exit hole because an impact which completely destroys two very heavy and dense engines is difficult to reconcile with whatever scrap supposedly creates a very symetrical exit hole.

The weight of the engines is much lower than that of the fuselage. In spite of their higher density, the weight is important, because the mass of every obstacle that a moving object has to pass detracts from its kinetic energy. The engines were not completely destroyed (we have pictures of the engine wreckage), they were simply stopped before they reached the rear wall. They did not have enough kinetic energy to go all the way.

The heavier fuselage, despite its lower density, had evidently (barely) enough energy to penetrate all the way through the building. We can observe aircraft debris in the heap outside the exit hole.

The regularity of the exit hole may seem puzzling till you notice that this is a bricked wall panel. The building is constructed with concrete frames, and the openings to the inner rings (where walls need not be reinforced) are filled by bricked up panels. Bricked panels (which carry no weight except their own) tend to break in just this mode: A fairly regular hole somewhat larger than the object making the hole. This is because the collision energy is dispersed through the brickwork, spreading essentially like rings in water, till it gets too dispersed to break the wall apart.

So, the round hole is the expected look of the exit hole.

If it was a weight-carrying brick wall, instead of a panel, the hole would tend to become triangular because the weight would break up additional masonry, till the pressure was distributed over an inverted V shape.

Hans

[lee5]

Are you sure that the hole wasn't directly investigated?

No.

Was it?

[Arus808]

pentagon performance report.. did you read it?

[lee5]

I was not aware of this report. Thanks.

[lee5]

Just a question... was the pentagon performance report part of the governments investigation? Or is this an independent one?

It appears to be an independent one which would still lead me to assume the governments investigation was not very thorough.

If I am wrong, I apologize.

[applecorped]

Just a question? - You sound like a twooofer. Do us all a favor and do your own thorough investigation and let us know what you find, thanks.

[lee5]

Just a question? - You sound like a twooofer. Do us all a favor and do your own thorough investigation and let us know what you find, thanks.

I do?

Wow, I apologize.

Let me clear up the confusion.... I believe the official story.

I am just pointing out that whatever caused the hole IS relevant. To say its not is silly.

I also said that the governments investigation was not very thorough IMO. I am allowed to have an opinion no?

[eeyore1954]

I'll refrain from abject sarcasm and just try and answer the OP: it's just as relevant as studying the exit wound of a gunshot victim. Ask any forensic pathologist if there is something to be learned by studying the exit wound.

Obviously, the OP is an attempt to dismiss the relevance of the exit hole because an impact which completely destroys two very heavy and dense engines is difficult to reconcile with whatever scrap supposedly creates a very symetrical exit hole.

It is about as relevant as asking what particular piece of shot from a shotgun caused an exit wound. When the airplanes hit the building and broke up it was a very chaotic event. To be able to figure exactly what piece caused the hole is unlikely and unneccesary,

Is there any evidence that the hole was "a very symetrical exit hole" because it was opened up somewhat by the rescue crews?

If it had been a wall breaching kit why would there be any debris there other than the wall itself?

[Disbelief]

I do?

I am just pointing out that whatever caused the hole IS relevant. To say its not is silly.


Why? If they found landing gear, planes parts, and burned plane material on the other side of the hole, what does it matter which one made the hole? What if it was a combination of all three, but they can not be precise about what percentage?

[lee5]

Why? If they found landing gear, planes parts, and burned plane material on the other side of the hole, what does it matter which one made the hole? What if it was a combination of all three, but they can not be precise about what percentage?

What is the official reason for the hole? That a piece of the plane hit it or was it from the explosion itself?

Or is there an official reason?

Im not trying to be a smart ass, its a genuine question. I haven't done much research on the subject.

And I am still curious if the pentagon performance paper was put together by the governments investigation or an independent one.

I am not saying that it is important to detail extreme specifics as to what caused the hole. The OP made is sound like it was ok to dismiss the hole altogether. I was simply saying it should be relevant to the investigation.

Maybe I was looking too far (or not far enough) into the original question.

Don't mind me. :)

[beachnut]

I also said that the governments investigation was not very thorough IMO.
On the hole at the Pentagon what specifically, since you never studied it, is not thoroughly investigated by the government that caused the hole. And what fact do you have to support your thorough statement?

Your post make your statement about the government wrong because I know you have not researched this topic at all.

No facts, no evidence, you just have a feeling the government did not investigate well. But you have not studied this so you have just a feeling; so you say it but it could be wrong?

The mass of the impacting plane caused the hole. If you are an engineer you can calculate the energy at impact (it was about 2000 pounds of TNT, do you want that in joules?) and see the study done by a college team of engineers. You could back them up.

[lee5]

On the hole at the Pentagon what specifically, since you never studied it, is not thoroughly investigated by the government that caused the hole. And what fact do you have to support your thorough statement?

Your post make your statement about the government wrong because I know you have not researched this topic at all.

No facts, no evidence, you just have a feeling the government did not investigate well. But you have not studied this so you have just a feeling; so you say it but it could be wrong?

The mass of the impacting plane caused the hole. If you are an engineer you can calculate the energy at impact (it was about 2000 pounds of TNT, do you want that in joules?) and see the study done by a college team of engineers. You could back them up.

I am not specifically talking about the hole with that statement but rather, the investigation as a whole. And I am specifically just talking about the governments investigation. Not others that have added to it.

And the college team of engineers you talk about... did they work for the government or was it an independent investigation?

And BTW.. that was my opinion. I don't need to sit here and argue with you about my opinion. Im a stubborn SOB and I think the government could have done a better job. Im not allowed to hold that opinion? How rude of you to rob me of my free will and right to my own view of things.

[applecorped]

I am not specifically talking about the hole with that statement but rather, the investigation as a whole. And I am specifically just talking about the governments investigation. Not others that have added to it.

And the college team of engineers you talk about... did they work for the government or was it an independent investigation?

And BTW.. that was my opinion. I don't need to sit here and argue with you about my opinion. Im a stubborn SOB and I think the government could have done a better job. Im not allowed to hold that opinion? How rude of you to rob me of my free will and right to my own view of things.

How exactly were you robbed of your free will? If you haven't noticed this isn't a opinion forum. Twoofers have nothing but opinions. You are suspiciously getting closer to twooofer territory with each post. Careful!

[RedIbis]

Except for a few things.

- We have an extensive reference basis for exit wounds, because forensic specialists have been studying them for ages. Therefore the study of an exit wound will tell us a lot about the type of projectile, the distance, the shooting angle, etc.

- In contrast we have no reference basis for exit holes after airliners in the Pentagon. Therefore, we have virtually no knowledge of what to expect. Instead, the actual observation becomes our only reference. It is like we were looking at the first exit would ever observed.


So since we don't have precedence for such an event we should declare it irrelevant? This is anti-scientific, anti-critical thinking.

[DavidJames]

So since we don't have precedence for such an event we should declare it irrelevant? This is anti-scientific, anti-critical thinking.
You have been asked numerous times to be specific about the significance of this event yet you've ignore them. Here is my question again:
Please tell me exactly what is learned by studying an exit wound of a gunshot victim and tell me specifically how that applies to the Pentagon. Please be specific and cite reputable research to support your statements.

[RedIbis]

You have been asked numerous times to be specific about the significance of this event yet you've ignore them. Here is my question again:

No, what you have asked is for me to provide a formal, sourced paper.

[MRC_Hans]

So since we don't have precedence for such an event we should declare it irrelevant? This is anti-scientific, anti-critical thinking.That was not what I said. I said that your analogy with an exit wound is irrelevant because we cannot deduce anything from the Pentagon exit hole, due to lack of precedence. All we can do is observe.

Hans

[DavidJames]

No, what you have asked is for me to provide a formal, sourced paper.
Just for the record, I never expected you to provide an honest reply. Why, because you inherently dishonest. I feel sorry for you and those that may rely on you. Tell me Red, when you tell your family you believe the U.S. government was complicit in the murder of 3000 people and they ask, what are you doing about it. What do they say when you tell them all you do to achieve justice is to post snarky, disingenuous one line posts on an Internet forum? Do they hug you and tell you how proud they are of you?

[stateofgrace]

So since we don't have precedence for such an event we should declare it irrelevant? This is anti-scientific, anti-critical thinking.

Wrong. It is only relevant if is it outwith the rest of the days events. That being a plane hit the building, killed all those onboard and caused massive damage to the said building.

If this particular part of the buildings damage falls outside this or in anyway contradicts this, then it is relevant. What you are being asked repeatedly is whether you judge this damage inconsistence with the rest of the day’s events and what relevance you place on this inconsistency.

Please use critical thinking and science in your next post to not only point out why it is inconsistent but what relevance you place on this inconsistency.

On you go.

[RedIbis]

Just for the record, I never expected you to provide an honest reply. Why, because you inherently dishonest. I feel sorry for you and those that may rely on you. Tell me Red, when you tell your family you believe the U.S. government was complicit in the murder of 3000 people and they ask, what are you doing about it. What do they say when you tell them all you do to achieve justice is to post snarky, disingenuous one line posts on an Internet forum? Do they hug you and tell you how proud they are of you?

Now I remember why I thought it would be best to ignore your posts, not formally put you on ignore, which I don't do, but just ignore them in general.

[Dave Rogers]

I recently proposed "bunking off" for the process of deliberately ignoring a potentially fruitful line of enquiry. What I think we need here is a similar term for assigning a spurious appearance of significance to a phenomenon that admits of a range of simple and plausible explanations. I'd like to propose "bunking up", as in "Conspiracy theorists are bunking up the hole in the C-ring by implying it's somehow incompatible with the rest of the airliner impact damage." What does everyone else think?

Dave

[defaultdotxbe]

I recently proposed "bunking off" for the process of deliberately ignoring a potentially fruitful line of enquiry. What I think we need here is a similar term for assigning a spurious appearance of significance to a phenomenon that admits of a range of simple and plausible explanations. I'd like to propose "bunking up", as in "Conspiracy theorists are bunking up the hole in the C-ring by implying it's somehow incompatible with the rest of the airliner impact damage." What does everyone else think?

Dave
i think you should call websters

[DavidJames]

Now I remember why I thought it would be best to ignore your posts, not formally put you on ignore, which I don't do, but just ignore them in general.How convenient, typical CTists attitude, ignore what you can't deal with, find uncomfortable, requires thought or challenges your belief system.

Now that you've waved away my question, how about the others who asked basically the same question. What's your excuse for ignoring them? I know what it is, as I suspect they do as well. But please, entertain us with your reason.

[I Ratant]

"Yep, exit wounds can be very relevant in forensic examination of a shooting."
.
Shoot, coining an input.. the giant hole in JFK's forehead is an ever-popular source of silliness to the CT crowd.
The little hole in the back of the head is ignored.

[ElMondoHummus]

People, I think we really need to remember something about the Pentagon Building Performance Report: It existed not to analyze every single detail of Flight 77's impact, but rather was written towards explaining how the building responded to the stress of the impact and physical effects resulting from the impact. Note that it was studying the impact area as a whole, and not focusing on individual instances of damage.


Following the September 11 crash at the Pentagon of an airliner commandeered by terrorists, the American Society of Civil Engineers established a building performance study team to examine the damaged structure and make recommendations for the future.The members of the team reviewed available information on the structure and the crash loading and drew on focused assessments by others. In addition to analyzing the essential features of column response to impact, they investigated the residual frame capacity and the structural response to the fire. Plausible mechanisms for the response of the structure to the crash were established. Recommendations are offered for future design and construction along with suggestions for research and development.


The point is that the C-ring A/E drive hole is explained by the impact, and in regards to the overall goal of studying the structure's performance to the impact, the hole means very little. Those who've read the PBR will note that they spend a fair amount of space on the columns, because damage to those are more pertinent to the segment of the building collapsing than anything that happened to the Ring C - A/E Drive wall. So when you consider why the report was written, you then understand why the hole is given little notice.

As I've said in regards to the NIST NCSTARs, the PBR, the ASCE writeup of the WTC complex and other affected buildings, etc.: These works do not exist to prove the events of 9/11, nor do they exist to study each and every piece of minutiae regarding the events. Rather, they were written to understand how the buildings performed in the structural-integrity-threatening situation that the 9/11 events put them in.

If there's meaning behind the anomalies - such as the existence or the question of what component or effect of Flight 77 caused the Ring C hole - then those meanings should be spelled out. Merely complaining about the fact that short shrift was given to a given aspect ignores the goals of the various reports everybody keeps citing here. If the cause of the Ring C hole is indeed important, then spell out what makes it important. Otherwise, any attention paid to it is effort wasted obsessing over a detail irrelevant to understanding the impact of Flight 77, let alone irrelevant to understanding 9/11 as a whole.

[LashL]

I recently proposed "bunking off" for the process of deliberately ignoring a potentially fruitful line of enquiry. What I think we need here is a similar term for assigning a spurious appearance of significance to a phenomenon that admits of a range of simple and plausible explanations. I'd like to propose "bunking up", as in "Conspiracy theorists are bunking up the hole in the C-ring by implying it's somehow incompatible with the rest of the airliner impact damage." What does everyone else think?

Dave

i think you should call websters

Seconded, on both "bunking off" and "bunking up". (And these terms should be added to the old "twoofer definitions" thread, as well.)

[LashL]

So since we don't have precedence for such an event we should declare it irrelevant?


That is not what DavidJames said at all, as I am sure you know. Rather, it appears that your analogy is inapt and inapplicable.

Unless, of course, you can advise as to what is learned by studying an exit wound of a gunshot victim and how it applies to the Pentagon. Not surprisingly, you have been remarkably reluctant (and/or unable) to do so.

Will you do so now? It's a pretty straightforward question.

[LashL]

People, I think we really need to remember something about the Pentagon Building Performance Report: It existed not to analyze every single detail of Flight 77's impact, but rather was written towards explaining how the building responded to the stress of the impact and physical effects resulting from the impact. Note that it was studying the impact area as a whole, and not focusing on individual instances of damage.



The point is that the C-ring A/E drive hole is explained by the impact, and in regards to the overall goal of studying the structure's performance to the impact, the hole means very little. Those who've read the PBR will note that they spend a fair amount of space on the columns, because damage to those are more pertinent to the segment of the building collapsing than anything that happened to the Ring C - A/E Drive wall. So when you consider why the report was written, you then understand why the hole is given little notice.

As I've said in regards to the NIST NCSTARs, the PBR, the ASCE writeup of the WTC complex and other affected buildings, etc.: These works do not exist to prove the events of 9/11, nor do they exist to study each and every piece of minutiae regarding the events. Rather, they were written to understand how the buildings performed in the structural-integrity-threatening situation that the 9/11 events put them in.

If there's meaning behind the anomalies - such as the existence or the question of what component or effect of Flight 77 caused the Ring C hole - then those meanings should be spelled out. Merely complaining about the fact that short shrift was given to a given aspect ignores the goals of the various reports everybody keeps citing here. If the cause of the Ring C hole is indeed important, then spell out what makes it important. Otherwise, any attention paid to it is effort wasted obsessing over a detail irrelevant to understanding the impact of Flight 77, let alone irrelevant to understanding 9/11 as a whole.


Very well said, indeed. Initially, I was going to snip it for brevity while responding, but your post is so well worth repeating in its entirety that I felt it should be thus repeated. Very nicely laid out, ElMondoHummus.

[A W Smith]

What is the official reason for the hole? That a piece of the plane hit it or was it from the explosion itself? Why? The performance report does not mention explosion damage. they mention impact specifically. and why would the cause of the hole be more important that lets say the severing of column number 5-H??

Or is there an official reason?Yes. Impact with what was left of flight 77 and its contents. Why do you ask?

Im not trying to be a smart ass, its a genuine question. I haven't done much research on the subject.Just asking questions? do you know how many times we have heard that here? perhaps some Research (http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf) is in order?

And I am still curious if the pentagon performance paper was put together by the governments investigation or an independent one. It was put together by NIST which documents how a building performs during an event. Please take note that in their reports. They don't care who caused the damage. They don't care what political motivation caused the event. They don't care who was negligent. Their sole purpose is to examine the PERFORMANCE of the building to determine if BUILDING CODES need to be modified to insure safety of the building occupants. Building professionals do not have a problem with who did this report or the conclusions. Are you a building professional?

I am not saying that it is important to detail extreme specifics as to what caused the hole. The OP made is sound like it was ok to dismiss the hole altogether. again why is there any significance assigned to the hole. Are you aware for instance that the wall was just an infill panel of soft limestone brick? that it in no way supported the building? that it was essentially unreinforced? that there were steel reinforced concrete columns to the left and to the right of that hole? I was simply saying it should be relevant to the investigation.

Maybe I was looking too far (or not far enough) into the original question.

Don't mind me. :)

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

Please forgive me, but wouldn't calling the C-Ring hole an "exit wound" be assuming the conclusion? If one hypothesis is that airplane debris caused the hole, and another hypothesis is that a shaped explosive charge caused it, then one must not assume it is an exit wound. I think that is what one side is trying to prove.

And again forgive me, perhaps some knowledgeable types can answer this question. Are there any examples of non-round objects causing a round hole in masonry? It seems very difficult to break a round hole in masonry even with a round instrument. Any examples at all?

If no examples emerge, this would tend to prove that a shaped charge is a much more likely explanation. And it would be very relevant.

[Brainache]

This one from page one bears repeating about now I think. What do you think Mr Lupo Grossi?

Yep, exit wounds can be very relevant in forensic examination of a shooting.

So, here's a scenario. A person is shot. There is an entry wound, and an exit wound.

The position of the exit wound is in the projected path of the bullet through the victim's body, consistent with the position of the victim and the position of the shooter, as observed and reported by numerous witnesses.

Bullet fragments are recovered from the blood spatter beyond the exit wound. They are analyzed for trace elements and found to match the composition of other bullet fragments left inside the body. The blood itself also matches, as confirmed by DNA tests.

Forensic scientists and ballistics experts state decisively that the particular type of bullet fired at a man the victim's size in the angle and position observed by witnesses and striking at the position of the entry wound would penetrate the body and cause an exit wound.

You are the DA. The police detectives offer two theories, both, they claim, consistent with the above evidence.

Theory 1: The exit wound was caused by the bullet.

Theory 2: Someone planted a small explosive charge secretly inside the victim's body, either shortly before or immediately after the shooting, under the skin in a direct line with the eventual (or previous, depending on the timing) path of the bullet. Then, at the moment of the shooting (or perhaps shortly before, or shortly after), the explosive charge was set off, creating the exit wound. No theory is offered for who did this, when, how, or why. Nor is it explained why this didn't result in two exit wounds (though one detective suggests that the shooter's bullet was specially modified so as not to penetrate as far as that type of bullet normally would), why there were no burns on the victim's skin near the exit wound from the explosive charge, nor why the charge didn't cause a more widely dispersed blood spatter that would be consistent with such a scenario, rather than the more focused spatter that was actually found, consistent with a normal exit wound.

TC329 is arguing for Theory 2.

RedIbis is accusing the DA of improperly jumping to conclusions and failing to thoroughly investigate the case, by going with Theory 1.

Nice job, guys. Keep coming up with those analogies.

Respectfully,
Myriad

You appear to be in TC's camp Mr Lupo Grossi. Not somewhere I'd care to be.

[Dave Rogers]

And again forgive me, perhaps some knowledgeable types can answer this question. Are there any examples of non-round objects causing a round hole in masonry? It seems very difficult to break a round hole in masonry even with a round instrument. Any examples at all?

Remind me in what sense the fuselage of a Boeing 757 is a non-round object.

Dave

[ElMondoHummus]

Very well said, indeed. Initially, I was going to snip it for brevity while responding, but your post is so well worth repeating in its entirety that I felt it should be thus repeated. Very nicely laid out, ElMondoHummus.

:D Thanks!

[Totovader]

Please forgive me, but wouldn't calling the C-Ring hole an "exit wound" be assuming the conclusion? If one hypothesis is that airplane debris caused the hole, and another hypothesis is that a shaped explosive charge caused it, then one must not assume it is an exit wound. I think that is what one side is trying to prove.

And again forgive me, perhaps some knowledgeable types can answer this question. Are there any examples of non-round objects causing a round hole in masonry? It seems very difficult to break a round hole in masonry even with a round instrument. Any examples at all?

If no examples emerge, this would tend to prove that a shaped charge is a much more likely explanation. And it would be very relevant.

The "shape" at that point of the chaotic impact would be fairly difficult to determine. Regardless, you are attempting to deny the antecedent- which is fallacious. Even if we have no examples of "non-round" objects creating a "round" hole, that does not prove- in any way- that a shaped charge is more likely. You have no evidence whatsoever for a shaped charge- and a mountain of evidence to the contrary, until that changes- the shaped charge claim can never be "more likely".

This ambiguity of a "round hole" is a pointless line of inquiry- the shape of a hole is determined by the force applied to it and it's supporting structure- with an added bit of chaos. A plane crash would not necessarily make a "non-round" hole.

[stateofgrace]

Please forgive me, but wouldn't calling the C-Ring hole an "exit wound" be assuming the conclusion? If one hypothesis is that airplane debris caused the hole, and another hypothesis is that a shaped explosive charge caused it, then one must not assume it is an exit wound. I think that is what one side is trying to prove.

And again forgive me, perhaps some knowledgeable types can answer this question. Are there any examples of non-round objects causing a round hole in masonry? It seems very difficult to break a round hole in masonry even with a round instrument. Any examples at all?

If no examples emerge, this would tend to prove that a shaped charge is a much more likely explanation. And it would be very relevant.

You are wrong and your questions are irrelevant.

Why should I or anybody else for that matter waste our time wondering whether a shape charge caused this hole, when a plane had slammed into the building ? Why would anybody even bother to investigate such a silly, absurd idea? Nobody here is duty bound to answer your questions and nobody here has to waste their time investigating something that is not relevant. If you think that this hole is inconsistent with a plane slamming into the building, if you think it contradicts this belief, then do some research yourself and explain why.

I personally am fed up with twoofers, not as though I am accusing you, of asking questions that they have not made the slightest effort to address themselves. I am fed up with guys just point scoring, JAQing off, not only on this forum but on others, not claiming anything and demanding answers of others, in an attepmt to prove god knows what.

So why can you not made an effort to answer your own questions? Tell me and everybody else what on earth a hole in a building that had a plane slammed into to it as got to do with anything? Can you point out why it is inconsistent and why it is relevant to anything other than the fact a plane hit the building?

Stop asking others to research it for you and explain it to you. Do it yourself and explain it to us.

Can you do that, Steven?

[WildCat]

and why would the cause of the hole be more important that lets say the severing of column number 5-H??
I can only assume that's because there's no pictures of 5-H circulating on the internet. But this is a great point - the C-Ring hole is no more important than any other bit of damage done to the Pentagon.

I see no truther has yet been able to explain the significance of the C-Ring hole yet, not real surprising.

[twinstead]

It's as if an office desk was found on the roof. Who knows exactly how it got there? What we DO know is that an airliner crashing into the building may have had a part in it.

[Totovader]

It's as if an office desk was found on the roof. Who knows exactly how it got there? What we DO know is that an airliner crashing into the building may have had a part in it.

Or demanding that specific columns damaged within the Pentagon have an associated part that damaged them...

I hate quoting myself, but sometimes I'm just so right on:

Using the conspiracists twisted form of logic (similar to the "never happened before" claim with the collapse of the towers):

The driver of a car has a heart attack while he's on the road and loses control of the car. The car swerves all over the road leaving skid marks before crashing into a Burger King. The car is engulfed in flames and the driver is killed instantly, but the frame of the car is clearly visible. Hundreds of witnesses view the event.

From the conspiracists perspective- the claim is that this is the first time in history that a driver- after suffering a heart attack- has crashed into this Burger King and it- therefore- could not have been a car crash. The remains of the driver and the car, the witnesses, the skidmarks- every shred of evidence confirming what actually happened- just magically disappears.

Instead, we are left with some sort of stupid question- which has no real relevance to the issue, and does nothing to support any kind of an argument. The conspiracist would ask "why is this chair on the other side of the room? do you have any other examples of where a chair would be tossed to the other side of the room after being impacted by a 'car' where the driver suffered a heart attack and then crashed into a Burger King? No! You don't! Therefore, it was a missile."

It's just plain stupidity.

[defaultdotxbe]

It's as if an office desk was found on the roof. Who knows exactly how it got there? What we DO know is that an airliner crashing into the building may have had a part in it.
i dont know, if that happened id probably want a good explanation for it too, seems a bit out of the scope of an airliner hitting the first and second floor (unlike a hole in the C wall, lol)

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

Remind me in what sense the fuselage of a Boeing 757 is a non-round object.

Dave

Another poster said it was a whole conglomeration of random objects and body parts.

You think it might have been the fuselage? Um, isn't the diameter of a 757 fuselage 12 feet, and wasn't the hole 9 feet? Forgive me.

[A W Smith]

Another poster said it was a whole conglomeration of random objects and body parts.

You think it might have been the fuselage? Um, isn't the diameter of a 757 fuselage 12 feet, and wasn't the hole 9 feet? Forgive me.



Why? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3606036&postcount=79)
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3606036&postcount=79

[tanabear]

We know the following things from eyewitness testimony, physical evidence, and investigative reports:

1) Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

2) Nothing else crashed into the Pentagon.

Given these two things, what is the relevance of this debate (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=108972) with respect to the central question of whether there was a government conspiracy involved with 9/11?

First, no one has been able to show how the plane impacting the E-Ring created the hole in the C-Ring. It is wild speculation at best. Secondly, it shows the possibility that there were secondary devices planted at the Pentagon. This would provide good evidence that the attacks were known about ahead of time or planned by someone from within the government/military.

“I walked to my office, shut down my computer, and headed out. Even before stepping outside I could smell the cordite. Then I knew explosives had been set off somewhere.” Don Perkal.

“We saw a huge black cloud of smoke,” she said, saying it smelled like cordite, or gun smoke. Gilah Goldsmith

“A few minutes later a second, much smaller explosion got the attention of the police arriving on the scene.” Christine Peterson

Eyewitness testimony seems to provide evidence of secondary devices at the Pentagon. So regardless of what impacted the Pentagon, the presence of secondary devices is prima facie evidence of insider complicity. That is why it is important.

[Pardalis]

It is wild speculation at best

:id:

[ElMondoHummus]

First, no one has been able to show how the plane impacting the E-Ring created the hole in the C-Ring. It is wild speculation at best. Secondly, it shows the possibility that there were secondary devices planted at the Pentagon. This would provide good evidence that the attacks were known about ahead of time or planned by someone from within the government/military.

“I walked to my office, shut down my computer, and headed out. Even before stepping outside I could smell the cordite. Then I knew explosives had been set off somewhere.” Don Perkal.

“We saw a huge black cloud of smoke,” she said, saying it smelled like cordite, or gun smoke. Gilah Goldsmith

“A few minutes later a second, much smaller explosion got the attention of the police arriving on the scene.” Christine Peterson

Eyewitness testimony seems to provide evidence of secondary devices at the Pentagon. So regardless of what impacted the Pentagon, the presence of secondary devices is prima facie evidence of insider complicity. That is why it is important.

It is not logical to leap to the conclusion that these testimonies are indicative of explosives use. That is not the most probable possibility behind these people's statements.

Perkal and Goldsmith had no experience with the sort of event that they were facing, and were simply trying to describe what the sights, sounds, and smells were to the best of their ability. What exactly does a jet crash and fire smell like? Burning kerosene? Burning plastics and metals? Both were guessing at what they were saying, and Perkal was reported to have said as much (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3335333#post3335333) (if anyone knows what forum and post Mongoose was referring to, can you tell us?). On top of that, you've not connected their testimony to the existence of any secondary devices. You're leaping to a conclusion; their observations can be explained by the fires and their best-but-still-wanting attempts to explain what they saw and smelled. And we definitely know that there were fires.

So what's more likely? The possibility that they misidentified what they smelled? Or that they correctly identified a component they never had experience with or training to identify (not to mention a compound that hasn't been used since WWII). Or that they identified some sort of explosives residue smell, which again, is not something that their profession - both are lawyers, if I remember correctly - is known to train people to do?

And on to Peterson's testimony: What caused the second explosion she discusses? She merely mentions the explosion; neither she, nor anyone else ties that to any event, let alone the causation of the C-Ring A/E Drive wall hole. Could the explosion she testified to be explained by other, more probable possibilities? As an example: A nearby car's gas tank going up? Cars were indeed parked close by (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3026774#post3026774) (and I can't believe I'm actually linking to one of Terral's posts, but he did provide images clearly showing some vehicles, and some good needs to come from his posts). Why does her testimony automatically equal explosive device? What's more likely, using known quantities - again, as an example, nearby cars and the fires caused by the impacts - or hypothesizing unknown and unsupported ones? Occam's Razor needs to be applied here.

The testimonies you provide show no clear connection to any explosives use, nor do they indicate that the cause of the smells they experienced/explosions she witnessed was anywhere in the vicinity of the C-Ring's A/E Drive wall. Plus, not only do alternate explanations exist, but they flow more naturally from the known, confirmable facts of the event, whereas the idea of explosives/wall breaching kits are tortured hypotheses supported by no known, confirmable fact or detail of the Flight 77 impact. How are those testimonies connected to the Ring-C hole? And how can they be used as even a reason to further question the witnesses, let alone further investigate the hole?

[Pardalis]

Come on, they specifically said cordite and gun smoke, the only possible conclusion is that they blew the hole with a gigantic cannon. :rolleyes:

[Slayhamlet]

So the perps set off a secondary device on the inside wall of the C-ring directly in the path of the destruction? How did they get access to it, and so quickly, with all the damage to the C-ring caused by the impact? Surely not all the damage to the C-Ring was actually caused by this secondary device? And how quickly did they plant the evidence of victims' remains and plane debris on the other side to elude detection? Oh, and why did they do this, again? And why should I consider the possibility of this secondary device, of which there is no evidence, as anything but rank speculation of the wildly improbable?

[Dave Rogers]

Another poster said it was a whole conglomeration of random objects and body parts.

After the initial impact, that's probably true. So what's the anisotropy in the initial impact that turns an initially round object into a substantially non-round conglomeration of random objects? Given the chaotic nature of the processes, a round hole doesn't seem any less probable than any other shape.

You think it might have been the fuselage? Um, isn't the diameter of a 757 fuselage 12 feet, and wasn't the hole 9 feet? Forgive me.

No, I won't, if you don't mind. You're playing the classic truther game of raising ever more irrelevant questions to try and cast unreasonable doubt on an obvious conclusion. The overwhelmingly probable original cause of the hole was the impact of the fuselage, simply because this was a known event that happened in reality, and that a projection of the momentum vector on to the C-ring coincides with the hole. If you want to claim something else, find some proof. If you can't find any proof, stop wasting your time wittering on at an internet forum, and go and look for some. At least CIT tried.

Dave

[GlennB]

After the initial impact, that's probably true. So what's the anisotropy in the initial impact that turns an initially round object into a substantially non-round conglomeration of random objects? Given the chaotic nature of the processes, a round hole doesn't seem any less probable than any other shape.

Dave

There's also brickwork structure to think about. Here's a brick wall with a section removed (I am so bad at compter graphics it's scary) :

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/brickwall.jpg

Notice there are now 5 bricks above the hole that are unsupported from below (those above the edge of the hole are half-supported from below and pinned-down from above. They will tend to stay in place.). Assuming the mortar has taken a beating from some kind of violent impact, these 5 will tend to fall.

This leaves a new course of 4 unsupported bricks, and so on. If all unsupported bricks fall a triangular section will come down. If the final few unsupported bricks manage to hang on and the originale hole is above ground level you're not far from a roughly circular hole.

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

After the initial impact, that's probably true. So what's the anisotropy in the initial impact that turns an initially round object into a substantially non-round conglomeration of random objects? Given the chaotic nature of the processes, a round hole doesn't seem any less probable than any other shape.



No, I won't, if you don't mind. You're playing the classic truther game of raising ever more irrelevant questions to try and cast unreasonable doubt on an obvious conclusion. The overwhelmingly probable original cause of the hole was the impact of the fuselage, simply because this was a known event that happened in reality, and that a projection of the momentum vector on to the C-ring coincides with the hole. If you want to claim something else, find some proof. If you can't find any proof, stop wasting your time wittering on at an internet forum, and go and look for some. At least CIT tried.

Dave


I don't consider myself a "truther", I've criticized them. This thread just got my attention, because a 9 foot round smoking hole in a thick concrete wall seems very relevant.

Are you saying random shaped objects could possibly make a round hole?

Proof? I think the existence of a round hole is proof a round force. What can produce a round force? You implied it was the round fuselage, now you seem to be backing off.

That's what interested me in the thread. You guys don't seem to want to debunk this one, you want to dismiss it. I don't like that.

[DGM]

I don't consider myself a "truther", I've criticized them. This thread just got my attention, because a 9 foot round smoking hole in a thick concrete wall seems very relevant.

Are you saying random shaped objects could possibly make a round hole?

Proof? I think the existence of a round hole is proof a round force. What can produce a round force? You implied it was the round fuselage, now you seem to be backing off.

That's what interested me in the thread. You guys don't seem to want to debunk this one, you want to dismiss it. I don't like that.
The wall was limestone block not solid concrete. Think shot gun blast.

[twinstead]

That's what interested me in the thread. You guys don't seem to want to debunk this one, you want to dismiss it. I don't like that.

Exactly what is there to debunk? A number of quite plausible scenarios have been discussed for how that hole was formed on this very thread. What is there left to do BUT dismiss it in the absence of any evidence the hole was an impossibility?

[beachnut]

I don't consider myself a "truther", I've criticized them. This thread just got my attention, because a 9 foot round smoking hole in a thick concrete wall seems very relevant.

Are you saying random shaped objects could possibly make a round hole?

Proof? I think the existence of a round hole is proof a round force. What can produce a round force? You implied it was the round fuselage, now you seem to be backing off.

That's what interested me in the thread. You guys don't seem to want to debunk this one, you want to dismiss it. I don't like that.
No RANDOM debris, a big giant jet with 2,700,000,000 joules of impact energy made the hole. Simple stuff.

It was a big shot gun. What is the energy of shot gun? 77 had the energy of 2,720,000,000 joules!
A shot gun blast has 1645 joules. That is 77 with 1.7 million shot gun blast to cut that hole after the impact at the Pentagon.
With a lot of DNA material sitting in the hole, it is solid proof the KE of 77 caused the hole. There is no question that 77 did it there is REAL evidence 77 hit the Pentagon. 9/11 truth makes up some charge did it, but that charge would have speed the body parts all over the place, there was not charge.

9/11 truth looks at the sun and says, you can't prove it is the sun. 9/11 truth is the anti-knowledge, fool the dumb people movement that never had a fact! This is lack of knowledge of energy.

If people have a hard time understanding KE, get thyself to a PHYSICS class before you let your common sense make you dumb.

All the mass of 77's fuselage and all the people traveled along the path to make that hole, if you want to say it, even the people going over 530 mph helped cause the hole, their remains are scattered right there. If you do not believe it, take a bunch of stuff and throw it at your house in the shape of a cigar tube at 530 mph and see the big round hole in your house. The plane was not random motion, it obeyed Newton's law, a body in motion tends to stay in motion. It is sad to see no one understands physics when they completely fail to see how 77 did it.

Please forgive me for not proofing, I have an appointment with destiny.

IT WAS DEBUNKED over 6 years ago! 77 did it with KE. Think...

[Mangoose]

Burning plastics and metals? Both were guessing at what they were saying, and Perkal was reported to have said as much (if anyone knows what forum and post Mongoose was referring to, can you tell us?).


I have some new information (I had to check my files to find my notes on this). The date of the post was 9 March 2003 and this was its URL:

http://911pi.com/6/ubb.x?q=Y&a=tpc&s=5396090821&f=6506002841&m=7896004742&p=2 (http://911pi.com/6/ubb.x?q=Y&a=tpc&s=5396090821&f=6506002841&m=7896004742&p=2)

And according to my notes, Perkal wrote: "I was merely guessing as to the nature of the smell I encountered as I was vacating the building on 9/11/01. My expertise is totally lacking when it comes to discerning such odors. Since 9/11/01, I have encountered no information which would confirm my speculation/guess. Nor have I read or heard anything that explosive materials on the airplane or the premises were ignited before or after the plane crash. It is possible that the ensuing fire ignited small arms ammunition (bullets) carried by military personnel or police officiers but I have no independent or derived information of same."

Unfortunately, I was not able to get the name of the person who posted this. As I said before, the content of this post is best confirmed by contacting Perkal himself.

[A W Smith]

I don't consider myself a "truther", I've criticized them. This thread just got my attention, because a 9 foot round smoking hole in a thick concrete wall seems very relevant.
It ain't thick. And it ain't concrete. Capice?

argument from incredulity Grossi. Show me concrete reinforcement of that limestone brick curtail wall Grossi. Are you ineducable? Is English your second language? Here, let me me give you an example of troofer logic. Below is a hole in a CMU (Concrete masonry unit) wall. It is in a parking deck. How much speed would you think that car was going? 530 mph? yet theres the hole. Perhaps "powder monkeys" blew the hole in this wall and the car drove through it afterward. Therefore that possibility should be investigated. Also what part of the front bumper broke through the wall first? I am sure it is not documented in the accident report so we can assume the car didn't cause the hole in this wall. Do you see how ignorant you sound?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2189/1941954434_cab7ae7312.jpg

[ElMondoHummus]

You guys don't seem to want to debunk this one, you want to dismiss it. I don't like that.

No primary source gives definitive explanations for the specific piece of the jet or effect of the impact that caused the hole. We know with enough specificity that it was caused due to some effect of the jet's impact, simply on the strength of the location, and the fact that it only showed up after the impact. Beyond that level of specificity, what relevance does the identifying the specific component or effect have?

Discovering the specific component or effect will not change the thrust of the overall narrative, because it doesn't matter whether it was the landing gear, pieces of an engine, pneumatic overpressure from the impact, or a blast effect from the jet fuel igniting when released from the tanks and still continuing forward from sheer momentum. We know the hole was caused by the jet impacting, and we know the narrative behind the hijackings. Info about the hijackings has been used that to change airport security procedures. The PBR study referenced earlier in the thread is aimed at improving buildings' performance in the face of fire and other structural trauma. The 9/11 Commision Report provides the structure for political response. And any information in the hands of the FBI will be used for whatever further prosecutions take place if any more members of the plot are captured. In the face of all that, what is the significance of the C-Ring hole? You're absolutely correct that we're dismissing it. We're also dismissing the smoke damage to the facade, and for the same reason: It doesn't matter in the end. Even if the wildest conspiracy fantasy about the hole turns out to be true - that the hole was indeed due to some sort of explosive "wall breaching kit" - that does not invalidate any other piece of data or evidence already found. That does not bring into question the fact that Flight 77 was hijacked. That does not bring into question the fact that it hit the Pengaton. It only means an explosive was used to create a hole. That's it. All other aspects of 9/11 have supporting evidence separate from whatever happend to cause the C-Ring hole. Even if the wildest conspiracy fantasy was shown to be true, one would still need to establish how it affects all those other aspects. And no, a generic "throws them into doubt" is not sufficient. What is "doubtful" about the witness testimony? Or the DNA evidence? Or the ATC radar data? And how would explosives behind the C-Ring wall change the significance of those aspects? To be blunt, a "wall-breaching kit" does not change or falsify anything about the ATC radar info, or FDR data, or the witness testimony, or anything else about the 9/11 Pentagon narrative. 9/11 is not a single-issue-based event that can be falsified by a single contradicting issue or detail. The C-Ring hole is as important to knowing about 9/11 Pentagon events as the question of who was manning the guard tower at Treblinka is on a given date for the Holocaust narrative. Or in other words, it is irrelevant to the overall narrative, merely being a background detail that no more affects things than what the hijackers were wearing on that day.

[ElMondoHummus]

I have some new information (I had to check my files to find my notes on this). The date of the post was 9 March 2003 and this was its URL:

http://911pi.com/6/ubb.x?q=Y&a=tpc&s=5396090821&f=6506002841&m=7896004742&p=2 (http://911pi.com/6/ubb.x?q=Y&a=tpc&s=5396090821&f=6506002841&m=7896004742&p=2)

And according to my notes, Perkal wrote: "I was merely guessing as to the nature of the smell I encountered as I was vacating the building on 9/11/01. My expertise is totally lacking when it comes to discerning such odors. Since 9/11/01, I have encountered no information which would confirm my speculation/guess. Nor have I read or heard anything that explosive materials on the airplane or the premises were ignited before or after the plane crash. It is possible that the ensuing fire ignited small arms ammunition (bullets) carried by military personnel or police officiers but I have no independent or derived information of same."

Unfortunately, I was not able to get the name of the person who posted this. As I said before, the content of this post is best confirmed by contacting Perkal himself.

Ahh, shoot, the link doesn't work. Oh well... the rest of the info is good anyway, as far as I can tell, so thanks for providing it, Mangoose!

[Mangoose]

Ahh, shoot, the link doesn't work.


Yeah, it looks like the forum became defunct in October or November 2003. And there is nothing archived in the Wayback Machine. That's the thing about the internet. Any info accessible today can be gone tomorrow.

[GlennB]

I don't consider myself a "truther", I've criticized them. This thread just got my attention, because a 9 foot round smoking hole in a thick concrete wall seems very relevant.....

My bolding. Spot the thick concrete wall .... :rolleyes:

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/pentagonCringstructuredetail.jpg

Steven - having made such a conspicuous and ignorant error of fact, it would now be wise to be more circumspect before posting total bilge again. Sorry to be so harsh, but that's just the way it is.

[funk de fino]

For chrissakes people

The hole is not even round, that is all you have to say to this Grossi punter or Red or DC

Its almost a carbon copy of A W Smiths car hole

The idiots will never understand that it does not matter what part of the aircraft made the hole. They have to prove something else did.

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

Notice how the car that broke the hole is intact. If parts of a plane made the Pentagon hole, those parts would be intact. What parts were found outside the hole?

[A W Smith]

Notice how the car that broke the hole is intact. If parts of a plane made the Pentagon hole, those parts would be intact. What parts were found outside the hole?

Are you for real? did it take you all afternoon to come up with that hand wave? does the wall have a hole in it or not? which was traveling faster? the car? or flight 77? You absolutely refuse to answer why the hole is more significant than the columns. Or why it is even significant at all. Intact plane parts do NOT NEED to be present to cause a hole in what is essentially a limestone partition. The sum of all the parts and their combined force that reached that hole is what caused the hole. When you shoot a deer with a shotgun at close range you are likely to blast a hole in it. Yet the damage is caused by lead shot that is less than one quarter inch in diameter. Can you not grasp that?

[Alareth]

:hb:

[defaultdotxbe]

Notice how the car that broke the hole is intact. If parts of a plane made the Pentagon hole, those parts would be intact. What parts were found outside the hole?
IIRC a nearly-intact wheel hub and landing gear parts were found outside the hole

[GlennB]

Notice how the car that broke the hole is intact.

Except for the damage.

If parts of a plane made the Pentagon hole, those parts would be intact.
The damaged parts would be intact, sure. But damaged.

What parts were found outside the hole?

Damaged ones.

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

Whatever caused the hole had to be round, and it had to stay relatively intact, and be stronger than the wall. Otherwise, it would not make a round hole in the wall.

What 9 ft. round object was found outside the hole? Was the fuselage found outside the hole?

Are there any photos of the part that caused the hole? Could it have been an engine? What is the diameter of the engine? Is there anything we can rule out? Could it have been a landing gear?

[twinstead]

Again. WHY IS THE HOLE SIGNIFICANT?

[LashL]

:hb:

[A W Smith]

Whatever caused the hole had to be round,
Evidence? did that car look round to you? Prove it.and it had to stay relatively intact, and be stronger than the wall. No it did not. Otherwise, it would not make a round hole in the wall. Yes it certaily could and did

What 9 ft. round object was found outside the hole? Was the fuselage found outside the hole? Well now you are just playing the fool. You are trolling now admit it. You know and i know and everyone reading this knows

Are there any photos of the part that caused the hole? prove that it could not have been caused by the mass of debris collectively. Could it have been an engine? What is the diameter of the engine? Is there anything we can rule out? Could it have been a landing gear?we can rule out anything not having to do with flight 77;. Now are going to address the OP? Again. Why is it relevant?

[Totovader]

Whatever caused the hole had to be round, and it had to stay relatively intact, and be stronger than the wall. Otherwise, it would not make a round hole in the wall.

What 9 ft. round object was found outside the hole? Was the fuselage found outside the hole?

Are there any photos of the part that caused the hole? Could it have been an engine? What is the diameter of the engine? Is there anything we can rule out? Could it have been a landing gear?

So... you're saying the hole could not have happened at all?

Might want to check your premises there- reality has a hard time agreeing with you.

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

Now I remember why I thought it would be best to ignore your posts, not formally put you on ignore, which I don't do, but just ignore them in general.
IT reminds me of the cowardy dog.

[funk de fino]

Whatever caused the hole had to be round, and it had to stay relatively intact, and be stronger than the wall. Otherwise, it would not make a round hole in the wall.

What 9 ft. round object was found outside the hole? Was the fuselage found outside the hole?

Are there any photos of the part that caused the hole? Could it have been an engine? What is the diameter of the engine? Is there anything we can rule out? Could it have been a landing gear?


The hole is not round SLG. Try lookin at the photos of it again. It could have been any part of the plane. It does not matter which and it would not have to be round.

You need to take yourself outside and give yourself a good talking to. You're coming across as being very dense here.