NASA Engineer (ret.) is a Twoofie? [Archive] - Page 5

16.5

17th January 2011, 09:32 AM

Items of evidence of six-minute discrepancy between inside explosion(s) and the official impact time.

1. April Gallop. Her watch stopped at 9:32 a.m.
2. The New York Times, the national newspaper of record, cited in a September 12, 2001, article, "Plane Slams Into Pentagon," that the attack occurred "about 9:30." Also Reuters said the same (at 3:57 p.m. on 9/11/01), and USAToday the same (at 6:11 a.m. on 9/12/01).
3. Heliport Clock stopped at 9:31:30 (clock on display in Smithsonian Museum).
4. Official Navy Photo of Wall Clock stopped at 9:31:40
5. White House Counsel (later Attorney General) Alberto Gonzales, taped official Navy lecture: “The Pentagon was attacked at 9:32”
6. Denmark’s about-to-be Foreign Minister (Per Stig Moller): 9:32
7. CNN’s Sixth Anniversary special on the E4B C&C ‘Doomsday Plane’ over White House on 9/11, at 0:33 to 0:48 in, Jonathan King: “There was word of an explosion at the Pentagon and then Secret Service warnings of another (third) plane (allegedly Fl 77) still on course for Washington” (triggering WH evacuation)

Ref: "The Pentagon Attack Papers" by Barbara Honegger (updated January 2011)

Mr. Deets: I notice that you cite Barbara Honegger. Are you aware that Ms. Honegger directly contradicts CIT regarding the Pentagon in connection with Lloyde England?

Are also aware your claims regarding the "pre blasts" in the Pentagon are directly inconsistent with Sean Boger and the testimony of CIT's star witnesses?

Yet you have appeared in a video praising CIT.

Does it bother you that you are promoting two directly inconsistent theories regarding the damage at the Pentagon?

dadeets

22nd January 2011, 06:18 PM

Does it bother you that you are promoting two directly inconsistent theories regarding the damage at the Pentagon?

I don't see these as inconsistent.

Honegger gathers witness testimony, mostly from inside the Pentagon, that there were explosions inside at approximately 9:32 AM. That is about six minutes before the official time for an airplane impact to the exterior wall.

CIT gathers witness testimony that an airplane flew a path north of Citgo, which turns out to be inconsistent with the external and internal damage path. That suggests that airplane didn't cause that damage. Nothing is said by the CIT witnesses about the time of day this airplane flew over.

Honegger and CIT are notably consistent in bringing out aspects that are in direct conflict with the official explanation.

There are a number of possibilities that could explain what happened while being consistent both with Honegger's findings and with CIT's. However, the official explanation isn't one of them.

Oystein

23rd January 2011, 08:50 AM

...
There are a number of possibilities that could explain what happened while being consistent both with Honegger's findings and with CIT's...

Please support this claim by spelling out at least two such possibilities! I obviously expect they are not only consistent with the very limited set of observations listed by Honegger and CIT, but also with the entire body of evidence, as well as with the physics of real airplanes and buildings, but for starters they should fit those two sources to a t.

Locknar

23rd January 2011, 02:15 PM

After a review of this thread by the Mod Team, we have decided to remove it from Moderated Status (but will actively monitor it for the foreseeable future). That stated, ensure your posts are civil/polite, are on topic and address the argument vs attack the arguer.

beachnut

23rd January 2011, 03:26 PM

I don't see these as inconsistent.

Honegger gathers witness testimony, mostly from inside the Pentagon, that there were explosions inside at approximately 9:32 AM. That is about six minutes before the official time for an airplane impact to the exterior wall.

CIT gathers witness testimony that an airplane flew a path north of Citgo, which turns out to be inconsistent with the external and internal damage path. That suggests that airplane didn't cause that damage. Nothing is said by the CIT witnesses about the time of day this airplane flew over.

Honegger and CIT are notably consistent in bringing out aspects that are in direct conflict with the official explanation.

There are a number of possibilities that could explain what happened while being consistent both with Honegger's findings and with CIT's. However, the official explanation isn't one of them.

The CIT flight paths are physically impossible to fly, and witnesses are not good to draw ground tracks of planes. They are good for lines of position. CIT are not trained aircraft accident investigators and it shows. No big deal but most their witnesses point to the official flight path.''

Please explain why RADAR is not evidence; RADAR proves CIT claims wrong.

A bomb in the Pentagon would have killed April, so Honegger explosion stuff is a kinetic energy impact from 77. There was no blast damage from explosives, no explosive damage to people. If you are familiar with bomb and the damage they do you will quickly see Honegger is making up false claims.

RADAR, DNA, and FDR prove 77 impacted the Pentagon; you have not refuted RADAR, DNA, or the FDR; you never will. But go ahead make my day, I worked in AFWAL as an engineer and all I see so far from you is paranoid anti-government drivel you have adopted from paranoid conspiracy theorists and those who sell lies on DVD to the gullible. Are you making money off of spreading lies and feeding Balsamo and CIT some "expert" quotes?

16.5

24th January 2011, 11:33 AM

shure

24th January 2011, 03:21 PM

Edited, breach of rule 0, rule 11, rule 12.

dadeets

31st January 2011, 10:16 AM

Please support this claim by spelling out at least two such possibilities! I obviously expect they are not only consistent with the very limited set of observations listed by Honegger and CIT, but also with the entire body of evidence, as well as with the physics of real airplanes and buildings, but for starters they should fit those two sources to a t.

I prefer to think of Barbara Honegger and CIT as complementary. Barbara focuses on inside the building, and the time of the violent explosive event, whereas CIT focuses on the flight path approaching the building, and how it isn’t in alignment with the path of destruction.

In both cases, their respective research brings out facts that are dramatically inconsistent with the official explanation. That should be the takeaway message. The official explanation doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

I would estimate the consistency between Honegger and CIT at about 80% on those parts that overlap. I don’t want to get diverted into a discussion on the 20% that don’t align exactly.

Oystein

31st January 2011, 10:24 AM

I prefer to think of Barbara Honegger and CIT as complementary. Barbara focuses on inside the building, and the time of the violent explosive event, whereas CIT focuses on the flight path approaching the building, and how it isn’t in alignment with the path of destruction.

In both cases, their respective research brings out facts that are dramatically inconsistent with the official explanation. That should be the takeaway message. The official explanation doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

I would estimate the consistency between Honegger and CIT at about 80% on those parts that overlap. I don’t want to get diverted into a discussion on the 20% that don’t align exactly.

You didn't address my post. I asked:

Please support this claim by spelling out at least two such possibilities! I obviously expect they are not only consistent with the very limited set of observations listed by Honegger and CIT, but also with the entire body of evidence, as well as with the physics of real airplanes and buildings, but for starters they should fit those two sources to a t.

carlitos

31st January 2011, 10:25 AM

What is your percentage estimate for the number of clocks at the pentagon that were off by a few minutes?

DGM

31st January 2011, 10:28 AM

In both cases, their respective research brings out facts that are dramatically inconsistent with the official explanation. That should be the takeaway message. The official explanation doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
.

My neighbor and I both surveyed our back yards and found them to be flat. Therefor the earth is flat. Good enough for you?

:rolleyes:

beachnut

31st January 2011, 11:22 AM

What is your percentage estimate for the number of clocks at the pentagon that were off by a few minutes?
When a movement, ironically named "truth", starts showing clocks with minute hands and second hands not even close to being synchronized, you know the movement is running on empty.

Showing clocks not set correctly is very truthy. If the clocks stopped it means they fell to the ground and the battery fell out, and the minute hand most like like fell in the down direction, if the clock was ever correct in the first place. Who uses a wall clock in an office as an exact time, unless it is set methodically to the atomic clock. The clowns in 911 truth never offer evidence the clock were set properly, and never proved the hands did not move after the clocks fell to the ground knocking the batteries out. Plus, no one heard explosions, until 77 impacted. Many witnesses were right next to the impact outside proving no explosion before impact. 911 truth has to be one of the biggest anti-intellectual fantasy movements around.

...
In both cases, their respective research brings out facts that are dramatically inconsistent with the official explanation. That should be the takeaway message. The official explanation doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

.... Not a single thing these people have is reality based. They made it up. They fool gullible people, or people who prefer the fantasy of the paranoid conspiracy theory kind. We have a few nuts like Barbara Honegger and CIT who make up moronic lies with no evidence. They have failed to make an impact in the real world because they have delusions and failed claims. It has been shown they are making it up, you can't prove anything.

dadeets

4th February 2011, 11:05 AM

Not a single thing these people have is reality based. They made it up. They fool gullible people, or people who prefer the fantasy of the paranoid conspiracy theory kind. We have a few nuts like Barbara Honegger and CIT who make up moronic lies with no evidence. They have failed to make an impact in the real world because they have delusions and failed claims. It has been shown they are making it up, you can't prove anything.

In reference to Barbara Honegger's research respecting the timing of the inside explosion(s) vis a vis any (alleged) flight AA77. The 9/11 Commission report on its interview with the person in charge of the Pentagon’s National Military Command Center (NMCC) that morning, Capt. Leidig, has been released, and is at:

http://cryptome.org/nara/dod/dod-04-0429.pdf

…He (Capt. Leidig) had no awareness of AA 77 coming back to Washington D.C. His first awareness was a call from the SECDEF's three-star aide who asked if he felt the explosion in the building and asked Leidig to investigate, (whether) it might be a terrorist attack. No one talked Force Protection (protecting the Pentagon and other military assets) before the Pentagon was struck, that he recalled (followed by censored block labeled “9/11 Classified Information”)…

16.5

4th February 2011, 11:58 AM

I prefer to think of Barbara Honegger and CIT as complementary. Barbara focuses on inside the building, and the time of the violent explosive event, whereas CIT focuses on the flight path approaching the building, and how it isn’t in alignment with the path of destruction.

In both cases, their respective research brings out facts that are dramatically inconsistent with the official explanation. That should be the takeaway message. The official explanation doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

I would estimate the consistency between Honegger and CIT at about 80% on those parts that overlap. I don’t want to get diverted into a discussion on the 20% that don’t align exactly.

You are estimating again? Hmmmm.

I know you don't want to "get diverted into a discussion on the 20% that don’t align exactly."

How about the 50% that directly contradict each other? Can I divert you into discussing that? Lets start with Boger, Lloyde and Lagasse.

Deal?

beachnut

4th February 2011, 01:34 PM

In reference to Barbara Honegger's research respecting the timing of the inside explosion(s) vis a vis any (alleged) flight AA77. The 9/11 Commission report on its interview with the person in charge of the Pentagon’s National Military Command Center (NMCC) that morning, Capt. Leidig, has been released, and is at:

http://cryptome.org/nara/dod/dod-04-0429.pdf

…He (Capt. Leidig) had no awareness of AA 77 coming back to Washington D.C. His first awareness was a call from the SECDEF's three-star aide who asked if he felt the explosion in the building and asked Leidig to investigate, (whether) it might be a terrorist attack. No one talked Force Protection (protecting the Pentagon and other military assets) before the Pentagon was struck, that he recalled (followed by censored block labeled “9/11 Classified Information”)… I read the whole thing, it supports the impact of Flight 77 when you take in all the reality based evidence. (like RADAR, FDR, DNA, and more)

The impact of a 757 going 488 knots at impact with the Pentagon would sound a lot like an explosion. WHY? E=1/2mv2 What was it I said? Oh, Kinetic Energy impact of a Jet with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel on board, the impact alone is equal to 1200 pounds of TNT. This is the explosion everyone felt in the Pentagon, it is a lot of energy, and the jet fuel fire ball would be a the source of the flames. Proof 77 impacted the Pentagon? DNA from the passengers found in the impact zone caused by a kinetic energy impact. The damage to the Pentagon was not a bomb blast, but exactly the damage a 757 makes at 488 knots. Simple physics proves this is a fact.

... testmony taken April 29, 2004, almost 3 years after 911. Would neat if there was a point.

a small light plane had crashed into the World Trade Center.
They had live television feed from multiple TV stations. Gee, like the rest of world, when he came on duty that day, everyone thought the WTC impact was an accident. Wow. If it was an inside job, it sure looks like the Pentagon was in the dark, as were all of us. What did you do on 911 to help?

Ignoring DNA evidence and using delusions from Honegger and CIT.

http://cryptome.org/nara/dod/dod-04-0429.pdf
He had no awareness of AA 77 coming back to Washington D.C. His first

awareness was a call from the SECDEF's three-star aide who asked ifhe felt the explosion in the building and asked Leidig to investigate,
it might be a terrorist attack.

What is force protection? Is it http://www.pfpa.mil/index.html ? Or what? You want to know why that paragraph is redacted? You want to know what is going on? This is your smoking gun, or as Jones says, the "loaded gun"? This is your defense of made up lies about the time of impact? You know how broad "force protection" is, or why it might be sensitive? Can you drop your paranoid conspiracy theories for a second and see why teaming up with CIT and Honegger is essentially apologizing for terrorists and teaming up with anti-government, anti-intellectual nuts on 911?

The explosion at the Pentagon, was the impact of Flight 77. If it was a bomb, people would be dead due to blast effects; none reported. In a bomb blast you don't report flames, you are dead from the blast. In a bomb blast there are blast effects, not a kinetic energy damaged Pentagon. Good luck with your conspiracy buddies, Honegger and CIT. Better check out Balsamo special pilot for truth math, all 11.2gs of it. Your tendency to believe in conspiracy theories is being used by Balsamo to sell DVD filled with nonsense.

dadeets

11th February 2011, 10:42 AM

I read the whole thing, it supports the impact of Flight 77 when you take in all the reality based evidence. (like RADAR, FDR, DNA, and more)

These items should not be considered "reality-based" evidence, or what I would more simply call hard evidence.

The FDR is not hard evidence, in that no positive identification of the alleged airplane, AA 77 (N644AA), has been provided.

A true critical thinker would be cautious when using information stemming from this compromised data set.

Caution should be extended to other items of so called evidence emanating from this same source, which in this case is the federal government.

That means as well, the radar data and DNA reports should not be considered hard evidence, but viewed with a degree of caution.

carlitos

11th February 2011, 10:47 AM

Deets,

You missed the memo on CIT. They are now no longer endorsed by ae911truth. It took Gage 18 months to figure it out though, so I'm guessing it will take you about 10 years.

LINK (http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-08/richard-gage-completely-withdraws-support-cit#comments) from Screw Loose Change blog.

In early 2009, I watched the “National Security Alert” video by the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) where recollections of 10 eyewitness accounts of the attack on the Pentagon were presented (of many more that were interviewed). These accounts included the witnesses’ recollection of the path being taken by the plane prior to impact. The path that many of them recalled was to the north of the former CITGO gas station. Based on these few accounts CIT presented its case that the plane flew over the Pentagon since the damage trail was not consistent with the north path.

My main focus relative to 9/11 had been on the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers. I had not been able to spend much time on the Pentagon issue. I was initially impressed by CIT’s presentation and, more than a year and a half ago, provided a short statement of support for their efforts.

...

Because of these concerns I provided new statements in December 2009 and January 2010 pointing out that my previous statement of support should not be interpreted as an endorsement of their conclusion that the airplane flew over the Pentagon. Despite these statements, CIT has continued to publish my original statement and characterize it as an endorsement of their flyover conclusion. I am hereby now on the record clearly as NOT supporting the CIT investigation at all. In addition, I insist that CIT delete my name from its web site in any and every context in which it might give the impression of support or endorsement of their efforts from me.

beachnut

11th February 2011, 10:55 AM

These items should not be considered "reality-based" evidence, or what I would more simply call hard evidence.

The FDR is not hard evidence, in that no positive identification of the alleged airplane, AA 77 (N644AA), has been provided.

A true critical thinker would be cautious when using information stemming from this compromised data set.

Caution should be extended to other items of so called evidence emanating from this same source, which in this case is the federal government.

That means as well, the radar data and DNA reports should not be considered hard evidence, but viewed with a degree of caution.
The FDR is hard evidence of 77. It has over 24 hours of flights from the airframe which was 77 on 911. I have worked with the NTSB before, and they are not evil guys, and you know that.

A true critical thinker can see the FDR is real. I am an engineer and worked at AFWAL, the FDR is real, the data is correct, you are wrong.

The federal government is our government, we can change it by voting. Do you vote, or make up failed claims about 911?

The DNA is true, you can't refute it.
The RADAR is true, you can't refute it, you have not presented evidence.
The FDR is correct, you can't refute it.

You calling the Navy liars? They ran oversight on the DNA; you know why? Any clue on this one?

Talk is not evidence, you present trash talk, anti-government paranoid lies, and you worked at NASA. Now you are spreading false information based on you our anti-government views. Kind of big time biased tripe.

Wait; you are from NASA, paid by the government, an executive branch of the government, are you spreading false information to make 911 truth look dumber?

Reheat

11th February 2011, 10:57 AM

16.5

11th February 2011, 11:06 AM

Deets,

You missed the memo on CIT. They are now no longer endorsed by ae911truth. It took Gage 18 months to figure it out though, so I'm guessing it will take you about 10 years.

Ten years? That is generous. He still thinks that a bomb in the Pentagon caused the clock in the Helipad Control Tower to stop six minutes before the plane crashed, and at the same time relies upon the testimony of Sean Boger who was in the Helipad control tower and watched the plane impact the building. Hmm, cognitive dissonance much?

A W Smith

11th February 2011, 11:15 AM

These items should not be considered "reality-based" evidence, or what I would more simply call hard evidence.

The FDR is not hard evidence, in that no positive identification of the alleged airplane, AA 77 (N644AA), has been provided.

A true critical thinker would be cautious when using information stemming from this compromised data set.

Caution should be extended to other items of so called evidence emanating from this same source, which in this case is the federal government.

That means as well, the radar data and DNA reports should not be considered hard evidence, but viewed with a degree of caution.

Deets, When confronted with hard evidence you cannot refute you poison the well. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html) Unless you can proove the evidence was fabricated, it stands. I find it amusing that when PFT and you thought the FDR data supported a flyover, It was good enough for you to use to show as evidence of conspiracy. The other logical fallacy you are committing is the one of demanding impossible perfection (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#goalposts). We all know it was flight 77 which plowed into the Pentagon, The radar data supports it, The DNA of the passengers on site supports it, The wreckage supports it. Yet you attempt to hand wave it off because a serial number cannot be provided to a collection of incompetent grounded pilots and a weak minded retired "engineer".

DGM

11th February 2011, 11:17 AM

A true critical thinker would be cautious when using information stemming from this compromised data set.

So as a critical thinker (I assume you think you are) how do you justify all the accounts of responders, ATC, crew that planted the poles and plane debris, people that had to see these crews <insert the hundreds of others> that according to you have to be lies?

NWO get to them all?

:rolleyes:

Reheat

11th February 2011, 11:42 AM

So as a critical thinker (I assume you think you are) how do you justify all the accounts of responders, ATC, crew that planted the poles and plane debris, people that had to see these crews <insert the hundreds of others> that according to you have to be lies?

NWO get to them all?

:rolleyes:

Not only those, but he's included dozens if not well into the hundreds more who were "in on it". That includes folks from all of the different Radar Sites that tracked AA 77, as well as the uniformed folks at 84th RADES. All of the both uniformed and civilian Doctors, Dentists, Pathologists, and lab technicians at the Defense Institude of Pathology who examined and certified the DNA. In addition, dozens from the NTSB, FBI, the First Responders, and the Army Units from Fort Meade who helped clean up the mess. I've probably omitted some, but this is enough to illustrate the point.

These accusations are coming from a person who is very likely still on the Federal Government payroll. Yet, he does what most toofers do; post tripe on Internet sites and apparently expects rational people to trust his credibility. Ha!

Josarhus

15th February 2011, 01:35 PM

Items of evidence of six-minute discrepancy between inside explosion(s) and the official impact time.

1. April Gallop. Her watch stopped at 9:32 a.m.
2. The New York Times, the national newspaper of record, cited in a September 12, 2001, article, "Plane Slams Into Pentagon," that the attack occurred "about 9:30." Also Reuters said the same (at 3:57 p.m. on 9/11/01), and USAToday the same (at 6:11 a.m. on 9/12/01).
3. Heliport Clock stopped at 9:31:30 (clock on display in Smithsonian Museum).
4. Official Navy Photo of Wall Clock stopped at 9:31:40
5. White House Counsel (later Attorney General) Alberto Gonzales, taped official Navy lecture: “The Pentagon was attacked at 9:32”
6. Denmark’s about-to-be Foreign Minister (Per Stig Moller): 9:32
7. CNN’s Sixth Anniversary special on the E4B C&C ‘Doomsday Plane’ over White House on 9/11, at 0:33 to 0:48 in, Jonathan King: “There was word of an explosion at the Pentagon and then Secret Service warnings of another (third) plane (allegedly Fl 77) still on course for Washington” (triggering WH evacuation)

Ref: "The Pentagon Attack Papers" by Barbara Honegger (updated January 2011)

My comments on #6 and Barbara Honegger:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=150423

leftysergeant

15th February 2011, 07:32 PM

Cheap Skilkraft clocks don't stand up well to shock. The minute hand tends to drop when jarred hard enough.

I don't know what kind of watch Gallop was wearing, but a shoick sufficient to break it would probably breat her arm, too.

We know for a fact that the damage inside the building was not caused by a bomb inside. Only those windows in the path of the incoming aircraft were broken out, and there is no mention anywhere of broken glass on the lawn.

Aslo, that the damage occurs in a funnel-shped pattern with the narrowest point innward is proof that the explosion occurred in the wall that the aircraft hit. All the visible damage to that wall is of a crushing sort. The damage occurs along two slanting lines.

Aint an explosive charge in the world that would do that. No soldier with any applicable training would see anything else. I have the training, Honneger, Gallop and Kwiatkowski do not.

Don't quote Stubblebine. He obviously never did have all his headbolts torqued right. His psychic program and his divorce papers show that.

pgimeno

16th February 2011, 01:50 AM

Thanks, Josarhus, that leaves one of the stories perfectly clear. Interesting point raised by Gravy in that thread too:

Honegger also omits, um, the necessary testimony of the thousands of people who would have noticed the enormous explosion nearly six minutes before the actual impact. Radar data, FDR data, video data, radio calls, and calls for aid, establish within seconds or fractions of a second the time of the impact. Nothing to see here but unadulterated lunacy.

dadeets

21st February 2011, 12:53 PM

Deets,

You missed the memo on CIT. They are now no longer endorsed by ae911truth. It took Gage 18 months to figure it out though, so I'm guessing it will take you about 10 years.

I'm well aware of Gage's retraction of his endorsement.

Unfortunately, I don't believe he applied the same level of objective reasoning to this question of the strength and credibility of witnesses as he has done to the WTC highrise buildings.

DGM

21st February 2011, 01:07 PM

dadeets

21st February 2011, 01:19 PM

Aslo, that the damage occurs in a funnel-shped pattern with the narrowest point innward is proof that the explosion occurred in the wall that the aircraft hit.

You may not be aware of this leftysergeant, but the "pointed end" of your funnel-shaped pattern was not a single "exit" hole in the C RING. It was three identical 9' diameter holes spaced along the C RING wall. The Washington Post published a graphic immediately after (maybe the next day) indicating where each of the three holes were, showing them with color-coded dots.

(This information available in Barbra Honegger's "The Pentagon Attack Papers.")

beachnut

21st February 2011, 01:30 PM

I'm well aware of Gage's retraction of his endorsement.

Unfortunately, I don't believe he applied the same level of objective reasoning to this question of the strength and credibility of witnesses as he has done to the WTC highrise buildings.
You are right, Gage is a fraud, it does not matter he dropped the dope smoking idiots at CIT; too high to think rationally CIT call everyone in the government liars. Is NASA part of the government? Are you blaming your government for doing 911? Are you saying your fellow government workers faked 77 crash?

You are trying to spread lies using other people false information, you should try using physics instead of lies.

Gage tells lies and begs for money, he earned 70k last year by spreading delusions on 911.

dadeets

21st February 2011, 01:33 PM

Do you plan to publicly try to change his mind on this?

At this point in time, no. It's pretty clear to me an awful lot of pressure was applied to get him to retract his endorsement. Therefore, I don't think he will publicly change his position back again, no matter how strong a technical case is presented to him.

16.5

21st February 2011, 01:37 PM

You may not be aware of this leftysergeant, but the "pointed end" of your funnel-shaped pattern was not a single "exit" hole in the C RING. It was three identical 9' diameter holes spaced along the C RING wall. The Washington Post published a graphic immediately after (maybe the next day) indicating where each of the three holes were, showing them with color-coded dots.

(This information available in Barbra Honegger's "The Pentagon Attack Papers.")

Uh, no, Dwain. That is wrong, that is not what she claims at all. Are you sure you know what you are talking about??

In fact her commentary about the damage to the C ring is just another example of where she disagrees/contradicts CIT.

You are not very good at this whole truth thing, are you?

DGM

21st February 2011, 01:38 PM

At this point in time, no. It's pretty clear to me an awful lot of pressure was applied to get him to retract his endorsement. Therefore, I don't think he will publicly change his position back again, no matter how strong a technical case is presented to him.
Pressure? I thought you guys were the united front for truth. Who would be pressuring him if you're all for truth? Is there different versions of truth?

:confused:

16.5

21st February 2011, 01:53 PM

At this point in time, no. It's pretty clear to me an awful lot of pressure was applied to get him to retract his endorsement. Therefore, I don't think he will publicly change his position back again, no matter how strong a technical case is presented to him.

Technical case??? What the Sam hell?

Dwain, CIT prides themselves on not bothering with the technical merits of their fantasy theory. Hell their bank, descent, pull up and over theory is "technically" impossible

WildCat

21st February 2011, 02:08 PM

tsig

21st February 2011, 02:51 PM

beachnut

21st February 2011, 03:12 PM

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/02/11/know-your-conspiracies.html
12. 9/11 was an inside job.
The truthers, holdovers from the Bush days, just won't go away. They argue that the physics of the World Trade Center collapse doesn't add up, and that the attacks were an excuse for the U.S. to launch wars abroad and enrich defense contractors. Either the government planned and executed them or it knew they were coming and turned a blind eye.
Proponents:Alex Jones (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/truther-consequences), retired religion professor David Ray Griffin (http://davidraygriffin.com/), Reagan administration policy analyst Barbara Honegger (http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/Honegger,Barbara.shtml), British journalist Robert Fisk (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-even-i-question-the-truth-about-911-462904.html).
Kernel of Truth? Not even the staunchest mainstream George W. Bush bashers believe this one. Enough said.

Barbara Honegger identified as a proponent with no truth. Reading her work, she has nothing to support her claims, save ignorance and failed opinions.

dadeets

21st February 2011, 03:20 PM

Uh, no, Dwain. That is wrong, that is not what she claims at all. Are you sure you know what you are talking about??

Yes, I'm sure as far as the 3 holes.

Now, as to what caused the holes. I didn't go into her views on that, but lets just say it wasn't from an impactor air-vehicle.

In fact her commentary about the damage to the C ring is just another example of where she disagrees/contradicts CIT.

How can this contradict CIT? The North side witnesses don't say anything about the hole(s) in the C RING. If there is a difference of opinion between Honegger and CIT on C-RING hole, it can't be a very significant difference.

R.Mackey

21st February 2011, 03:25 PM

beachnut

21st February 2011, 03:27 PM

... from an impactor air-vehicle.
...
Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon. Are you saying your fellow government employees faked it?

What a cute term for the vehicle of death flown by a terrorist pilot, killing Americans. Who faked the DNA data in your fantasy?

F=1/2mv2, term not used by 911 truth, and the drugged up CIT failures.

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf Engineering and Science make your claims false.

WildCat

21st February 2011, 05:07 PM

You may not be aware of this leftysergeant, but the "pointed end" of your funnel-shaped pattern was not a single "exit" hole in the C RING. It was three identical 9' diameter holes spaced along the C RING wall. The Washington Post published a graphic immediately after (maybe the next day) indicating where each of the three holes were, showing them with color-coded dots.
Why would you reference Honegger if it's from the WaPo? Shouldn't you cite the date and issue of the WaPo it was in, so others coulod confirm?
I think I found the graphic! And as usual, truthers have it all wrong. It's just the age-old mistake they've always made when discussing the Pentagon, they don't know the rings didn't extend to ground level.

Graphic here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/attack/pentagon_3.html

dadeets, you get 1 laughing dog for failing to get it right after 9 years of "research": :dl:

eta: they published a more accurate version a few weeks later, on Sept. 23: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/attack/pentagon_7.html

16.5

21st February 2011, 05:41 PM

Yes, I'm sure as far as the 3 holes.

Now, as to what caused the holes. I didn't go into her views on that, but lets just say it wasn't from an impactor air-vehicle.

How can this contradict CIT? The North side witnesses don't say anything about the hole(s) in the C RING. If there is a difference of opinion between Honegger and CIT on C-RING hole, it can't be a very significant difference.

REALLY? I just read her article that you failed to link to. It does not support your claim. She did not make that claim.

She does claim that the hole was caused by a plane, which your heroes dismiss as nonsense.

If you don't even understand the theories you claim to support, stop wasting our time.

dadeets

22nd February 2011, 11:12 AM

This is wrong. There was only one hole into AE Drive.

Reference, Pentagon Building Performance Report, ASCE. Read it here. (http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf)

Some observations on the Building Performance Report

BPS Team Inspection with respect to airplane parts

Team leader Paul Mlakar only had limited access to the site while rescue and recovery operations were still in progress. He didn’t mention if he saw airplane parts.

When the full BPS Team was given access, all airplane parts had been removed.

Engines

The BPS Team was strangely quiet concerning what they thought happened to the engines. (Other than saying the left engine struck an external steam vault before the fuselage entered the building).

Hole into AE Drive

The BPS Team doesn’t offer an opinion as to what they thought caused the hole. (An engine might have been a candidate, one would think.)

Therefore:

A reasonable assumption is that the hole shown in the BPS Team Report is not associated with the path of debris. It is, rather, presumably associated with rescue and recovery operations.

By showing the hole in the BPS Team Report, I’m guessing it is only there as an incidental matter. If so, it does not mean to imply there was only one such hole, or at least it shouldn’t have.

carlitos

22nd February 2011, 11:32 AM

So when NIST says "there was A hole," what they really meant was "there were 3 holes." That's great. What color is the sky in your world?

The aircraft had entered the building at an angle, traveling in a
northeasterly direction.With the possible exception of the immediate
vicinity of the fuselage’s entry point at column line 14, essentially
all interior impact damage was inflicted in the first story:The
aircraft seems for the most part to have slipped between the firstfloor
slab on grade and the second floor. The path of damage
extended from the west exterior wall of the building in a northeasterly
direction completely through Ring E, Ring D, Ring C,
and their connecting lower floors.There was a hole in the east wall
of Ring C, emerging into AE Drive, between column lines 5 and
7 in Wedge 2 (figure 5.16).The wall failure was approximately 310
ft from where the fuselage of the aircraft entered the west wall of
the building.The path of the aircraft debris passed approximately
225 ft diagonally through Wedge 1 and approximately 85 ft diagonally
through a portion of Ring C in Wedge 2.

Columns and beams along the path of the debris and within the
fire area were damaged to varying degrees.Some columns and beams
were missing entirely (figure 5.17), while others nearby sometimes
appeared unscathed.

How can anyone read the above and not think that the hole was in the path of damage?

dadeets

22nd February 2011, 11:48 AM

I think I found the graphic!

Graphic here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/attack/pentagon_3.html

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_435534d6411217a164.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22588)

I've uploaded a closeup from the graphic I have in mind.

16.5

22nd February 2011, 12:08 PM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_435534d6411217a164.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22588)

I've uploaded a closeup from the graphic I have in mind.

Here is the original claim:

The Washington Post published a graphic immediately after (maybe the next day) indicating where each of the three holes were, showing them with color-coded dots.

(This information available in Barbra Honegger's "The Pentagon Attack Papers.")

What have we learned:

1. the Washington Post did not post that graphic
2. they didn't do it immediately after
3. they didn't do it the next
4. it does not show three holes caused by the plane and debris.
5. the information is not in Honegger's "The Pentagon Attack Papers."
6. Honegger claims that an aircraft caused the one hole we do see.

DGM

22nd February 2011, 01:19 PM

Some observations on the Building Performance Report

BPS Team Inspection with respect to airplane parts

Team leader Paul Mlakar only had limited access to the site while rescue and recovery operations were still in progress. He didn’t mention if he saw airplane parts.

When the full BPS Team was given access, all airplane parts had been removed.

Engines

The BPS Team was strangely quiet concerning what they thought happened to the engines. (Other than saying the left engine struck an external steam vault before the fuselage entered the building).

Hole into AE Drive

The BPS Team doesn’t offer an opinion as to what they thought caused the hole. (An engine might have been a candidate, one would think.)

Therefore:

A reasonable assumption is that the hole shown in the BPS Team Report is not associated with the path of debris. It is, rather, presumably associated with rescue and recovery operations.

By showing the hole in the BPS Team Report, I’m guessing it is only there as an incidental matter. If so, it does not mean to imply there was only one such hole, or at least it shouldn’t have.
Are you saying rescue workers blasted the hole to get out?

beachnut

22nd February 2011, 01:36 PM

...

I've uploaded a closeup from the graphic I have in mind.
Which proves 77 did it. Good work on joining reality instead of drugged up CIT lies. Good job.

There could be many holes, who is going to stop part of a plane going 488 knots. In the floor where 77 hit with people on board, there are no rings just offices until you get to the exit holes. You posted exit holes in a ring where they should be called entrance holes; WHY did you put up stuff which is off? Why are you using error filled diagrams as your evidence?

What happen to the people in your fictional account of 911, the anti-government account you have? What happen?

What are the major strong parts of a 757? Any clue? Which parts would have the energy to break through things.

There were no explosives used, explosives do not cause kinetic energy impact holes, the big one at the Pentagon. Plus explosive kill people with blast effect, zero blast effects from explosives.

Why is a NASA retiree an anti-government paranoid conspiracy theorist teamed up with drugged up liars who call themselves CIT? You are being used by idiots to support their lies.

There is no way to do the damage at the Pentagon without the kinetic energy impact of a 757, with the exact amount of fuel to create the jet fuel fireball. A missile can't carry that much jet fuel, and you can't plant anything in the Pentagon to mimic a kinetic energy impact. Your claims are false. Physics makes you wrong, start using science instead of anti-government bias opinions. Did the Jews do it in your version of nonsense?

pgimeno

22nd February 2011, 03:13 PM

Pinch

22nd February 2011, 08:03 PM

Maybe Mr. Deets is taking as "holes" the doors labeled here as "Single door" and "Roll-up Door":

Mr. Deets, like his cohorts over at P4T, does not know what he is talking about. Credentials, it has been proven time and time again, do not equate to competence.

ETA: More relevant pics here: stevenwarran.blogspot.com/2008/02/pinch-paisley-pentagon-worker-goes-on.html

lol...those are my photos SteveWarren was posting. I had forgotten about those. Roll-up doors and single-access doors were all over the place in that building, allowing easy access to load the standard office material and such inside from the A-E drive. Conversely, they would have provided easy access to the damaged areas, leading some who lack a well-developed sense of critical thinking skills to assume they were "three identical 9' diameter holes spaced along the C RING wall." This what makes much of this so entertaining - if they don't know something, they just make something up.

R.Mackey

22nd February 2011, 09:14 PM

Maybe Mr. Deets is taking as "holes" the doors labeled here as "Single door" and "Roll-up Door":

http://www.historycommons.org/events-images/a679_pentagon_overview_2050081722-17901.jpg

That certainly appears to be the case.

Dwain, there was one exit hole, OK? And it happens to be exactly where it belongs. However, if you're going to be so stubborn and delusional that you will make up brand new artifacts out of thin air, I'm not going to bother explaining it to you. Your grasp of reality is extremely poor -- even by Truther standards.

beachnut

22nd February 2011, 09:56 PM

...
lol...those are my photos SteveWarren was posting. I had forgotten about those. Roll-up doors and single-access doors were all over the place in that building, allowing easy access to load the standard office material and such inside from the A-E drive. Conversely, they would have provided easy access to the damaged areas, leading some who lack a well-developed sense of critical thinking skills to assume they were "three identical 9' diameter holes spaced along the C RING wall." This what makes much of this so entertaining - if they don't know something, they just make something up.

Who do these military figures take the American people for? Fools? Everybody connected with this enterprise in the government and the military are second-rate no-shows who couldn't pass muster in the new world order if their asses were on fire. The Disneyification of national intelligence came a few years too late. My cracked sixth sense was utilized in support of the Constitution of the United States of America. Men like Pinch are traitors to that cause. Sorry to be the one to tell you guys.
(by StevenWarren)
Is he making fun of 911 truth, or is he insane? Did someone in the military steal his wife?

Pinch

23rd February 2011, 03:51 AM

Is he making fun of 911 truth, or is he insane? Did someone in the military steal his wife?

The latter. No question. SteveWarran's original thesis (still is for all I know) was that Pentagon Self-Defense "howitzers" elevated from their hidden subterranean redoubts and fires *at* the Pentagon vice at something attacking it. His rationale and evidence? Round, elongated artifacts that he claimed were ejected shell casings (I *** you not). When these "shell casings" were proven to be rolls of roofing tar paper than ended scattered around because...you know....this was a "construction zone", SteveWarran went off on a tangent of standard Truther digital buffoonery.

I'm sure SteveWarran and Mr. Deets were classmates somewhere along the line...similar powers of deduction.

Insane.

tfk

23rd February 2011, 07:12 AM

DG,

Are you saying rescue workers blasted the hole to get out?

Of course our estimable Mr. Deets isn't saying that. That would be silly.

Mr, Deets is suggesting that, even tho AA77 cut a perfectly gaping 18' diameter hole in the exterior wall, a hole that the building's partial collapse significantly enlarged, the rescue team, in their typical leisurely manner, chose to not avail themselves of this convenient access. But chose instead to take their sweet time chopping their own entrance thru the blast reinforced exterior wall.

After all, whenever I go to Home Depot & I am in a REAL hurry, when I approach the entrance & the door automatically slides open wide, that's the LAST route that I take into the building.

I prefer to break out a pick axe I carry around for just this purpose & chop my own entrance thru the wall.

In order to really save time, I usually chop a second one when leaving.

Makes perfect sense...
:rolleyes:

tom

Reheat

23rd February 2011, 07:41 AM

After all, whenever I go to Home Depot & I am in a REAL hurry, when I approach the entrance & the door automatically slides open wide, that's the LAST route that I take into the building.

I prefer to break out a pick axe I carry around for just this purpose & chop my own entrance thru the wall.

In order to really save time, I usually chop a second one when leaving.

Makes perfect sense...
:rolleyes:

tom

Tom, you should stop doing that in public. The firefighters and rescue guys saw you doing that when they were at Home Depot to rent the Bobcat they used to scrape up building and aircraft debris to put in front of that hole for that deceptive photo. They knew some genius former NASA conspiracy kook would look at that hole and think they did it. However, it didn't work and he's smarter than they thought. He figured it out with the help of those eyewitness experts he likes along with other fellow kooks at pffft. If you insist on continuing that practice you should borrow one of those stealth cloaks that was used when the aircraft flew over the building.

Wait a minute, I just said......

I'm confused, so you should check with my brother, he used to work for NASA, so he's very clever at figuring out these confounded conspiracies.

TjW

23rd February 2011, 07:47 AM

I'm confused, so you should check with my brother, he used to work for NASA, so he's very clever at figuring out these confounded conspiracies.

Well, of course. Before the clever name change, they were NACA -- the National Aeronautics and Conspiracy Administration.

dadeets

23rd February 2011, 09:12 PM

Dwain, there was one exit hole, OK? And it happens to be exactly where it belongs. However, if you're going to be so stubborn and delusional that you will make up brand new artifacts out of thin air, I'm not going to bother explaining.

Rather than trying to run down the link to the Washington Post graphic, even better is to show a photo of what they very well may have used as the basis for their graphic.

The first photo is of the C-RING wall on the West side of A-E Drive. The yellow arrow shows the “exit” hole, as diagramed from the inside in the Pentagon PST Report. The hole to the left of it, on the other side of the roof bridge, is the middle hole (not depicted in the PST Report).

A second photo shows these same two holes, as well as the third hole in the corner on the left, at the tip of the triangular shadow.

Photos are among the collection at Russell Pickering’s compilation site http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/exp.htm . Thanks to Barbara Honegger for steering me to these photos.

R.Mackey

23rd February 2011, 09:17 PM

That's a door, Dwain. Not a hole.

May I assume your other deductions are equally insightful?

dadeets

23rd February 2011, 09:22 PM

Are you saying rescue workers blasted the hole to get out?

No, the rescue workers blasted the holes to get in. (From the A-E Drive)

16.5

23rd February 2011, 09:39 PM

Maybe Mr. Deets is taking as "holes" the doors labeled here as "Single door" and "Roll-up Door":

http://www.historycommons.org/events-images/a679_pentagon_overview_2050081722-17901.jpg

Here's another view:

http://i941.photobucket.com/albums/ad257/snow__crash/aedrive_debris.jpg

Or maybe he can explain what are the other holes made by the airplane.

ETA: More relevant pics here: stevenwarran.blogspot.com/2008/02/pinch-paisley-pentagon-worker-goes-on.html

No, the rescue workers blasted the holes to get in. (From the A-E Drive)

Cripes, Mr. Deets has failed to look at the photo posted IN THIS THREAD showing that it was a roll up door.

Unbelievable.

Thank Babs for further misleading you Dwain. You gonna do any of your own research, champ?

WildCat

23rd February 2011, 10:01 PM

No, the rescue workers blasted the holes to get in. (From the A-E Drive)
How does debris end up ouside from such a blast?

Pinch

24th February 2011, 04:07 AM

No, the rescue workers blasted the holes to get in. (From the A-E Drive)

And the poor survivor who was waiting to be rescued on the other side of the wall was blown to bits by the hole "blasted" in the wall to rescue him.

And people wonder why so much derision is heaped on this ridiculous and absurd Pilots for 9/11 "Truth" club.

And people wonder why nobody takes a word of what you say or Balsamo or any of the other fools seriously, regardless of your "credentials".

Have you ever been in the Pentagon, Mr. Deets? Have you ever walked the corridors and worked in the offices and strolled the A-E drive? Have you ever taken note of the myriad doors and entrances and access ways from the A-E drive into the offices and hallways of the main C-ring? It is very, very apparent you have not and as such are just making up this crap.

"...the rescue workers blasted the holes to get in...." is a dozen different ways of stupid.

Dave Rogers

24th February 2011, 04:33 AM

No, the rescue workers blasted the holes to get in. (From the A-E Drive)

And then neatly squared off the blast holes, installed door frames and hung the doors. It's a wonder they ever got round to rescuing anyone.

Dave

TruthersLie

24th February 2011, 05:09 AM

How does debris end up ouside from such a blast?

It was a hickey bomb. You know... they hit, and instead of exploding, they implode inwards.

Justin39640

24th February 2011, 05:18 AM

It was a hickey bomb. You know... they hit, and instead of exploding, they implode inwards.

Vacuum bombs? With (several inches of) mercury triggers? :p

carlitos

24th February 2011, 05:53 AM

How does debris end up ouside from such a blast?Blowback, from the overpressure inside released when the blast allowed the evil to escape. Like a Rumsfeld valve.

shure

24th February 2011, 05:56 AM

“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.”
-Thomas Pynchon's

:cool:

DGM

24th February 2011, 08:04 AM

No, the rescue workers blasted the holes to get in. (From the A-E Drive)
Wouldn't using the door be a better choice? Besides that, every image of that hole clearly shows it was made fron the inside/out.

tfk

24th February 2011, 11:15 AM

No, the rescue workers blasted the holes to get in. (From the A-E Drive)

How dirt dumb does being a desk jockey at NASA make one, these days??? :boggled:

I count 3 doors & about 28 windows (on the 1st floor).

And you claim that rescue workers are going to find a demolitions expert to set up & blow a hole in a wall quicker than they can find a janitor with a key..?? Or a stone or crowbar to break a window...??

dadeets

2nd March 2011, 01:49 PM

Cripes, Mr. Deets has failed to look at the photo posted IN THIS THREAD showing that it was a roll up door.

Agreed. I stand corrected.

dadeets

2nd March 2011, 02:07 PM

No, the rescue workers blasted the holes to get in. (From the A-E Drive)

I've changed my view on this one:

I now am of the opinion the hole was blasted from the inside out. Refer to "The Pentagon Exit Hole" by Russell Pickering. (http://www.rense.com/general70/hole.htm)

DGM

2nd March 2011, 02:20 PM

I've changed my view on this one:

I now am of the opinion the hole was blasted from the inside out. Refer to "The Pentagon Exit Hole" by Russell Pickering. (http://www.rense.com/general70/hole.htm)
From your link:
If any part of an aircraft survived after traveling through the 24 inch thick steel reinforced, Kevlar mesh "E ring façade, blast resistant windows, all of the interior walls, pillars and office contents of 3 rings of the Pentagon, then why didn't it show itself in the A-E drive? And how did it break such a clean hole and then decelerate in the space of 30 feet so as not to even chip the opposing "B" ring wall?

Care to explain what the hell he's talking about (considering you're now basing your opinion on this)?

Your digging yourself a deeper hole.

16.5

2nd March 2011, 03:44 PM

I've changed my view on this one:

I now am of the opinion the hole was blasted from the inside out. Refer to "The Pentagon Exit Hole" by Russell Pickering. (http://www.rense.com/general70/hole.htm)

From the article "There isn't a straight line between the facade and the hole."

Jesus, I mean I don't even know where to start, that is literally second grade type of hog wash.

By the way, does anyone want to break it to Dwain that he has picked another person (Pickering) who thinks that CIT are a pack of frauds?

Unbelievable. Mr. Deets theory on the Pentagon is so contradictory that he ought to quit shoveling, and call it a day.

carlitos

2nd March 2011, 03:45 PM

I've changed my view on this one:

I now am of the opinion the hole was blasted from the inside out. Refer to "The Pentagon Exit Hole" by Russell Pickering. (http://www.rense.com/general70/hole.htm)

Does it bother you even a little bit that you are basing your opinion on something you apparently found at a site run by paranoid, anti-Semitic dick Jeff Rense?

dadeets

3rd March 2011, 07:15 PM

Agreed. I stand corrected.

After further consideration, I retract this statement.

I've indicated the column identifiers on this aerial view. Column numbers and letters are shown in a layout in Fig. 7.9 of the Building Performance Study report. The columns on either side of the middle opening where most of the smoke is coming out are 5O and 7O of Wedge 1 (The "O" stands for the letter designating the row of columns forming the external wall between C RING and the AE Drive). There isn't any opening built into the wall between those two columns, therefore, the hole had to have been caused in some other manner.

Disbelief

4th March 2011, 04:01 AM

After further consideration, I retract this statement.

I've indicated the column identifiers on this aerial view. Column numbers and letters are shown in a layout in Fig. 7.9 of the Building Performance Study report. The columns on either side of the middle opening where most of the smoke is coming out are 5O and 7O of Wedge 1 (The "O" stands for the letter designating the row of columns forming the external wall between C RING and the AE Drive). There isn't any opening built into the wall between those two columns, therefore, the hole had to have been caused in some other manner.

You finally got something right, and then you backtrack. I would think that with your experience and knowledge, you would be writing a paper using science and math to break open this case, not parroting crap from truther websites.

Dave Rogers

4th March 2011, 04:30 AM

The columns on either side of the middle opening where most of the smoke is coming out are 5O and 7O of Wedge 1 (The "O" stands for the letter designating the row of columns forming the external wall between C RING and the AE Drive). There isn't any opening built into the wall between those two columns, therefore, the hole had to have been caused in some other manner.

I've downloaded your pdf, and I'm looking at the opening between columns 50 and 70. It's so obviously a doorway that I can't fathom how anyone could possibly mistake it for anything else. It's got sharply defined vertical sides, and a sharply defined horizontal top. What exactly is your reason for believing that there was no such doorway?

Dave

Justin39640

4th March 2011, 04:35 AM

16.5

4th March 2011, 07:47 AM

After further consideration, I retract this statement.

I've indicated the column identifiers on this aerial view. Column numbers and letters are shown in a layout in Fig. 7.9 of the Building Performance Study report. The columns on either side of the middle opening where most of the smoke is coming out are 5O and 7O of Wedge 1 (The "O" stands for the letter designating the row of columns forming the external wall between C RING and the AE Drive). There isn't any opening built into the wall between those two columns, therefore, the hole had to have been caused in some other manner.

You have been shown pictures that clearly show a fully framed roll up style door, you can even seen the damaged tracks for the door hardware. The fact that you have retracted your agreement demonstrates without any fear of contradiction that you are either a troll or completely incompetent.

dadeets

4th March 2011, 09:27 AM

I've downloaded your pdf, and I'm looking at the opening between columns 50 and 70. It's so obviously a doorway that I can't fathom how anyone could possibly mistake it for anything else. It's got sharply defined vertical sides, and a sharply defined horizontal top. What exactly is your reason for believing that there was no such doorway?

Dave

Dave,

I am attaching a floor layout. The vertical line of columns passing through the tip of the big arrow consists of those beginning with the number "7". If you go to the top of the layout, the top of the NAVY area is the exterior wall of interest. As you can see, there is no opening between the "7" column and the "5" column, to its left. The room layout adjoining that area also suggests it would make no sense to have a large roll-up door there, in that the room only has a regular door opening into the hall.

Dwain

16.5

4th March 2011, 10:02 AM

Dave,

I am attaching a floor layout. The vertical line of columns passing through the tip of the big arrow consists of those beginning with the number "7". If you go to the top of the layout, the top of the NAVY area is the exterior wall of interest. As you can see, there is no opening between the "7" column and the "5" column, to its left. The room layout adjoining that area also suggests it would make no sense to have a large roll-up door there, in that the room only has a regular door opening into the hall.

Dwain

So you are saying that they framed and equipped something that looked just like an opening for a roll up door while the freaking Pentagon was on fire???

Wow.

http://stevenwarran.blogspot.com/2008/02/pinch-paisley-pentagon-worker-goes-on.html

/by the way, Dwain just posted a graphic that contradicts his newly adopted theory that he got from Russell Pickering. Dwain just might be the worst truther ever.

dadeets

4th March 2011, 06:17 PM

From your link:

Care to explain what the hell he's talking about (considering you're now basing your opinion on this)?

I think he is saying there isn't a mechanism associated with aircraft debris that can create that hole. I can’t think of a mechanism either by which a kinetic energy blob (a mass of airplane parts) could strike a reinforced concrete wall, breaching it in a perfect circle, AND THEN, once thru, be so depleted of energy, that it falls to the ground within 20-30 feet.

I don’t think the Pentagon Building Performance Team could think of any mechanism either. That, I think, is why they were silent on the subject.

beachnut

4th March 2011, 06:40 PM

I think he is saying there isn't a mechanism associated with aircraft debris that can create that hole. I can’t think of a mechanism either by which a kinetic energy blob (a mass of airplane parts) could strike a reinforced concrete wall, breaching it in a perfect circle, AND THEN, once thru, be so depleted of energy, that it falls to the ground within 20-30 feet.

I don’t think the Pentagon Building Performance Team could think of any mechanism either. That, I think, is why they were silent on the subject. What does NASA do to you at retirement?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/carbrickwall2.jpg

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/carbrickwall.jpg

E=1/2MV2 Golly Gee, I found the Mechanism, golly gee, it is ... wait for it... wait...
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1EMC2einstein.jpg

... Yes, Physics. Gee, that was an extremely easy debunk. USAF, AFWAL scores, NASA for 911 truth, zero.

sts60

4th March 2011, 07:52 PM

The idea that rescue crews blasted holes at the Pentagon is just idiotic.

Look, as a volunteer FF, I ride with guys who were at the Pentagon that day. What they did do was shore existing holes, and shore up ceilings, and pull out survivors and pieces of airliner and pieces of airliner passengers. What they didn't do was blast holes in a compromised, burning structure. And, for some reason, that was never part of my rescue training either.

As a (non-volunteer) engineer, I've worked with various NASA engineers, scientists and astronauts. I should point out that most of them weren't delusional. But there's one in every crowd.

16.5

4th March 2011, 07:55 PM

I think he is saying there isn't a mechanism associated with aircraft debris that can create that hole. I can’t think of a mechanism either by which a kinetic energy blob (a mass of airplane parts) could strike a reinforced concrete wall, breaching it in a perfect circle, AND THEN, once thru, be so depleted of energy, that it falls to the ground within 20-30 feet.

I don’t think the Pentagon Building Performance Team could think of any mechanism either. That, I think, is why they were silent on the subject.

And he also starts out saying there is not a straight line between the facade and the hole, and THEN YOU GO AHEAD AND FREAKING POST A FREAKING DIAGRAM THAT SHOWS A STRAIGHT LINE BETWEEN THE FACADE AND PUNCH OUT HOLE.

Seriously Dwain? Have you so utterly and completely abandoned any possible semblance of scientific skepticism that you will regurgitate not just garbage, but garbage that directly contradicts the other garbage that you post?

You traded on your NASA experience, and have proven yourself to be a punchline to a bad joke.

DGM

5th March 2011, 03:37 AM

I think he is saying there isn't a mechanism associated with aircraft debris that can create that hole. I can’t think of a mechanism either by which a kinetic energy blob (a mass of airplane parts) could strike a reinforced concrete wall, breaching it in a perfect circle, AND THEN, once thru, be so depleted of energy, that it falls to the ground within 20-30 feet.

I don’t think the Pentagon Building Performance Team could think of any mechanism either. That, I think, is why they were silent on the subject.
What "reinforced concrete wall" or "24 inch thick steel reinforced, Kevlar mesh "E ring façade"? The hole was punched in a non-reinforced block wall. I suppose it doesn't sound as great to claim a plane couldn't breach a common masonry/limestone block wall, Huh?

Have you actually read the Pentagon Building Performance report?

pgimeno

5th March 2011, 04:50 PM

/by the way, Dwain just posted a graphic that contradicts his newly adopted theory that he got from Russell Pickering. Dwain just might be the worst truther ever.

But didn't Russell Pickering already change his mind about the plane at the Pentagon, after his visit to the place?

http://web.archive.org/web/20061029212125/http://www.pentagonresearch.com/

http://web.archive.org/web/20071006203218/http://www.pentagonresearch.com/

By that date (2007) he was citing Jim Hoffman as a more reliable source about the "problems" with the Pentagon. By the way, Hoffman believes that Flight 77 crashed there in the flight path recorded by the FDR and refers to CIT as "Smoking Crack".

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentacon/index.html

It seems Mr. Deets is going against the current, not to say against the common sense. One would say that he got late to the "truthy train" and is finding difficulties with keeping up. Good thing he has us to help him refine his claims, to take the absolute nonsense part away and leave only the part that is nonsense only after a more careful examination that most people don't bother to do. But I'm sure we'll be in the thanks giving section when he publishes a book.

Pinch

5th March 2011, 08:38 PM

What "reinforced concrete wall" or "24 inch thick steel reinforced, Kevlar mesh "E ring façade"? The hole was punched in a non-reinforced block wall. I suppose it doesn't sound as great to claim a plane couldn't breach a common masonry/limestone block wall, Huh?

Have you actually read the Pentagon Building Performance report?

Deets has no idea what he is talking about. This is what really torques me off about these idiots - if they don't know something, they just make something up.

I would say something about "A NASA dude should know better" but we are way past that. Deets has provenm time an dtime again his own incompetence in these issues and has reinforced the long held belief that incompetence can rise to any level, and at NASA that is definitely the case. The wall that led to the A-E ring road was simple brick and cinder block. I worked there. I walked those hallways and worked in those offices. Dwaine Deets, I would wager, has never done either, so all he can do is make crap up to match his and PfT's crazy stories and hopes and dreams and wishes and speculation.

Reheat

6th March 2011, 05:24 AM

I think he is saying there isn't a mechanism associated with aircraft debris that can create that hole. I can’t think of a mechanism either by which a kinetic energy blob (a mass of airplane parts) could strike a reinforced concrete wall, breaching it in a perfect circle, AND THEN, once thru, be so depleted of energy, that it falls to the ground within 20-30 feet.

I don’t think the Pentagon Building Performance Team could think of any mechanism either. That, I think, is why they were silent on the subject.

Nah, I suspect the Purdue team didn't mention the inner hole because they didn't consider it relevant to anything. Only twoofers ignorant of the kinetic energy effects of an aircraft crash into a building consider it important. Why do you think it is important? Gee, I can't wait for this. :rolleyes:

George152

6th March 2011, 12:05 PM

Dave Rogers

7th March 2011, 02:00 AM

I am attaching a floor layout. The vertical line of columns passing through the tip of the big arrow consists of those beginning with the number "7". If you go to the top of the layout, the top of the NAVY area is the exterior wall of interest. As you can see, there is no opening between the "7" column and the "5" column, to its left.

What is the date of this drawing, and have you satisfied yourself that no alterations were made to the building between the date of preparation of the drawing and the 9/11 attacks? It seems to me that we have two possible hypotheses here: that an opening in the wall was made, either by rescue workers blasting a hole with a wall breaching kit, by overpressure from the airliner impact, or by charges intended to simulate aircraft impact, that had perfectly vertical sides, a perfectly horizontal top, and visible framing; or that the graphic was based on a superseded drawing. Only one of these hypotheses strikes me as sane.

Dave

dadeets

7th March 2011, 09:55 AM

The hole was punched in a non-reinforced block wall.

Have you actually read the Pentagon Building Performance report?

The report says "The perimeter exterior walls of Ring E are faced in limestone and backed with unreinforced brick infilled in the concrete frame. Nearly all remaining exterior walls are 10 in. concrete.The first story at AE Drive is brick infilled in the concrete frame, with no windows." I take the wall in question to be one of the "nearly all remaining exterior walls." It doesn't say if the 10 in. concrete is reinforced or not.

In at least one of the photos of the hole, reinforcing can be seen in the concrete.

Furthermore, an article http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=1 addresses the problem of the reinforcing being too close to the surface of the concrete, and therefore, in need of refurbishment.

WildCat

7th March 2011, 10:04 AM

dadeets

7th March 2011, 10:05 AM

What is the date of this drawing, and have you satisfied yourself that no alterations were made to the building between the date of preparation of the drawing and the 9/11 attacks?

Dave

Although, I haven't located a date, I did find a reference saying they started moving people back into Wedge 1 after the renovation in February 2001.

I would think that would have taken several months. I would think it highly unlikely they would do another move, including adding a roll-up door, in the six months or so leading up to Sep 2001.

Ref: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/pentagon.htm

Dave Rogers

7th March 2011, 10:09 AM

Although, I haven't located a date, I did find a reference saying they started moving people back into Wedge 1 after the renovation in February 2001.

Which says nothing as to the date of the drawing used for the specific graphic you have used.

Dave

WildCat

7th March 2011, 10:18 AM

Although, I haven't located a date, I did find a reference saying they started moving people back into Wedge 1 after the renovation in February 2001.

I would think that would have taken several months. I would think it highly unlikely they would do another move, including adding a roll-up door, in the six months or so leading up to Sep 2001.

Ref: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/pentagon.htm
You don't know anything at all about the construction of the Pentagon, do you?

16.5

7th March 2011, 10:41 AM

You don't know anything at all about the construction of the Pentagon, do you?

Considering he cites as sources CIT, Barbara Hoenniger and Russll Pickering (each of whom completely contradict one another) not only does he not know anything about how the Pentagon was constructed, he knows nothing about the Pentagon, and what he thinks he does know is laughably ridiculously wrong.

dadeets

9th March 2011, 01:48 PM

Which says nothing as to the date of the drawing used for the specific graphic you have used.

Dave

There is a floor plan in the Arlington County Pentagon After-Action Report that agrees with the drawing I used, with respect to the personnel door opening into A-E Drive, as well as the absence of a large roll-up door along that section of the wall.

I might say, I believe the personnel door is shown in the wrong location on both drawings. I've contacted Arlington County Fire Dept. alerting them to this possible error in the After-Action Report.

dadeets

9th March 2011, 02:12 PM

Maybe Mr. Deets is taking as "holes" the doors labeled here as "Single door" and "Roll-up Door":

More relevant pics here: stevenwarran.blogspot.com/2008/02/pinch-paisley-pentagon-worker-goes-on.html

The 4th and 5th photos down are clearly roll-up doors. Note that they have a horizontal beam over them, I think called a lintel beam.

Now, in the 11th photo down showing the large opening in the wall, there isn't a lintel beam. Thus, I would say that is NOT the opening for a roll-up door.

beachnut

9th March 2011, 02:20 PM

16.5

9th March 2011, 03:29 PM

The 4th and 5th photos down are clearly roll-up doors. Note that they have a horizontal beam over them, I think called a lintel beam.

Now, in the 11th photo down showing the large opening in the wall, there isn't a lintel beam. Thus, I would say that is NOT the opening for a roll-up door.

And you are basing that on photos taken after the reconstruction? Wow. You sure you are a scientist?

When you called Arlington County Fire Dept, did you ask them how they managed to install a nicely framed, perfectly square opening in the wall while the building was on fire? I'm sure that would have went over like gangbusters, huh Dwain?

pgimeno

9th March 2011, 06:00 PM

Here's a better resolution copy:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_j1WCY4T_2yI/RkpZmGPC6AI/AAAAAAAAA5M/rb-MAVUpYVQ/s1600-h/alley+shot++3.jpg

I have to admit that there seem to be bricks on the floor, and no trace of a roll-up door.

excaza

10th March 2011, 06:27 AM

You don't know anything at all about the construction of the Pentagon, do you?

I wonder if he knows how many sides there are?

Drs_Res

10th March 2011, 06:48 AM

I wonder if he knows how many sides there are?

It's obvious, there are 2.

Inside and Outside. :duck:

Reheat

10th March 2011, 07:03 AM

I wonder if he knows how many sides there are?

It's obvious, there are 2.

Inside and Outside. :duck:

Good gracious, are you people trying to deceive someone? You must examine all of the evidence to reach a proper conclusion. If you are lying on your back there are two more.......top and bottom. That makes a total of 4 sides, not 2. Geesh, the audacity of ssssome people! :D

dadeets

15th March 2011, 11:53 AM

I have to admit that there seem to be bricks on the floor, and no trace of a roll-up door.

To put this is a larger context, here are four troubling points concerning the Pentagon Building Performance Report:

It contains materials out of scope and not even a part of their study, given the team comprised of building professionals. i.e., anything about an airplane. The team was not given access to the premises (other than a very cursory inspection by the chairman) until anything and everything that may have been involved in the cause of the damage was removed.
It is inconsistent in what it presented, in that it does not show some notable things (such as the large hole in the wall between South column lines 5 and 7 opening onto A-E Drive), whereas it shows a somewhat similar large hole between North column lines 5 and 7. (Note: the South column lines are in Wedge 1, and the North column lines are in Wedge 2.)
It offers no explanation as to cause of the large hole between North column lines 5 and 7. (If they weren’t going to offer an explanation, why show the hole in the first place?)
It makes no mention of the fire and, one would think, structural damage in RING B.

Locknar

15th March 2011, 08:08 PM

The post below caused this thread to hang and had to be deleted; below is the text as posted. My apologies to Beachnut for having to delete the post in question.

To put this is a larger context, here are four troubling points concerning the Pentagon Building Performance Report:

It contains materials out of scope and not even a part of their study, given the team comprised of building professionals. i.e., anything about an airplane. The team was not given access to the premises (other than a very cursory inspection by the chairman) until anything and everything that may have been involved in the cause of the damage was removed. ...
A big lie. Why do you tell lies? Do you hate your fellow government employees and other people enough to make up this claptrap?

Volumes of information exist regarding the original construction of the Pentagon and its current renovation.The Pentagon Renovation Program Office assisted the BPS team in accessing the essential data for the purpose of this study. http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/art017.html http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/11PentagonPer.jpg
You made up nonsense. Why?
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/art017.html

The BPS team’s analysis of the Pentagon and the damage resulting from the attack was conducted between September 2001 and April 2002. The members of the BPS team inspected the site as soon as was possible without interfering with the rescue and recovery operations.

You said The team was not given access to the premises Not true.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, as part of a terrorist action involving four hijacked aircraft, a commercial airliner was crashed into the Pentagon.That afternoon the American Society of Civil Engineers established a building performance study (BPS) team of volunteers to examine the structural performance of the building in this catastrophe. This study follows a similar examination of the April 19, 1995, bombing of the Murrah Federal Office Building, in Oklahoma City, and parallels a study of the September 11 World Trade Center terrorist attack.
The purpose of the study was to examine the performance of the structure in the crash and the subsequent fire for the benefit of the building professions and the public.This does not imply that buildings should be expected to survive such events. However, this examination of the Pentagon reveals some useful information about the ability of structures to survive extreme forces.
In fact, the Pentagon structure survived this extraordinary event better than would be expected. Observations comparing and contrasting the construction of the Pentagon to current standards are made where they are pertinent to the observed behavior. Recommendations are also made for studies that could lead to an increased understanding of such phenomena.

The fact is 77 impacted the Pentagon and the building performace was not to verify that fact. The DNA is all over the Pentagon. Your claims are fantasy.

... It makes no mention of the fire...

From the report...
...
they investigated the residual frame capacity and the structural response to the fire.

... Gerald Haynes, P.E. Fire Protection Engineer ...

...
6.2 Fire Damage............................................ .......41 ...

...
One hundred eighty-nine persons were killed and
a portion of the building was damaged by the associated impact, deflagration, and fire ...

Team members possess expertise in structural, fire, and forensic engineering. ...

Thermal analyses showed that the ensuing fire could have sufficiently weakened some damaged frame members to result in collapse within an hour of initiation. ...

The ensuing fire weakened a number of other structural elements. ...

Long T. Phan, Ph.D., P.E. -
Specialty: concrete structural and fire engineering ...

The purpose of the study was to examine the performance of the structure in the crash and the subsequent fire ...

The impact and the fire initiated by the fuel in the airplane that immediately spread widely in the structure took the lives of all 64 people aboard the aircraft and 125 occupants of the Pentagon. ...

Over 100 more references to fire http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/art017.html

And you worked for NASA? Now you are reduced to a anti-government paranoid conspiracy theorist spreading false information.

... anything about an airplane. ...
Oops, an airplane and fire did the damage.

The Boeing 757 approached the west wall of the Pentagon from
the southwest at approximately 780 ft/s.As it approached the Pentagon
site it was so low to the ground that it reportedly clipped an
antenna on a vehicle on an adjacent road and severed light posts.
When it was approximately 320 ft from the west wall of the building
(0.42 second before impact), it was flying nearly level, only a
few feet above the ground (figures 3.2 and 3.13, the latter an aerial
photograph modified graphically to show the approaching aircraft).
The aircraft flew over the grassy area next to the Pentagon
until its right wing struck a piece of construction equipment that
was approximately 100 to 110 ft from the face of the building (0.10
second before impact (figure 3.14). At that time the aircraft had
rolled slightly to the left, its right wing elevated.After the plane had
traveled approximately another 75 ft, the left engine struck the

dadeets

16th March 2011, 08:58 AM

Locknar "... It makes no mention of the fire..."

You took this out of context. Please include the all important ending words, "...in RING B."

tfk

16th March 2011, 11:19 AM

Mr. Deets,

I think he is saying there isn't a mechanism associated with aircraft debris that can create that hole. I can’t think of a mechanism either by which a kinetic energy blob (a mass of airplane parts) could strike a reinforced concrete wall, breaching it in a perfect circle, AND THEN, once thru, be so depleted of energy, that it falls to the ground within 20-30 feet.

You suffer from a paradoxical, oxymoronic condition, Dwain. (With an extra helping of "dull".)

At one & the same time, you exhibit a deplorable excess of imagination (where the ability to control it would serve you well), AND an equally deplorable lack of imagination (where a functioning one would serve you well).

For any competent engineer, this combination would be professionally fatal. Which means it'd push the owner from being a real engineer into being a "PowerPoint dweeb", Dwain.

Gee, I kinda like that alliteration…

First, your misplaced overactive imagination:

… breaching it in a perfect circle ...

Here's the hole.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=638&pictureid=4384

The "perfect circle" is all in your overactive imagination, Dwain…

There ain't nothing "perfect" about it. It is exactly as "imperfect" as one would expect from an energetic collision.

All of the pieces & parts failed along weak points. That means that the row of bricks at the top of the hole failed along a straight line. Circles, especially "perfect" ones, don't have flat, horizontal tops & jagged edges, Dwain.

You'd do well to not confuse smoke discoloration for a "hole".
___

… I take the wall in question to be one of the "nearly all remaining exterior walls." It doesn't say if the 10 in. concrete is reinforced or not.

Engineers don't need others telling them what to think. They open their eyes, look at the evidence & decide for themselves.

BTW, since "rebar" means "reinforced bar", the patently obvious rebar sticking out of the concrete in the photo above proves that the concrete at this point was, in fact, "reinforced". Regardless of "what anyone said" about the matter.

Presumably you've actually looked at (at least once) the single most important image that pertains to this "gotcha" that you're going on about…?!

The rebar didn't help it any, of course. Nor does it change the following comments in the slightest.
___

Now, for your dearth of imagination...

I can’t think of a mechanism either by which a kinetic energy blob (a mass of airplane parts) could strike a reinforced concrete wall, breaching it in a perfect circle, AND THEN, once thru, be so depleted of energy, that it falls to the ground within 20-30 feet.

Most people, even non-engineers, could easily think of at least 2 mechanisms.

1. Assume It takes kinetic energy E1 to break thru the E ring wall. Assume further that it takes kinetic energy E2 to break thru the next inner wall.

Any mass of debris with an energy above E1 but less than E1 + E2 will break thru the first wall but not the second.

Or, the more likely scenario…

2. Assume that a single massive piece of debris alone has sufficient energy to breach the wall, perhaps assisted by an overpressure from detonating fuel in a semi-confined space. This would provide an exit hole, and any additional debris that happened to arrive at that hole with even a tiny amount of energy would simply & easily pass thru the hole.

And with little energy, all that debris would very likely "fall to the ground within 20-30 feet."

Gee, that wasn't so hard, was it...?

See, Dwain, sometimes a working imagination (tempered by a rigid subservience to objective evidence) is a tremendous asset.

Sometime a vivid, unrestrained imagination is a huge liability.

You seem to have yours installed backward.
___

I don’t think the Pentagon Building Performance Team could think of any mechanism either.

Nah. They weren't as incompetent as some NASA bureaucratic dweebs.

tfk

BasqueArch

16th March 2011, 12:19 PM

I think he is saying there isn't a mechanism associated with aircraft debris that can create that hole. I can’t think of a mechanism either by which a kinetic energy blob (a mass of airplane parts) could strike a reinforced concrete wall, breaching it in a perfect circle, AND THEN, once thru, be so depleted of energy, that it falls to the ground within 20-30 feet.

I don’t think the Pentagon Building Performance Team could think of any mechanism either. That, I think, is why they were silent on the subject.

That's your problem right there.
An over 100 ton airplane traveling at high speed damages the walls it hits. Pieces of it and passengers were found inside.

"The preponderance of CIT’s own evidence in fact supports the conclusion that the plane impacted the Pentagon." -Gage
As a member of AE911truth, have you informed Gage that he's part of the Conspiracy.

16.5

16th March 2011, 06:33 PM

To put this is a larger context, here are four troubling points concerning the Pentagon Building Performance Report:

It makes no mention of the fire and, one would think, structural damage in RING B.
[/LIST]

Someone does not know how to read the "scope" section of a technical article.

NASA Engineer?

Anyway, waiting for the explanation why you believe three contradictory theories about the Pentagon... CIT, Babs, and Russ.

A W Smith

22nd March 2011, 07:48 PM

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=638&pictureid=4384

BTW, since "rebar" means "reinforced bar", the patently obvious rebar sticking out of the concrete in the photo above proves that the concrete at this point was, in fact, "reinforced". Regardless of "what anyone said" about the matter.

Presumably you've actually looked at (at least once) the single most important image that pertains to this "gotcha" that you're going on about…?!

The rebar didn't help it any, of course. Nor does it change the following comments in the slightest.
___

That may not be reinforced concrete, Looks to me like a wire lath and cold rolled channel plaster system standing off the two wythes of the limestone brick wall. Which was common in buildings built in the forties. check the illustration on page 5 showing a typical wire lath and cold rolled channel stud partition.
http://www.nationalgypsum.com/literature/gypsumconstructionguide/LathPlaster.pdf

There would be no need to harden an interior ring wall.

Dragon37

22nd March 2011, 08:14 PM

You would be surprised at what a pressure wave will do. I washed my car on a cold day and parked out front of my building. A few hours later I went outside to drive to my job. I opened my car door and then realized I forgot something inside. When I shut my door my back windshield blew out. There was a almost perfectly round hole at almost dead centre and the glass was blown out 3-4 feet. The only thing that I could think of is that when I had washed my car earlier that very cold night I had changed the pressure inside when I opened the door the pressure rose quickly and when I shut the door it forced that pressure directly out the back windshield. So am I surprised that a pressure wave could blast out a large hole in a brick wall? Nope.

If you are wanting me to think that that hole is from a missile? lol that is one hell of a big missile and if it had enough thrust to burst through that wall then why did it not keep right on going to the wall opposite and explode in the opposite wing of the Pentagon?

16.5

22nd March 2011, 08:15 PM

Someone does not know how to read the "scope" section of a technical article.

NASA Engineer?

Anyway, waiting for the explanation why you believe three contradictory theories about the Pentagon... CIT, Babs, and Russ.

bump

tfk

22nd March 2011, 08:59 PM

That may not be reinforced concrete, Looks to me like a wire lath and cold rolled channel plaster system standing off the two wythes of the limestone brick wall. Which was common in buildings built in the forties. check the illustration on page 5 showing a typical wire lath and cold rolled channel stud partition.
http://www.nationalgypsum.com/literature/gypsumconstructionguide/LathPlaster.pdf

There would be no need to harden an interior ring wall.

Thanks.

It does look like it's really close to the surface.

I'll defer to anybody with appropriate construction experience.

I'll stand by my point that, given photos like the one posted, consultation with an experienced construction worker, especially one knowledgeable about the construction techniques of (whenever this section was built) should be sufficient to determine the issue.

BTW, I don't believe that there was any reason to reinforce my patio & carport, but when the concrete guys did the prep work, they used a ton of rebar. I figured that putting the concrete in residual compression reduced cracking. I really figured that I hired professionals & I should let them do their job without 2nd guessing.

They did a great job.

dadeets

26th March 2011, 05:01 PM

Mr. Deets,

You suffer from a paradoxical, oxymoronic condition, Dwain. (With an extra helping of "dull".)

tfk,

This analysis is based on the assumption, that for any impacting airplane, the leading parts of the airplane would take out primary building structure, opening a path for other airplane parts following from further back. These following parts will continue on until they strike some primary structure deeper into the Pentagon. By noting the placement of columns that remained standing, these can establish the points at which aircraft parts couldn’t have continued along the paths they were on.

This analysis traces parallel straight-line paths, approximately 6’ feet apart. Each path begins at the external face of the E-Ring across the area approximately 96-feet wide on the 1st floor where columns are missing. A set of 15 parallel paths are drawn at 1-degree increments over a representative range, measured as the included angle to the normal to the Pentagon external face.

The paths are projected into the Pentagon until encountering a remaining column as documented in the Pentagon Building Performance Report.

In those cases where a path touches an edge of a column for the first time, the path is continued on with the assumption the column did not deflect an aircraft part. However, if the path continues on and again touches the edge of another column, but this time, the column is on the opposite side of the path, the path was stopped at that point. The rationale for doing this is, should the aircraft part be slightly deflected at the point where the path touches the first column, the deflection of the continuing path would be in the direction to more solidly strike the second column.

The second figure shows the penetration path for 40 degrees, the angle of greatest possible penetration. This penetration would be about 86% of the way to the wall. (Insufficient to reach the wall.)

The first figure shows the maximum penetration for a range of angles, where penetration is measured along those paths that could reach the “exit” hole, had they not been stopped by a column.

Consequently, there is no mechanism by which aircraft parts can pass through the columns, assuming the columns that remained standing were also standing when the alleged aircraft parts came their way.

16.5

26th March 2011, 09:06 PM

tfk,

This analysis is based on the assumption, that for any impacting airplane, the leading parts of the airplane would take out primary building structure, opening a path for other airplane parts following from further back. These following parts will continue on until they strike some primary structure deeper into the Pentagon. By noting the placement of columns that remained standing, these can establish the points at which aircraft parts couldn’t have continued along the paths they were on.

This analysis traces parallel straight-line paths, approximately 6’ feet apart. Each path begins at the external face of the E-Ring across the area approximately 96-feet wide on the 1st floor where columns are missing. A set of 15 parallel paths are drawn at 1-degree increments over a representative range, measured as the included angle to the normal to the Pentagon external face.

The paths are projected into the Pentagon until encountering a remaining column as documented in the Pentagon Building Performance Report.

In those cases where a path touches an edge of a column for the first time, the path is continued on with the assumption the column did not deflect an aircraft part. However, if the path continues on and again touches the edge of another column, but this time, the column is on the opposite side of the path, the path was stopped at that point. The rationale for doing this is, should the aircraft part be slightly deflected at the point where the path touches the first column, the deflection of the continuing path would be in the direction to more solidly strike the second column.

The second figure shows the penetration path for 40 degrees, the angle of greatest possible penetration. This penetration would be about 86% of the way to the wall. (Insufficient to reach the wall.)

The first figure shows the maximum penetration for a range of angles, where penetration is measured along those paths that could reach the “exit” hole, had they not been stopped by a column.

Consequently, there is no mechanism by which aircraft parts can pass through the columns, assuming the columns that remained standing were also standing when the alleged aircraft parts came their way.

Wow this is an idiotic analysis. Dwain, knowing that you know literally nothing about the Pentagon, from where did you get this No Planers idiocy?

Reheat

26th March 2011, 09:24 PM

dadeets

26th March 2011, 09:44 PM

Wow this is an idiotic analysis. Dwain, knowing that you know literally nothing about the Pentagon, from where did you get this No Planers idiocy?

This isn't a no planer argument, it is a "no plane parts reached the C-Ring wall during an impact into the Pentagon" argument. If plane parts are photographed out side the wall (in A-E Drive), then someone moved them there.

Mel Odious

26th March 2011, 10:31 PM

Consequently, there is no mechanism by which aircraft parts can pass through the columns, assuming the columns that remained standing were also standing when the alleged aircraft parts came their way.

Well, do say!

How did all of this stuff get there?

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/00Pentdebris.jpg

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/070-large.jpg

This isn't a no planer argument, it is a "no plane parts reached the C-Ring wall during an impact into the Pentagon" argument. If plane parts are photographed out side the wall (in A-E Drive), then someone moved them there.

Wait a minute, I'm not following this.

Dadeets, are you saying that a plane actually hit the Pentagon, but then they (whoever that is) not only used serruptitious means to damage other parts of the building but also moved large amounts of plane wreckage from where it was to locations where, according to you, it could not have ended up? For reasons unknown and with nobody noticing, of course.

Is this some sort of psychological stress test?

Reheat

27th March 2011, 06:00 AM

Is this some sort of psychological stress test?

If it is someone failed! Who? :D:D

What we need about now is Ryan Mackey to summarize Dadeets position on all this stuff similar to the summary he did on CIT awhile back. This one should be just as hilarious. Ryan does it quite well, better than anyone else I've seen.

On the other hand, we could continue this into other areas, shortly to have a best selling......

Joke Book! http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1840746c1f10359a41.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7720)

RedIbis

27th March 2011, 07:36 AM

Well, do say!

How did all of this stuff get there?

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/00Pentdebris.jpg

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/070-large.jpg

Well, there is a bobcat sitting right there.

Reheat

27th March 2011, 07:54 AM

How did all of this stuff get there?

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/00Pentdebris.jpg

Well, there is a bobcat sitting right there.

My gosh, the dumb bastards done and went and incriminated themselves! I'll bet that's the same skid loader that Rummy used to load the 2.3 trillion missing DoD $$.

Red has solved the case. Bring on the Keystone cops to arrest the guilty culprits. Case solved and Red is the hero.....:D:D:D:D:D

RedIbis

27th March 2011, 08:17 AM

My gosh, the dumb bastards done and went and incriminated themselves! I'll bet that's the same skid loader that Rummy used to load the 2.3 trillion missing DoD $$.

Red has solved the case. Bring on the Keystone cops to arrest the guilty culprits. Case solved and Red is the hero.....:D:D:D:D:D

Ask a stupid question, get an obvious answer.

16.5

27th March 2011, 08:43 AM

Ask a stupid question, get an obvious answer.

Stupidly interpret a question, get an even stupider answer.

Red, I think he meant how did the parts of the plane get into the Pentagon in the first place?

Hell, how did the DNA of the passengers of Flight 77 get in the Pentagon?

Thanks for the thread, as soon as your NASA engineer went full No Planer, that is when the LULZ started! I particularly like his new SIX FOOT WIDE COLUMN theory. hee hee.

tfk

27th March 2011, 12:20 PM

Dwain,

Stick to powerpoint presentations to upper management.

You got no aptitude for real-world engineering.

This analysis is based on the assumption...

Consequently, there is no mechanism by which aircraft parts can pass through the columns, assuming the columns that remained standing were also standing when the alleged aircraft parts came their way.

I wrote out a point-by-point rebuttal to this bunch of silliness.

And then scrapped it. There wasn't anything worthy of serious consideration.

There are, I'm certain, ways to produce simplified, reasonable analyses of the penetrating capacity of the airplane into the Pentagon.

The analyses done by NIST & Purdue for the WTC towers impacts are examples of (not simplified but) competent techniques.

I am absolutely certain that meaningful analyses do not include assumptions that:

... the plane is made up of 0.1" wide swathes of material separated by 6'.
... jets of material that hit surfaces of the columns at about 45 degrees simply stop at that surface.
... "deflected" material loses all of its kinetic energy.
... all the components of an airplane that undergoes massive destruction in a cheese grater coulumn structure continue to travel in perfectly straight lines.

The debris behaves like a wave, Dwain. Not a bunch of indestructible lines at 6' spacing.

BasqueArch

27th March 2011, 04:22 PM

This isn't a no planer argument, it is a "no plane parts reached the C-Ring wall during an impact into the Pentagon" argument. If plane parts are photographed out side the wall (in A-E Drive), then someone moved them there.

Wait a minute, I'm not following this.

Dadeets, are you saying that a plane actually hit the Pentagon, but then they (whoever that is) not only used serruptitious means to damage other parts of the building but also moved large amounts of plane wreckage from where it was to locations where, according to you, it could not have ended up? For reasons unknown and with nobody noticing, of course.

Is this some sort of psychological stress test?

Unbecredible.
I thought it was illegal to torture reason.

ozeco41

27th March 2011, 05:10 PM

Dwain,

Stick to powerpoint presentations to upper management.

You got no aptitude for real-world engineering....
What about the aptitude for digging deeper and deeper into the same hole till he disappears from sight. ;)

excaza

28th March 2011, 03:49 AM

Hell, how did the DNA of the passengers of Flight 77 get in the Pentagon?

I dunno, I frequently move DNA around with a Bobcat. You're telling me there's a better way?

dadeets

1st April 2011, 04:24 PM

I am absolutely certain that meaningful analyses do not include assumptions that:

... the plane is made up of 0.1" wide swathes of material separated by 6'.

That is not the assumption. A typical swath would be the space between two of these parallel lines. I gave the distance inward the swath could travel the benefit of the doubt, assigning it the distance of the longest of the two lines on either side of the swath. I also observed, but didn't draw out, that if the swathes were 3' wide, the distance inward would not in general increase.

... jets of material that hit surfaces of the columns at about 45 degrees simply stop at that surface.

No, I didn't draw any deflection lines because it would over complicate the illustration. In this case, my assumption is the parts along that swath would deflect away from the "hole" area, and eventually come to rest.

... "deflected" material loses all of its kinetic energy.

No, its kinetic energy would be vectored in a different direction, but no longer toward the "hole" area.

... all the components of an airplane that undergoes massive destruction in a cheese grater coulumn structure continue to travel in perfectly straight lines.

No, I'm assuming other parts that were further forward in the airplane did battle with the cheese grater column structure, and took some of it out. This cleared the way for parts from further aft to sale past the area were the up-front columns were nocked out.

The debris behaves like a wave, Dwain.

To some degree it behaves like a wave, but to another degree, it behaves like individual items. This, I'm assuming, is after individual items have broken away from their mountings. If you believe the Pentagon Building Performance Report on the matter of the FDR, they say it was found just in front of, and to the side of the "Exit" hole. In that case, it would have been an item that traveled through rows of standing columns. I don't believe it traveled that far, as my analysis suggests none of the loose items traveled that far.

WildCat

1st April 2011, 04:37 PM

I don't believe it traveled that far, as my analysis suggests none of the loose items traveled that far.
Your analysis has all the credibility of a chain letter promising a free laptop from Bill Gates if you pass it on.

You know this of course, that's why you don't even try to get your "analysis" published in a real science journal.

beachnut

1st April 2011, 08:43 PM

... I don't believe it traveled that far, as my analysis suggests none of the loose items traveled that far.
You failed to mention the energy of impact and present differential equation to back up your opinion. Where is your math, where is your physics, where is your proof? Now you know Flight 77 with all souls on board came to end in the Pentagon flown by a terrorist. You are arguing about Flight 77's impact; is this ironic or what? Bet it is, or what.

You will need to run the numbers. When do you think that will be?

RADAR, DNA, FDR, and more proves Flight 77 did the damage to the Pentagon. Got to love the USA, we all have the RADAR data, the FDR data, FDR data raw, and more; Beats being beat up in Libya for reporting on the mess. Why did you turn on your country after working for NASA?

dadeets

1st April 2011, 09:01 PM

You are arguing about Flight 77's impact; is this ironic or what?

My bad. I forgot to say alleged Flight 77 impact.

RADAR, DNA, FDR, and more proves Flight 77 did the damage to the Pentagon. Got to love the USA, we all have the RADAR data, the FDR data, FDR data raw, and more

RADAR: Primary radar doesn't provide sufficient accuracy at that low an altitude.

DNA: Pass

FDR: No information provided connecting it to either Flight 77 or the fleet. Also, the time of day associated with the alleged crash is off by about 6 minutes from a sizable set of independent information indicating a 9:32 AM explosive event.

Why did you turn on your country after working for NASA?

I don't consider pressing for correct facts to be turning on my country. I'm doing it on behalf of the American people.

beachnut

1st April 2011, 09:16 PM

My bad. I forgot to say alleged Flight 77 impact.

RADAR: Primary radar doesn't provide sufficient accuracy at that low an altitude.

DNA: Pass

FDR: No information provided connecting it to either Flight 77 or the fleet. Also, the time of day associated with the alleged crash is off by about 6 minutes from a sizable set of independent information indicating a 9:32 AM explosive event.

I don't consider pressing for correct facts to be turning on my country. I'm doing it on behalf of the American people.
With RADAR and physics, the only place 77 could be is in the Pentagon. You failed to do the math. ... the FDR backs up RADAR, and the DNA from the passengers is exactly where it would be in a kinetic energy impact.

Connecting the dots for Flight 77 is easy, even NASA personnel have done it.

I find it amazing Bigfoot believers have the exact same evidence as 911 truth has. Coincidence or a NWO plot?

FDR is from 77, and you can't prove otherwise as you prop up a failed movement of lies made up by anti-government drugged up kids, CIT. Are you trying to say the NTSB, the military and others faked the FDR? lied? What do your NASA buddies say about your anti-government ideas on 911?

Do you intentionally spread false information and bring shame on NASA? What is your goal? Did you have these crazy claims while you were working at NASA?

Where is the math to support your claims? What is your next step to expose what would be a giant Pulitzer Prize story?

16.5

2nd April 2011, 07:12 AM

dadeets

2nd April 2011, 11:00 AM

... the FDR backs up RADAR, and the DNA from the passengers is exactly where it would be in a kinetic energy impact.

The FDR should not be used to back up RADAR because the FDR is not reliable. Period.

RE: The DNA -- "FBI agents rode in the trucks, participating in the escort, and accompanied the remains during the flight to protect the chain of custody." (In reference to the helicopter flight with the victims remains from Davison Army Airfield to Dover -- After-Action Report on the Response to September 11 Attack on the Pentagon, C-45).

This is the FBI associated with the PENTTBOM case. FBI personnel associated with the PENTTBOM also testified at the Zacarias Moussaoui Trial that the only call made by Barbara Olson on Flight 77 lasted ZERO seconds. This demonstrates the FBI associated with the PENTTBOM case have been willing to withhold from the public information unfavorable to the Official Story until they are placed in the position of having to testify under oath. It's only prudent to assume the FBI may not have been trustworthy in their task of protecting the chain of custody during that flight to Dover.

DGM

2nd April 2011, 11:04 AM

The FDR should not be used to back up RADAR because the FDR is not reliable. Period.

RE: The DNA -- "FBI agents rode in the trucks, participating in the escort, and accompanied the remains during the flight to protect the chain of custody." (In reference to the helicopter flight with the victims remains from Davison Army Airfield to Dover -- After-Action Report on the Response to September 11 Attack on the Pentagon, C-45).

This is the FBI associated with the PENTTBOM case. FBI personnel associated with the PENTTBOM also testified at the Zacarias Moussaoui Trial that the only call made by Barbara Olson on Flight 77 lasted ZERO seconds. This demonstrates the FBI associated with the PENTTBOM case have been willing to withhold from the public information unfavorable to the Official Story until they are placed in the position of having to testify under oath. It's only prudent to assume the FBI may not have been trustworthy in their task of protecting the chain of custody during that flight to Dover.
Wouldn't that be the only cell phone call she made?

:rolleyes:

W.D.Clinger

2nd April 2011, 11:53 AM

The FDR should not be used to back up RADAR because the FDR is not reliable. Period.
Proof by punctuation: Ipse dixit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit).

16.5

2nd April 2011, 12:07 PM

The FDR should not be used to back up RADAR because the FDR is not reliable. Period.

RE: The DNA -- "FBI agents rode in the trucks, participating in the escort, and accompanied the remains during the flight to protect the chain of custody." (In reference to the helicopter flight with the victims remains from Davison Army Airfield to Dover -- After-Action Report on the Response to September 11 Attack on the Pentagon, C-45).

This is the FBI associated with the PENTTBOM case. FBI personnel associated with the PENTTBOM also testified at the Zacarias Moussaoui Trial that the only call made by Barbara Olson on Flight 77 lasted ZERO seconds. This demonstrates the FBI associated with the PENTTBOM case have been willing to withhold from the public information unfavorable to the Official Story until they are placed in the position of having to testify under oath. It's only prudent to assume the FBI may not have been trustworthy in their task of protecting the chain of custody during that flight to Dover.

Ahhh, I see, you are doing it for the American Public, and the "it" I assume is proving that the truth movement is loaded with incompetents.

beachnut

2nd April 2011, 12:13 PM

The FDR should not be used to back up RADAR because the FDR is not reliable. Period.

... The DNA is solid! Good for you.
The Jimmy Fetzer method of proof; if he says it is so, it is so.

No study to go with the false statement, "the FDR is not reliable".
Where is your study showing the FDR is not reliable? Is your study, your source as pithy as, "Period.".

ON Phone Calls, The FBI really says they don't know which of the FOUR, as in 4, phone calls connected were from Barbara Olson.

Why do you twist information and not present all the evidence. Guess what the FBI found of the 4 calls? Find it on line, real research.
We have 102 seconds, 274 seconds, 159 seconds, and 260 seconds of connnected phone calls. Who were they from? "all family members of the Flight 77 passengers and crew were canvassed to see if they had received any phone calls from the hijacked flight, and only Renee May’s parents and Ted Olson indicated that they had received such calls". OOPS for 911 truth!
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/American_Airlines_Flight_77_Calls
Your Zero second scenario is cherry picking, leaving out the truth, misleading, using information from other 911 truth sources that is incomplete. Why not go with Fetzer, he says all the calls were fake. Go tell the families. When will you take action on your poorly defined fantasy conspiracy theories based on shoddy incomplete research?

MikeW

2nd April 2011, 12:21 PM

FBI personnel associated with the PENTTBOM also testified at the Zacarias Moussaoui Trial that the only call made by Barbara Olson on Flight 77 lasted ZERO seconds.
Ah, you've fallen for the usual truther deceptions. How unfortunate.

I don't suppose any of the people who fed you this misleading garbage pointed out the stipulation to the Moussaoui trial that specifically referred to the Olson calls, did they?

At 9:15 a.m. and at 9:26 a.m., Flight 77 passenger Barbara Olson called her husband, Ted Olson, and spoke to him for about one minute before the call was cut off. Barbara Olson reported that the flight had been hijacked by hijackers wielding knives and box cutters and that all the passengers were in the back of the plane.

At 9:20 a.m. and 9:31 a.m., Barbara Olson again called and spoke to her husband, Ted Olson. She reported that the pilot had announced that the flight had been hijacked. Ted Olson asked Barbara her location, and she replied that the plane was flying over houses. Ted Olson told his wife of the two previous hijackings and crashes.
http://cryptome.org/usa-v-zm-030706-02.htm

The Olson calls were specifically referenced and accepted by both the prosecution and the defence. There is no "change of story" here, and the government is not now saying that the calls weren't made.

ETA: too slow! Good job, beachnut.

Oystein

3rd April 2011, 03:03 AM

...
DNA: Pass
...

In Oystein's Thesaurus of the North American Language (2011 revised edition), this translates to
1. handwave
2. dodge
3. deny
4. Put hands over eyes and sing "LALALALALAAAA"

Oystein

3rd April 2011, 03:07 AM

...you refuse to address the DNA evidence,yet claim that you are "doing it for the America people"?

Certainly not doing it on behalf of the passengers on flight 77, huh Dwain?

Yeah, my thoughts exactly. I haven't followed Mr. Deets or his cohorts at the Balasmo asylum closely; do they claim to be defending the interests of the victims anywhere, by any chance?

Oystein

3rd April 2011, 03:12 AM

The FDR should not be used to back up RADAR because the FDR is not reliable. Period.

In Oystein's Thesaurus of the North American Language (2011 revised edition), this translates to

1. I have no idea why
2. Don't ask for evidence. I received a Revelation (possibly from god)
3. Any evidence that disproves my foregone conclusion is inadmissible

Ok, Mr. Deets - what is your reason for dismissing the FDR data? I'd expect you to not use your preferred conclusion as premise.

...
It's only prudent to assume the FBI may not have been trustworthy in their task of protecting the chain of custody during that flight to Dover.

The entire FBI? All 7000 agents assignet to PENTBOMB?
How large do you allow conspiracies to blow until even you would expect the first blow of a whistle?

Oystein

3rd April 2011, 03:34 AM

...
The Olson calls were specifically referenced and accepted by both the prosecution and the defence...

To be honest, since neither Moussaoui nor his defence were there on the plane with Barbara Olson, nor with Ted Olson at the Justice Department, they can't know of their own if and how Barabara called Ted. They, too, just believed the FBI statements. However, they apparently saw no reason to doubt them, and Moussaoui clearly testifies to the fact that 19 islamist hijackers had planned to crash 4 planes into high-profile buildings.

BasqueArch

3rd April 2011, 04:29 AM

The FDR should not be used to back up RADAR because the FDR is not reliable. Period.

...

FDR and RADAR for Flight 77 stops at the Pentagon, dozens of witnesses see the plane hit the building, parts from the plane litter the site, the passenger's DNA is found inside. This is "not reliable" but your double standard unquantified, unevidenced sly opinion that flight 77 did not hit the building is "reliable"?

Why don't you stop wasting our time and confess that you're a Truther, and that you won't be persuaded by the evidence that contradicts what you wish to Believe.

pgimeno

3rd April 2011, 05:49 AM

FBI personnel associated with the PENTTBOM also testified at the Zacarias Moussaoui Trial that the only call made by Barbara Olson on Flight 77 lasted ZERO seconds.

No, they didn't. They showed that the record of calls made from AA77 included one call attempt from Barbara Olson which failed probably because the card didn't work or have credit, and four connected calls to unknown numbers which were believed to be done through a collect call service, as the witnesses told it happened with the Barbara Olson calls.

But you're welcome to show me wrong: bring your evidence that the FBI testified such thing. It should be very easy for you to find the quote.

Why would you make such a blatantly false statement is beyond me.

MikeW

3rd April 2011, 11:12 AM

To be honest, since neither Moussaoui nor his defence were there on the plane with Barbara Olson, nor with Ted Olson at the Justice Department, they can't know of their own if and how Barabara called Ted.
Sure, but I wasn't trying to say otherwise, more just respond to the idea that the FBI testified Barbara Olson didn't make those calls, by pointing out that they remain such a key part of the case that they're included in the stipulation. (A stipulation that was read into the record by the main FBI case officer who testified at the trial, as per my link.)

R.Mackey

3rd April 2011, 12:23 PM

Yeah, my thoughts exactly. I haven't followed Mr. Deets or his cohorts at the Balasmo asylum closely; do they claim to be defending the interests of the victims anywhere, by any chance?

You can estimate the sincerity of such claims by the amount of actual work and positive results they've accomplished. Sure, all the Truthers claim to be harassing people, spreading lies and rumors, and making the occasional threat out of concern for "the victims," even though said victims have never supported them...

... but it's garbage. Earlier in this thread I challenged Mr. Deets to describe actual research he'd done. Turns out he hasn't even filed a single FOIA request. I suppose we should thank him for restricting his lunacy to the interior of his house, but it demonstrates quite clearly how his interest is little more than defiant, paranoid dogma.

It's an excuse. It's no different than murderous animals in Afghanistan slaughtering aid workers and claiming they only did it because some jackass in the USA burned a Koran at some point a month ago. The two things really are not connected. Truthers simply decided, some consciously and some due to mental problems, that they want to believe and act a certain way, and any old excuse will do. When you get right down to it, that's all the Truth Movement is: A complex network of excuses. No evidence, no science, no progress, no goal, just excuses.

Pretty sad.

Orphia Nay

4th April 2011, 11:36 PM

DNA PASS? Are you serious? As pathetic as you dodging has been in this thread, and ignoring the fact that you have adopted at least three directly contradictory theories, you refuse to address the DNA evidence,yet claim that you are "doing it for the America people"?

Certainly not doing it on behalf of the passengers on flight 77, huh Dwain?

Exactly. Well said.

DNA: Truther poison & truth serum rolled into one. Shows they've got nothing, and are worth nothing.

RedIbis

5th April 2011, 04:55 AM

You can estimate the sincerity of such claims by the amount of actual work and positive results they've accomplished.

Then by this standard Willie Rodriguez would be most sincere of all.

TruthersLie

5th April 2011, 05:03 AM

Which willie Roedriguez? the one on 9/11 or the one on the cashing in on his heroism from 9/11? Which one? 2002? 2006? 2009?

theprestige

6th April 2011, 07:53 PM

The entire FBI? All 7000 agents assignet to PENTBOMB?
How large do you allow conspiracies to blow until even you would expect the first blow of a whistle?
This got me thinking: There are at least as many conspiracy theories about NASA as there are about the FBI.

If Mr. Deets is assuming that the FBI is rife with conspiracy, then surely he must consider that NASA is equally rife with conspiracy. Indeed, he should either have been a willing accomplice in any number of nefarious NASA hoaxes, or an unwitting dupe of conspirators operating daily all around him, perpetrating who-knows-what malfeasance against the American people.

So which is it? Are we to believe that someone so blind that they never noticed the conspiratorial activity in their own agency has somehow discovered signs of conspiracy in another agency altogether?

Or are we to believe that someone so clever as to see the evidence of double-dealing by the FBI was so incompetent as to never notice evidence of double-dealing by his very own NASA personnel?

dadeets

7th April 2011, 05:36 PM

Wouldn't that be the only cell phone call she made?

:rolleyes:

You are correct. The FBI was referring to cell phones.

dadeets

7th April 2011, 06:00 PM

Ok, Mr. Deets - what is your reason for dismissing the FDR data?

The FDR data record contains a number in the A/C NUMBER field, but not in the format of a tail number. No document in the public domain that I am aware of explains how the number in the record is related to any particular tail number.

dadeets

7th April 2011, 06:46 PM

FDR and RADAR for Flight 77 stops at the Pentagon, dozens of witnesses see the plane hit the building, parts from the plane litter the site, the passenger's DNA is found inside. This is "not reliable" but your double standard unquantified, unevidenced sly opinion that flight 77 did not hit the building is "reliable"?
lieve.

FDR connection to Flight 77? -- No positive ID provided
RADAR stops at the Pentagon -- Radar unreliable below 400 ft altitude
Witnesses (1) -- A dozen testify to a path inconsistant with the damage path
Witnesses (2) -- Dozens say they saw the plane hit the building (not proof)
Parts from plane litter the site -- Maybe, but how about the engines?
Passengers' DNA is found inside -- But chain of evidence questionable

And the big ones -- how could a novice pilot fly that precise maneuver?
Where was the Nation's air defense?

16.5

7th April 2011, 07:49 PM

And the big ones -- how could a novice pilot fly that precise maneuver?
Where was the Nation's air defense?

Seriously Dwain?

You are selling your qualification as a former employee for cheap ridiculous arguments from incredulity like that?

Worthless.

You are embarrassing yourself.

I'm still waiting for your pathetic rationalization why you agree with three theories that directly contradict one another. At this point I can should not assume anything.

beachnut

7th April 2011, 07:50 PM

FDR connection to Flight 77? -- No positive ID provided Wrong, positive ID. NTSB has positive proof. You are spreading nonsense. YOu have no evidene.
RADAR stops at the Pentagon -- Radar unreliable below 400 ft altitude False, RADAR stops because if impact. Tracked by multiple independant RADAR sites. People saw 77 impact the exact same time it was on RADAR. Oops.
Witnesses (1) -- A dozen testify to a path inconsistant with the damage path Wrong all those people testify it was the plane that hit the Pentagon an they are all pointing south. To the real flight path. Oops.
Witnesses (2) -- Dozens say they saw the plane hit the building (not proof) Yep, it is evidence backed up with DNA, RADAR, FDR, RADAR. oops
Parts from plane litter the site -- Maybe, but how about the engines? Engines were found, in parts. Darn, I have photos used in court. Why don't you?
Passengers' DNA is found inside -- But chain of evidence questionable Wrong again, the DNA custody was perfect. You have failed to provide evidence. The DNA was very important to identy militry killed by terrorirts. Why do you disrepect the military, since they did oversight of the DNA and chain of custody. Why do you make up false information about the FAA, NTSB, and the military?

Got some evidnece for your made up claims? No

And the big ones -- how could a novice pilot fly that precise maneuver?
Where was the Nation's air defense? What precise maneuver? The terrorist crashed. No precision was involved, the Pentagon was 900 feet wide, and Hani could hit a 40 foot runway but not in a stabilized landing attitude! Oops, Hani can hit 40 foot runway but not stabilized, means Hani can crash into a 900 foot wide target. You forgot to apply critical thinking, logic and sound judgment.

The instructor who flew with the terrorist pilot said it would be possible for the terrorist to crash into the Pentagon. Do you do any research at all.

AGAIN: no precise maneuvers were made on 911 by any of the terrorists pilots! Zip

NORAD does not intercept hijacked planes before 911 over the USA. You should study this one before exposing your lack of knowledge and shoddy research.

If you have evidence the DNA is not right you need to go to Congress and scream it out; CBS, NBC, ABC, ETC, and tell everyone. But the truth is you don't have anything but made up nonsense. With evidence you would have a Pulitzer, like the Post got for Watergate, a real conspiracy, not a made up one like the one you can't define.

Oystein

8th April 2011, 02:20 AM

The FDR data record contains a number in the A/C NUMBER field, but not in the format of a tail number. No document in the public domain that I am aware of explains how the number in the record is related to any particular tail number.

So you contend that the NTSB aircrash investigation experts who did the read-out on the FDR data are idiots that can't ID an FDR? Or are they, too, in on it? Or is your argument more like "No-one has bothered to explain it to me personally, so I don't understand this yet, so I can make any old claim about the issue that I manage to pull out of my rectum"?

Oystein

8th April 2011, 02:42 AM

...
Witnesses (1) -- A dozen testify to a path inconsistant with the damage path
Witnesses (2) -- Dozens say they saw the plane hit the building (not proof)

Wait a second - are you saying that you believe (1) as evidence, but don't believe (2) as evidence? When (1) is only a (one) dozend witnesses (around12 individuals), and (2) is dozens (plural) of witnesses (that is, at least twice as many, potentially as much as 10 times as many)? Oh and what is easier to get right for a non-expert witness - get the flight path right for a moving plane up in the sky, or get the crash (or no crash) location right for a plane in a building on the ground - both with reference to said building? Honest answer, Mr. Deeds?

Parts from plane litter the site -- Maybe, but how about the engines?

Engines were found.
However, suppose engines were not found then what about the other parts? Do you mean to wish them away?

Passengers' DNA is found inside -- But chain of evidence questionable

Can you please point out to a crime that was resolved based on DNA evidence where you DO have a chain of evidence that you personally don't find questionable?
Or to put it in a different way: Why do you doubt this particiluar DNA evidence, if not based on your personal, foregone conclusions? Do you mean to imply that those people who published the results of the DNA testing are in on it? Or who is? Please enumerate the possibilities, and count the minimum number of implicated persons!

And the big ones -- how could a novice pilot fly that precise maneuver?

It wasn't a precise maneuver. It was in fact a very wobbly, imprecise maneuver. Hanjour only had to hit the Pentagon somewhere, anywhere. His target was about 70 feet high and 1500 feet wide, it doesn't take a precise maneuver to hit such a huge target, but because Hanjour was such a mediocre pilot, he came in too high, had to circle aroubd to cook off altitude, and still nearly managed to fail.

Every novice pilot could do this sloppy job, it is dead easy.

Where was the Nation's air defense?
If you ever researched that question, you wouldn't have to ask, but would already know:
All 4 (+1 additional) fighters that were on alert in the entire north-east were already airborne: 2 were on CAP in NYC, and 2 were looking out for other suspected hijacks.
All the rest of the air defence was in the process of getting fighters ready. If you knew the first thing about air base operations, you'd know that hot weapons are under lock and key away from the planes, and that it takes more than the 35 between realizing that more than one plane was used for an attack and the Pentagon crash.

This is all so very 2006. You listen to the wrong people, Mr. Deeds. You haven't taken in the necessary information yet, although it is old. Please do your research before spewing nonsense. It doesn't become you or your reputation well.

dadeets

8th April 2011, 08:15 AM

Wrong, positive ID. NTSB has positive proof. You are spreading nonsense. YOu have no evidene.

1. NTSB has positive proof? -- reference please.
2. The last modification to the data inside the FDR happened
approximately four hours before it was found at the Pentagon which was
many hours after the alleged crash of AA77 at the Pentagon.
3. This indicates tampering of the FDR at some time between the
alleged crash time at the Pentagon.

dadeets

8th April 2011, 08:33 AM

False, RADAR stops because if impact. Tracked by multiple independant RADAR sites. People saw 77 impact the exact same time it was on RADAR. Oops.

1. AA77 was lost to positive radar contact when airplane was heading westward in eastern Ohio.
2. There was never a re-radar identification of any target flying anywhere as being AA77. Re-identification of a fast moving target eastward bound as AA77 was simply an assumption.

dadeets

8th April 2011, 08:41 AM

Wrong all those people testify it was the plane that hit the Pentagon an they are all pointing south. To the real flight path. Oops.

All those people (the ones identifying a plane on the north path) testify most importantly to that which they can see best, where the plane was compared to the surroundings when it flew closest to them. There is no question, the plane was on a path that couldn't have caused the physical damage in front of and inside the Pentagon.

That these same people believed the plane hit the Pentagon is to be expected, in the same way that audiences believe they see what the magician plans that they will think they see.

dadeets

8th April 2011, 08:45 AM

Engines were found, in parts. Darn, I have photos used in court. Why don't you?

No identification part numbers. No serial numbers. Nothing to positively connect the scant number of airplane parts with any particular airplane. This includes the FDR.

dadeets

8th April 2011, 09:07 AM

NORAD does not intercept hijacked planes before 911 over the USA. You should study this one before exposing your lack of knowledge and shoddy research.

These planes should have been treated as inflight emergencies, not hijacked planes. All indicators were they were inflight emergencies:

1. Loss of radio contact
2. Diverting off of an assigned routing or altitude without ATC approval
3. Loss of transponder

Thus, NORAD should have responded in the way it always had responded for inflight emergencies, the same way first responders do when an emergency is called in to 911. The same way our air defenses have responded on average over 60 times per year prior to June 2001, when a new scramble protocol was instituted. (BTW, that new protocol was revoked late in the morning of 9/11/2001.)

Whereas:

None of the four planes issued the transponder hijack code. (This means, none of the eight pilots (captains and first officers) issued the hijack alert they have been trained to issue in such circumstances.

16.5

8th April 2011, 09:21 AM

All those people (the ones identifying a plane on the north path) testify most importantly to that which they can see best, where the plane was compared to the surroundings when it flew closest to them. There is no question, the plane was on a path that couldn't have caused the physical damage in front of and inside the Pentagon.

That these same people believed the plane hit the Pentagon is to be expected, in the same way that audiences believe they see what the magician plans that they will think they see.

What does testify "most importantly" even mean? Where the plane was compared with their surroundings? Seriously?

Further, many on the CIT witnesses were NORTH of the flightpath, Morin and Paik could not even see the CITGO, Boger was in the freaking building . Boger said it hit the building, and therefore he "testify most importantly to that which they can see best, where the plane was compared to the surroundings when it flew closest to them." It seems it flew closest to him when it hit the building he was in, right? Well, Dwain, it looks like you solved the whole shooting match right there, huh?

Also, humans (having evolved on the grasslands of Africa) are horrendously bad at three dimensional analysis of things in the sky.

Anyway, why should we believe you anymore, because you agree with Pickering, CIT and Hoenigger, each of whom contradict one another?

Disbelief

8th April 2011, 10:53 AM

No identification part numbers. No serial numbers. Nothing to positively connect the scant number of airplane parts with any particular airplane. This includes the FDR.

Have you ever worked aircraft maintenance? Where are the serial numbers for every part for every plane recorded? Who updates the records when the parts are changed after a failure? Can you show me one of these for a current A/C?

dadeets

8th April 2011, 11:30 AM

Boger was in the freaking building . Boger said it hit the building, and therefore he "testify most importantly to that which they can see best, where the plane was compared to the surroundings when it flew closest to them."

Boger was in an excellent position to view the plane coming over the Navy Annex, and where it flew relative to Citgo. He very definitely testified it flew over the north part of the Annex, which puts it solidly on the North path.

In even a better place to view the flight over the east face of the Navy Annex were Darrell Stafford, Darlus Prather, William Lagasse, and Chadwick Brooks. They all place the plane solidly on the North-of-Citgo path.

16.5

8th April 2011, 11:40 AM

Boger was in an excellent position to view the plane coming over the Navy Annex, and where it flew relative to Citgo. He very definitely testified it flew over the north part of the Annex, which puts it solidly on the North path.

In even a better place to view the flight over the east face of the Navy Annex were Darrell Stafford, Darlus Prather, William Lagasse, and Chadwick Brooks. They all place the plane solidly on the North-of-Citgo path.

And It even puts him in a better position to tell that the freaking plane hit the Pentagon, right Dwain?

By the way, he was also North of the Flight Path. Just like Stafford and Prather, who testified that the plane flew south of them, without reference to CITGO. I am stunned that you don't understand the significance of this. I am also stunned that you don't understand that each of those peoples testimony about the bank angle of the plane destroys your CIT pals idiotic theory.

LaGasse? You mean the guy who ripped Pickering a new one?

Dwain the fact that you cherry pick evidence, and have only the dimest understanding of what you are claiming is disturbing.

TruthersLie

8th April 2011, 11:52 AM

dadeets

8th April 2011, 11:58 AM

Boger said it hit the building, and therefore he "testify most importantly to that which they can see best, where the plane was compared to the surroundings when it flew closest to them."

Boger was diving for cover. Although in a building (the control tower) just in front of the Pentagon, he was not in a position to distinguish between an explosion due to placed explosives, and an explosion due to an airplane impacting the Pentagon.

carlitos

8th April 2011, 12:04 PM

By the same logic, he is not in a position to testify about nano-leprechauns. Since in real life a plane full of passengers crashed into the Pentagon, though, maybe it's better to focus on that, eh?

16.5

8th April 2011, 12:17 PM

Boger was diving for cover. Although in a building (the control tower) just in front of the Pentagon, he was not in a position to distinguish between an explosion due to placed explosives, and an explosion due to an airplane impacting the Pentagon.

Yeah, CIT called him a liar too. We've heard that before. It is garbage like this that makes you No Planers at the Pentagon the laughingstock of the truth movement.

Do you do any thinking for yourself, or just cherrypick the bull **** of some of the most incompetent people on the planet?

dadeets

8th April 2011, 12:40 PM

OMG... 10 minute get intercepts...

Just a simple question for you. How long did it take for the jets to intercept payne Stewards jet? (I'll give you the answer 88 minutes).

where did those 60 times per year since june 2001 (you watched loose change but never looked up the claim) happen? Over the continental US? (the answer is no they didn't... they happened at the edge of the US airspace... most of them in ALASKA)

I admit, I haven't looked into the 67 times per year numbers. But, there were two big differences in those statistics which I will call NORMAL, as compared with the June 2001 protocol. Those under NORMAL protocol could be approved at the local center (in the field, so to speak) and received priority status if they were an in-flight emergency. (All were, for the past 10 years.) Those under the June 2001 protocol had to go to NORAD for approval. There were NONE other than the four "hijack" instances on 9/11/2001, and they went on a first-come-first-served basis.

DGM

8th April 2011, 12:49 PM

Boger was diving for cover. Although in a building (the control tower) just in front of the Pentagon, he was not in a position to distinguish between an explosion due to placed explosives, and an explosion due to an airplane impacting the Pentagon.
Why don't we compromise. Let's throw out all the witnesses that described the plane hitting the building and discuss the rest?

Is that OK?

dadeets

8th April 2011, 01:19 PM

Why don't we compromise. Let's throw out all the witnesses that described the plane hitting the building and discuss the rest?

Hardly a compromise. Let's, instead, throw out the part of each witnesses' statement describing a plane hitting the building, and discuss the rest.

Or, maybe another alternative is to throw out all statements about hitting the building that were NOT around 9:32 AM when the clocks stopped.

DGM

8th April 2011, 01:23 PM

16.5

8th April 2011, 01:29 PM

Hardly a compromise. Let's, instead, throw out the part of each witnesses' statement describing a plane hitting the building, and discuss the rest.

Or, maybe another alternative is to throw out all statements about hitting the building that were NOT around 9:32 AM when the clocks stopped.

lulz.

Including the clock that stopped in the Traffic Control Tower where Boger was standing? Or are you suggesting that Boger completely missed the huge explosion that stopped the clock yet was perfectly positioned to see the plane fly North of Citgo before he dove down and created his lie about the plane hitting the building?

I've already explained that you can't have both Barbara Hoenigger's stupid clock theory and CIT's stupid NoC theory, what part of this are you having trouble grasping? Dwain, you really are something else....

Hilarious!

dadeets

8th April 2011, 01:39 PM

Why would you want to throw out a "part of" a testimony? How do you decide what is correct?

"Set aside" would be a better term than "throw out." Why set aside? Because it brings clarity to analyze this as a two step problem.

(1) What path did the airplane fly relative to Citgo?

(2) What happened at the Pentagon?

When we get to the second step, then the "set aside" testimony can be brought in, together with the path of the airplane determined in step (1), the physical damage in front of and inside the Pentagon, and any evidence of inside explosions. Also the lack of physical damage in front of the Pentagon along the path of the airplane.

George152

8th April 2011, 01:50 PM

None of the four planes issued the transponder hijack code. (This means, none of the eight pilots (captains and first officers) issued the hijack alert they have been trained to issue in such circumstances.

I'll deal with this bit of nonsense and leave the rest of the crazy claim for the moment.

To change the transponder code while some-one is cutting your throat would be a very difficult thing to do.
You -do- know just what is involved in changing the transponder code ?
And because the hijackers were pilots they knew about the transponders and later turned the switch (probably) to standby...

DGM

8th April 2011, 02:02 PM

"Set aside" would be a better term than "throw out." Why set aside? Because it brings clarity to analyze this as a two step problem.

(1) What path did the airplane fly relative to Citgo?

Radar data shows that but, who cares? Do you have evidence that shows the people that collected the aircraft parts lied or the parts were "planted"?

(2) What happened at the Pentagon?

A plane hit the building. There's no need to go on unless you can show that everyone at the scene lied and the scene was faked.

Can you do this?

DGM

8th April 2011, 02:09 PM

Mr Deets:
It's really this simple. If you went to court as a plaintiff (claiming no plane) and the defendant called everyone that was there to verify the plane hit the building, You'd lose.

What exactly do you have to make your case?

beachnut

8th April 2011, 02:13 PM

These planes should have been treated as inflight emergencies, not hijacked planes. All indicators were they were inflight emergencies:

1. Loss of radio contact
2. Diverting off of an assigned routing or altitude without ATC approval
3. Loss of transponder The planes were treated as inflight emergencies. Traffic was moved for them. You have no idea what ATC does with since simple statement, you entire knowledge of ATC procedures is nil.

Wrong; the flight were treated as if they were emergencies. NORAD is not called up. Sorry.

Thus, NORAD should have responded in the way it always had responded for inflight emergencies, the same way first responders do when an emergency is called in to 911. The same way our air defenses have responded on average over 60 times per year prior to June 2001, when a new scramble protocol was instituted. (BTW, that new protocol was revoked late in the morning of 9/11/2001.)
Wrong, NORAD has nothing to do with ATC, zip. They don't do in-flight emergencies. You should study this before you expose you don't know anything. Please list all your 60 times and flight paths. This should be neat. Like education for you.

Big lie, no protocol was changed or revoked, I was on active duty on 911, and you are making up a BIG lie. Why? Ignorance of ATC, and flight procedures and no idea how the military works.

Whereas:

None of the four planes issued the transponder hijack code. (This means, none of the eight pilots (captains and first officers) issued the hijack alert they have been trained to issue in such circumstances.

This is nonsense. If I was hijacked I will set the code when I have time as to not attract the hijacker attention. On 911 the terrorists were not hijackers they were murderers, they kill the pilots before they could set the code, and the code does not bring on a NORAD intercept over the continental USA, and you failed to research past your own fantasy ideas what would happen.

What is the code for dying?

The transponder would be set when the pilot can do it. Can't do it when you are dead and removed from the seat.

You did zero rational, reality based research on this issue.

dadeets

8th April 2011, 02:22 PM

To change the transponder code while some-one is cutting your throat would be a very difficult thing to do.
You -do- know just what is involved in changing the transponder code ?
And because the hijackers were pilots they knew about the transponders and later turned the switch (probably) to standby...

I'll respond as Lt. Col Dave Gapp (ret. USAF) responds. The hijackers weren't buckled in. The first thing the other pilot does is put the attacker on the ceiling, or bounce him around. Pilots know how to use the controls to their advantage. And secondly, dialing in the hijacker code is extremely easy, and it's what they've been trained to do.

beachnut

8th April 2011, 02:29 PM

Boger was diving for cover. Although in a building (the control tower) just in front of the Pentagon, he was not in a position to distinguish between an explosion due to placed explosives, and an explosion due to an airplane impacting the Pentagon.
Boger watch 77 enter the Pentagon. No matter how what you make up, he saw 77 impact and enter.

Boger saw 77 enter the Pentagon. You say he is telling a lie. good for you. you spew nonsense, Boger tells the truth. Darn, who do we believe here, the guy who saw exactly where the plane was on RADAR. oops, you are doing poorly, having a bad year. DNA, when will you tell the people their loved ones were fake?

sts60

8th April 2011, 02:38 PM

the same way first responders do when an emergency is called in to 911

Mr. Deets, you have pushed yourself way beyond the boundaries of your expertise in your mad attempt to claim that no airliner hit the Pentagon.

Since you brought up first responders, I'll point out that I personally ride with firefighters who were at the Pentagon that day, removing parts of airliner and airline passenger - from the very airplane that many, many people directly witnessed strike the Pentagon. Your attempt to wave them away in favor of a supposedly precise assessment of flight path by a handful of unqualified bystanders - some of whom also saw the aircraft impact - is intellectually dishonest.

I've previously pointed out the absurdity of a plot to fake hitting the Pentagon with an airliner instead of a plot to actually do so. Your fundmental premise is not only nonsensical, it is actively anti-sensical.

It seems you have considerable aeronautics expertise, if you are the person you're warranted to be, but in pursuit of this pernicious twaddle you style yourself an expert in many other fields (only in several cases to be slapped down by real experts). I am an engineer, and you have committed one of the worst sins an engineer can make: pretending to expertise outside your field.

Worse, you're doing it in the service an insane claim, and making a fool out of yourself in the process. I don't know what happened to you to cause this sad state of affairs, but having worked with many fine and competent people at NASA - technicians, engineers, and astronauts - I am at least relieved you are retired and therefore cannot embarrass the agency with your ravings while still affiliated. I hope you get help, because this path only dishonors you and will bring only frustration and bitterness at time wasted on a delusion.

beachnut

8th April 2011, 02:39 PM

I'll respond as Lt. Col Dave Gapp (ret. USAF) responds. The hijackers weren't buckled in. The first thing the other pilot does is put the attacker on the ceiling, or bounce him around. Pilots know how to use the controls to their advantage. And secondly, dialing in the hijacker code is extremely easy, and it's what they've been trained to do.
The hijackers rushed in and killed the pilots, cut their throats because they would be beat up in a real fight. The pilots are strapped facing forward, not a good place to be for people who are killing you from behind. Put the attackers on the ceiling? I thought you said they were hijackers, we were trained to do what the asked. Did you try to research this first, or make up your own fantasy world. Please explain in detail hijacking procedures.

The code is impossible to set when you are dead. It was not a hijacking, it was murder. What is the code for murder dadeets? Got an answer for that one? What do you put in the transponder when the warm blood flows down your chest? What is the code? Anything?

That is funny, you suspect people are hijacking you, you have no idea who is strapped in, and you put everyone on the ceiling killing passengers by breaking their necks, babies flying around the cabin. Good idea in a hijacking. Where did you get this nonsense from? Does the pilot announce to the cabin to strap in we are going to break the plane, do a procedure for hijacking that is made up by people who love fantasy. wow

16.5

8th April 2011, 02:40 PM

Boger watch 77 enter the Pentagon. No matter how what you make up, he saw 77 impact and enter.

Boger saw 77 enter the Pentagon. You say he is telling a lie. good for you. you spew nonsense, Boger tells the truth. Darn, who do we believe here, the guy who saw exactly where the plane was on RADAR. oops, you are doing poorly, having a bad year. DNA, when will you tell the people their loved ones were fake?

I pointed out that Dwain had accused Boger of lying several hours ago.

I also pointed out that Boger was standing in room where the clock allegedly stopped due to an explosion before the plane was near the Pentagon.

He ignored it.

At this point, I can only assume that Dwain is a troll. No one can unintentionally be this incompetent.

beachnut

8th April 2011, 02:44 PM

1. AA77 was lost to positive radar contact when airplane was heading westward in eastern Ohio.
2. There was never a re-radar identification of any target flying anywhere as being AA77. Re-identification of a fast moving target eastward bound as AA77 was simply an assumption. Wrong, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Do you make this up as you go?

77 was never lost to RADAR. You make up stuff and fail to research, or study.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/11RADAR77.jpg
Multiple RADAR sites track 77 from takeoff to impact at the Pentagon. You were wrong and have no idea why.

You made up this nonsense because you have no idea what RADAR is for ATC and how it works.

dadeets

8th April 2011, 02:49 PM

Boger saw 77 enter the Pentagon. You say he is telling a lie.

I'm not saying he's lying. He is being very truthful, and saying exactly what he believes happened. What he saw most clearly was the plane flying at him, as it flew over the north side of the Navy Annex.

16.5

8th April 2011, 02:58 PM

I'm not saying he's lying. He is being very truthful, and saying exactly what he believes happened. What he saw most clearly was the plane flying at him, as it flew over the north side of the Navy Annex.

Hey Dwain the part you claim he is lying about is seeing and HEARING the plane hit the Pentagon.

You know, that part? Which you said is untrue? And therefore he was lying about it?

Yeah, that part.

I know it is dark under the bridge, but do try to keep up.

beachnut

8th April 2011, 03:01 PM

I'm not saying he's lying. He is being very truthful, and saying exactly what he believes happened. What he saw most clearly was the plane flying at him, as it flew over the north side of the Navy Annex.
He saw 77 on the "official flight path" because it is where 77 was. Your made up north of the gas station stuff was made up my guy on drugs, a few idiots at CIT. They can't do math and physics and put on video witnesses pointing exactly to the "official flight path". I expect drugged up guys to not know which was south is, and I was right.

He was there, you were not! Boger wins, 77 impacted the Pentagon. And, the FDR, damage, RADAR, DNA, and the plane itself prove Boger was right, and you are wrong in all ways.

NoahFence

8th April 2011, 03:12 PM

NoahFence

8th April 2011, 03:16 PM

dadeets

8th April 2011, 03:25 PM

77 was never lost to RADAR. You make up stuff and fail to research, or study.

"The only plane to be in an area of primary non-coverage was AAL77," according to andrewkornkven (at pilots for 9/11 truth forum)

Robin Hordon (Retired ATC Boston) follows up with an explanation that includes the statement, "nobody ever positively re-identified the eastbound target noticed west of Dulles by O'Brien as being AA77, it has only been presumed as such."

These are at: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t8803.html

16.5

8th April 2011, 03:31 PM

NoahFence

8th April 2011, 03:33 PM

dadeets - you do understand that the pilot of a C130 was following AA 77, and we have recordings of his conversations with ATC?

And in those recordings, he explicitly states that AA 77 went right into the Pentagon?

And...actually there's video proof that the C130 was right there when it happened?

Was the pilot and ATC "in on it"?

Mr. Skinny

8th April 2011, 03:35 PM

carlitos

8th April 2011, 03:37 PM

Well, if according to andrewkornkven at some loony truth forum, something witnessed by hundreds and supported by a mountain of documentary and forensic evidence didn't happen, that should settle it. Mr. Deets, you convinced me. Good job. :rolleyes:

beachnut

8th April 2011, 03:39 PM

"The only plane to be in an area of primary non-coverage was AAL77," according to andrewkornkven (at pilots for 9/11 truth forum)

Robin Hordon (Retired ATC Boston) follows up with an explanation that includes the statement, "nobody ever positively re-identified the eastbound target noticed west of Dulles by O'Brien as being AA77, it has only been presumed as such."

These are at: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t8803.html
Pilots for truth are morons, they can't hit buildings in a simulator. Bad pilots.

You are wrong, I showed you RADAR returns for 77 from takeoff to Pentagon. You are wrong on this because you fail to do your own research. You listen to idiots who lie and sell those lies on DVD.

77 was on RADAR from take off to crash.

Pay attention, here is the RADAR for 77, you spread lies and false information.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/11RADAR77.jpg
Your fantasy claims bring great shame on NASA and the United States.

Pilots for Truth, with special 11.2g moron math by Balsamo, still posted, http://pilotsfor911truth.org/descent_rate031308.html , for over 3 years, moron math. You found the biggest nuts on 911 issues and use them as your source for lies, hearsay, and delusions. The leader of Pilots for truth is not an airline pilot, you hooked up with a Tim McVeigh like nut on 911 issues.

Reheat

8th April 2011, 03:40 PM

beachnut

8th April 2011, 03:46 PM

A-Train and Hordon at pfffft. Keep it up Deets this is not hilarious enough already. I want to laugh more today....:rolleyes:
Doubt he understands the RADAR is recorded and saved, so after 911 we know 77 never left RADAR, but the one sector did not let ATC in real time see 77. But he leaps into fantasy without thinking.

Reheat

8th April 2011, 03:57 PM

Doubt he understands the RADAR is recorded and saved, so after 911 we know 77 never left RADAR, but the one sector did not let ATC in real time see 77. But he leaps into fantasy without thinking.

Quite frankly, I doubt he understands much of anything except "inside job"! :D

dadeets

8th April 2011, 04:56 PM

So what are you saying? The pilots were in on it too?

No. Just that, although the official story is believed by the masses, it can't possibly be true.

beachnut

8th April 2011, 06:08 PM

No. Just that, although the official story is believed by the masses, it can't possibly be true.
It is true, 19 terrorists killed 8 pilots and crashed 4 planes; too complex for you? So you make precise maneuvers but can't say what those maneuvers are.

Your lack of knowledge of the NTSB, FDR, Flying, ATC, ATC procedures, RADAR, DNA, FBI, military, hijacking procedures, NORAD, intercept rules, and more have helped you make false claims about 911.

Please produce evidence to support your claims; pick one.

Please explain the precise maneuvers in roll, yaw, and pitch. Go ahead make my day.

Quite frankly, I doubt he understands much of anything except "inside job"! :D
CIT included their witnesses pointing south, debunking CIT on the spot.
I was laughing when I wasted the time to see what the morons had put together years ago.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/pointingSouthOops.gif
Three CIT witnesses who say 77 impacted the Pentagon, and they point the direction 77 was, verified by RADAR, damage path, and FDR.

They have to drop the people who were under the official flight path, and destroy their flight path, and use these witnesses who drew the fake flight paths for them. They used these people to make up lies of a NoC. You would use these witnesses only to show relative direction from them, not ask them to draw a flight path they are not able to draw.

16.5

8th April 2011, 07:38 PM

No. Just that, although the official story is believed by the masses, it can't possibly be true.

Well, Dwain, you are really knocking us dead with your withering and rigorous analysis in this thread.... ^^rolls eyes^^

I wonder if Dwain knows that the Citiots have refused to release the raw videos of their alleged witnesses.

I wonder if he understands the significance of that.

I wonder if Dwain is embarrassed that he is relying on at least three different truther groups that have directly contradictory theories.

Dave Rogers

9th April 2011, 12:46 AM

I admit, I haven't looked into the 67 times per year numbers.

Then maybe you shouldn't be referring to material you don't understand.

But, there were two big differences in those statistics which I will call NORMAL, as compared with the June 2001 protocol. Those under NORMAL protocol could be approved at the local center (in the field, so to speak) and received priority status if they were an in-flight emergency. (All were, for the past 10 years.)

Please give a reference to a source for your assertion that fighters were routinely scrambled to deal with airliner in-flight emergencies. I'm not saying that NORAD wouldn't necessarily do something as stupid as to scramble a fighter to deal with, say, a drunken passenger or an engine failure, even though I can't imagine what use an F-15 would actually be in such circumstances, but I'm rather reluctant to believe something like that on your word alone. Particularly when we know that the only fighter interception for an in-flight emergency in ten years prior to 9/11 was the Payne Stewart flight, which took over an hour to intercept and didn't even involve a NORAD plane.

Those under the June 2001 protocol had to go to NORAD for approval.

Flat out lie, and one you couldn't even repeat correctly. Truthers like to pretend that the June 2001 protocol introduced a new requirement to clear all requests with the office of the Secretary of State for Defence, and then claim that this was evidence of LIHOP. However, as Mike Williams's site has long pointed out, the July 1997 protocol (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01.pdf)was even more restrictive on local commanders than the June 2001 protocol (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf). Look it up for yourself; the July 1997 protocol requires all requests for assistance to go via the Secretary of State for Defence, whereas the June 2001 protocol introduces a specific exception for cases where there is immediate risk of loss of life.

Like most truthers, you're not really very knowledgeable about 9/11.

Dave

NoahFence

9th April 2011, 06:22 AM

No. Just that, although the official story is believed by the masses, it can't possibly be true.

Do you have contradictory evidence?

TruthersLie

9th April 2011, 07:13 AM

tfk

9th April 2011, 09:26 AM

tfk

9th April 2011, 09:55 AM

Mr. Deets,

That is not the assumption. A typical swath would be the space between two of these parallel lines. I gave the distance inward the swath could travel the benefit of the doubt, assigning it the distance of the longest of the two lines on either side of the swath. I also observed, but didn't draw out, that if the swathes were 3' wide, the distance inward would not in general increase.

Now, repeat your "analysis", allowing material to be 1" apart (not 6' or 3') AND allowing for deflections & retained kinetic energy.

You'll find that your initial reported results are garbage, er, "wrong".

No, I didn't draw any deflection lines because it would over complicate the illustration. In this case, my assumption is the parts along that swath would deflect away from the "hole" area, and eventually come to rest.

You assumed that they would deflect "away from the hole" & never "towards the hole".

Well, dagnabit, Dwain, THERE'S your mistake right there.

According to your assumption, whenever one drops a bunch of balls into one of those "Gaussian distribution demonstrators (random placed pins between sheets of plexiglas), then the distribution of balls would be highest on each edge & zero in the center.

Reality shows exactly the opposite: the highest concentration of balls is in the center, and tapers (as a Gaussian distribution) towards zero at the edges.

Gee, I guess Mother Nature disagrees with your assumptions. Guess whom I am going to believe...

No, its kinetic energy would be vectored in a different direction, but no longer toward the "hole" area.

Same as above. There is no preference for parts deflecting away from any given point. That assumption directly contradicts the concept of "random".

No, I'm assuming other parts that were further forward in the airplane did battle with the cheese grater column structure, and took some of it out. This cleared the way for parts from further aft to sale past the area were the up-front columns were nocked out.

The path does not need to be "cleared". There was plenty of space between the columns.

To some degree it behaves like a wave, but to another degree, it behaves like individual items. This, I'm assuming, is after individual items have broken away from their mountings. If you believe the Pentagon Building Performance Report on the matter of the FDR, they say it was found just in front of, and to the side of the "Exit" hole. In that case, it would have been an item that traveled through rows of standing columns. I don't believe it traveled that far, as my analysis suggests none of the loose items traveled that far.

Yup, I agree.

The facts of the discoveries, as related by the on-site workers, and your analysis are mutually exclusive.

ONE of them has to be wrong.

Guess where I'm putting my money...

NoahFence

9th April 2011, 10:52 AM

Keep up that personal incredulity. Next you will be telling us about how the pilots were "top gun" navy and should easily have been able to disarm the hijackers.

I suppose there's something in the manual about flipping the 767 upside down and flipping off another plane.... :eye-poppi

DGM

9th April 2011, 11:14 AM

TruthersLie

10th April 2011, 05:44 AM

Are you claiming they were trained to "put the hijackers on the ceiling and bounce them around"? Why would they train to do that? Was there any instances of the hijackers killing the pilots prior to 9/11?

Sounds like your source has seen too many movies.

:rolleyes:

Well DGM we do have to be honest.

In PSA 1771 the hijacker shot the pilot and copilot then crashed the jet. So it has happened in the past...

Gee, I wonder if the pilot/copilot then was able to "put the hijacker on the ceiling and bounce him around."

George152

10th April 2011, 01:43 PM

I suppose there's something in the manual about flipping the 767 upside down and flipping off another plane.... :eye-poppi

Nope.
But the idea of doing aeros with a plane full of pax to dislodge hijackers is going to damage a lot of pax at the same time..
Not recommended

ozeco41

10th April 2011, 02:29 PM

Are you claiming they were trained to "put the hijackers on the ceiling and bounce them around"? Why would they train to do that? Was there any instances of the hijackers killing the pilots prior to 9/11?

Sounds like your source has seen too many movies.

:rolleyes:

If he digs himself much deeper into the hole he has dug he will be out of sight from the surface. :confused:

pgimeno

11th April 2011, 03:21 AM

Nope.
But the idea of doing aeros with a plane full of pax to dislodge hijackers is going to damage a lot of pax at the same time..
Not recommended

The protocol for action in case of a hijacking actually includes a communication with the passengers:

"Ladies and gentlemen, we are being hijacked. Please fasten your seat belts as we are going to put the plane upside-down in order to reduce the hijackers. We apologize for the inconvenience in advance. Thanks for flying with us!"

dadeets

16th April 2011, 10:02 AM

Do you have contradictory evidence?

Addressing just the airplane at the Pentagon at this time, I'll preface with my letter to editor that was published this morning (to the North County Times in San Diego County):

Conflict of interest in 9/11 case

On April 5, a case brought against Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Myers raised the bar to a new level for blatant conflict of interest. Judge John M. Walker Jr., a cousin once removed of George Walker Bush, saw no reason to recuse himself when a case charging the former vice president, secretary of defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff came before him for appellate review.

The case charges the defendants with responsibility for injuries suffered by April Gallop, an Army employee, and her newborn son at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.

Gallop and many others in the 9/11 truth movement contend that explosives were planted inside the Pentagon and that no credible evidence has been presented supporting the theory that Flight 77 actually hit the building. The case before the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals is being heard by a three-judge panel. A motion to have Judge Walker disqualified from hearing the case was denied.

Dwain Deets
Encinitas

Clearly, there is something there that the defendants don't want to get out.

Here are my five reasons for questioning AA77:

1. The FDR and RADAR records are in conflict with each other.

2. Witnesses attest to seeing airplane on an approach path to the Pentagon that is inconsistent with the physical damage path.

3. Evidence inside the Pentagon (stopped clocks, etc.) correspond to an explosive event approximately 6 minutes before the official time attributed to an airplane impact.

4. No reporting of evidence has occurred that would tie any airplane parts in the debris to any particular airplane.

5. Failure of air defenses to respond to an obvious inflight emergency (complete loss of contact with AA77 by Indianapolis ATC approximately 40 minutes prior to events at Pentagon).

TruthersLie

16th April 2011, 10:05 AM

<facepalm>

When given the answers to these problems you just ignore them.

#5 you even admitted to NOT KNOWING WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT... but hey... keep on repeating the same ole same ole.

Why did you retire from NASA again? I wonder....

beachnut

16th April 2011, 05:00 PM

April would be dead if explosives were used at the pentagon. A fact ignored.

ozeco41

16th April 2011, 05:18 PM

April would be dead if explosives were used at the pentagon. A fact ignored.
Facts are irrelevant - this is a truther talking. The twisting and turning that is required to change a simple "plane hits building" fact into something else.

Do you fancy writing 'letters to the editor' full of such stupidity? To be published? With your name attached?

I admit I don't understand the political motivation of truthers - or their ego motivation if they genuinely have no political goals. But whether ego driven or politics driven it is a dead set loser strategy to tie whatever they are trying to achieve to easily disproved technical nonsense.

And, unless Joe Public US style is a lot sillier than his Australian equivalent, the said Joe Publics who read letters to the editor ain't gunna be fooled.

tsig

16th April 2011, 05:20 PM

Addressing just the airplane at the Pentagon at this time, I'll preface with my letter to editor that was published this morning (to the North County Times in San Diego County):

Conflict of interest in 9/11 case

On April 5, a case brought against Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Myers raised the bar to a new level for blatant conflict of interest. Judge John M. Walker Jr., a cousin once removed of George Walker Bush, saw no reason to recuse himself when a case charging the former vice president, secretary of defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff came before him for appellate review.

The case charges the defendants with responsibility for injuries suffered by April Gallop, an Army employee, and her newborn son at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.

Gallop and many others in the 9/11 truth movement contend that explosives were planted inside the Pentagon and that no credible evidence has been presented supporting the theory that Flight 77 actually hit the building. The case before the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals is being heard by a three-judge panel. A motion to have Judge Walker disqualified from hearing the case was denied.

Dwain Deets
Encinitas

Clearly, there is something there that the defendants don't want to get out.

Here are my five reasons for questioning AA77:

1. The FDR and RADAR records are in conflict with each other.

2. Witnesses attest to seeing airplane on an approach path to the Pentagon that is inconsistent with the physical damage path.

3. Evidence inside the Pentagon (stopped clocks, etc.) correspond to an explosive event approximately 6 minutes before the official time attributed to an airplane impact.

4. No reporting of evidence has occurred that would tie any airplane parts in the debris to any particular airplane.

5. Failure of air defenses to respond to an obvious inflight emergency (complete loss of contact with AA77 by Indianapolis ATC approximately 40 minutes prior to events at Pentagon).

1. No.

2. When witnesses and physical evidence conflict depend on the physical evidence.

3. Clocks can be off.

4. Where did the parts come from?

5. Shooting down commercial airliners is frowned upon.

dadeets

16th April 2011, 06:52 PM

5. Shooting down commercial airliners is frowned upon.

Showing up to see what is going on is standard operating procedure, has been for decades.

I'm not talking about shooting, I'm talking about finding out what's going on.

dadeets

16th April 2011, 06:55 PM

4. Where did the parts come from?

Who knows? That's a very good question to be asked at an inquiry.

Or another question, where did the parts go to? Big parts, such as those big engines.

dadeets

16th April 2011, 07:03 PM

3. Clocks can be off.

Just a little side note on this one. The memorial at the Pentagon used to have the official time of 9:37 AM included next to the date in the marble stonework. Recently, the time of day has been removed from the memorial.

I suspect the authorities realize there is a serious problem with the time of day for the event.

dadeets

16th April 2011, 07:06 PM

2. When witnesses and physical evidence conflict depend on the physical evidence.

When witnesses and physical evidence conflict, open an inquiry and start asking questions. Be sure to put people under oath.

dadeets

16th April 2011, 07:13 PM

1. No.

No to all of the examples, or just one?

For example, when the radar and ATC controller sees a descending turn to the left just before primary radar and transponder is lost, but the FDR doesn't show this, does "No" mean, I don't know, that the discrepancy is close enough for government work?

tsig

16th April 2011, 07:19 PM

No to all of the examples, or just one?

For example, when the radar and ATC controller sees a descending turn to the left just before primary radar and transponder is lost, but the FDR doesn't show this, does "No" mean, I don't know, that the discrepancy is close enough for government work?

Your basing your argument on a FDR that shouldn't exist by your account.

tsig

16th April 2011, 07:22 PM

Showing up to see what is going on is standard operating procedure, has been for decades.

I'm not talking about shooting, I'm talking about finding out what's going on.

How many military fighters have intercepted civilian airliners?

tsig

16th April 2011, 07:25 PM

Who knows? That's a very good question to be asked at an inquiry.

Or another question, where did the parts go to? Big parts, such as those big engines.

Are you serious?

tsig

16th April 2011, 07:28 PM

When witnesses and physical evidence conflict, open an inquiry and start asking questions. Be sure to put people under oath.

Asking questions that have already been answered and refusing to listen to the answers seems futile.

On my oath I swear that's true.

DGM

16th April 2011, 07:45 PM

How many military fighters have intercepted civilian airliners?
I'd like to know this also Mr Deets. It is "standard procedure" so you must know how many times this was done prior to 9/11.

16.5

16th April 2011, 07:55 PM

Just a little side note on this one. The memorial at the Pentagon used to have the official time of 9:37 AM included next to the date in the marble stonework. Recently, the time of day has been removed from the memorial.

I suspect the authorities realize there is a serious problem with the time of day for the event.

You've never addressed the fact that Boger was in the control tower where a clock allegedly stopped early.

You also never addressed the fact three of your sources directly and absolutely contradict one another.

Yet you mention some rumor about the time of day on a memorial?

I assume that you are incapable, and wonder why I continue to read this ridiculous no planer thread.

DGM

16th April 2011, 08:05 PM

oody

16th April 2011, 08:27 PM

Does anyone have any info on this? I wouldn't hold any hope Mr Deets could tell the truth. I don't remember seeing anything about this.
Your intrepid investigoogler oody finds only apparent truther site http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/Portland-Nuclear-Inquest/message/6983 making the claim:

"9:37 AM Stone" at the Pentagon 9-11 memorial has resently been remo

It appears the national security establishment not only feels the need to rewrite history, they wish to scrub away the history embedded in our monuments?

Note: the "9:37 AM Stone" at the Pentagon 9-11 memorial has recently been removed.

9-11 Pentagon Memorial
http://www.pentagonmemorial.net/

According the "OCT" of the 9-11 commission report, the American airline flight 77 strike occurred at 9:37 AM, curiously all the clocks in the west ring impact zone of the Pentagon stopped at 9:30 AM, why would there be a 7 minute discrepancy?
OCT (the official conspiracy theory)

A cursory look around and google site-search of pentagonmemorial.net finds no specific reference to any stone removal. I'll keep poking around.

DGM

16th April 2011, 08:45 PM

Your intrepid investigoogler oody finds only apparent truther site http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/Portland-Nuclear-Inquest/message/6983 making the claim:

A cursory look around and google site-search of pentagonmemorial.net finds no specific reference to any stone removal. I'll keep poking around.
The reason I asked was, I've been to the memorial and I don't remember a "9:37 AM Stone" or anything like it.

oody

16th April 2011, 08:51 PM

The reason I asked was, I've been to the memorial and I don't remember a "9:37 AM Stone" or anything like it.
I just found this pic of the stone: http://twitpic.com/qfe8e

ETA: someone's twitter pic labelled "Pentagon Memorial show the time 9:37"

Scott Sommers

16th April 2011, 09:02 PM

I believe he is referring to the message described in this article
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-09-11/us/pentagon.memorial_1_memorial-honors-victims-dana-falkenberg-keith-kaseman?_s=PM:US
As they enter the cenotaph, they pass over etched stone that reads, "September 11, 2001 -- 9:37 a.m.," the exact moment of the attack on the Pentagon.

There's also this video. Pay attention around 1:15 into the video.
fDuyu_a5Ifk

I believe Dwain got the idea from here,
http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/Portland-Nuclear-Inquest/message/6983
and since facts found on the Internet are always certainly true, he has not attempted any confirmation himself.

Is that true Dwain?

I too am very bothered by all this. It took THEM 10 years to deal with this? Pretty mysterious. The only explanation I can think of is a gigantic world wide conspiracy involving every head of state and most of the government. Who could THEY be? The New World Order? The Obama Anti-Christ? And why would they wait so long? I'm scared.

BillyRayValentine

16th April 2011, 09:36 PM

When witnesses and physical evidence conflict, open an inquiry and start asking questions. Be sure to put people under oath.

Yes, the moral gravity of being put under oath is the one thing that foils most perpetrators and abettors of mass murder. Brilliant thinking, oh friend of the truth.

oody

16th April 2011, 10:39 PM

excerpt from some person on flickr: (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wallyg/3613760280/) (but no photo of the stone)
A Zero Line at the entrance to the memorial park is a gray stone border set in the ground and inscribed with "September 11, 2001 9:37 a.m." The gray stone was cut from the Pentagon's limestone walls damaged in the attack.

ozeco41

16th April 2011, 11:42 PM

Yes, the moral gravity of being put under oath is the one thing that foils most perpetrators and abettors of mass murder. Brilliant thinking, oh friend of the truth.
They don't score many marks for being realistic.

I have never comprehended why the call for investigation includes "subpoena power' and "evidence under oath". Picture the scene:

"Mr Bin Laden, thank you for attending this inquiry. Did you endorse the actions of 9/11"

...all that apart from the obvious problem of tying their strategy to deliberate lies.

If you want a political move to look at Government involvement in 9/11 and the associated accountability issues why for gawds sake tie your worthy political objective to the dead set loser of a dishonest claim for demolition at WTC.

All that does is feed every politician involved with an easy escape route.

Political naivety IMO

TruthersLie

17th April 2011, 07:51 AM

Showing up to see what is going on is standard operating procedure, has been for decades.

I'm not talking about shooting, I'm talking about finding out what's going on.

The entire "10 minute jet intercepts" and the "80+ aircraft intercepts" has been debunked long ago.

After pointing this out to you, you even acknowledged your own ignorance. Have you bothered to LOOK up this claim? yes or no?

<facepalm>

TruthersLie

17th April 2011, 07:54 AM

Who knows? That's a very good question to be asked at an inquiry.

Or another question, where did the parts go to? Big parts, such as those big engines.

Wowsers Dwain.

Just a simple question for you, since you worked at nasa and all.

Do you mean to tell me those rocket thingies are all one massive part? That they are all cast from the same mold and are not made up of many smaller parts?

Cuz, see, an aircraft engine is like those rocket thingees. (for this extremely simplified analogy) They are made up of hundreds/thousands of smaller parts and when they go boom, or come apart, they don't stay in one intact piece.

There are dozens of (if not hundreds) of images which show parts of the aircraft, parts of the engines, and parts of people. Maybe you missed them... or are you claiming the engines were cast from one piece and should have completely and utterly held together?

DGM

17th April 2011, 09:13 AM

I just found this pic of the stone: http://twitpic.com/qfe8e

ETA: someone's twitter pic labelled "Pentagon Memorial show the time 9:37"
Thanks. Now that I see what they're talking about , I do remember that. I'll have to see if my sister can go by there this week and take a look.

:)

beachnut

17th April 2011, 04:03 PM

... , where did the parts go to? Big parts, such as those big engines.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77engine.jpg
The engine was smashed into parts, here is a large engine part from Flight 77. Why are do you make up and spread false information? This is what an engine looks like in a kinetic energy impact with a building at 488 knots. If CIT and Balsamo could do physics they would understand 911; one could dream, hope, etc...

I investigated aircraft accidents and was trained in things like this, maybe your lack of training and knowledge on aircraft kinetic energy impacts is keeping you from understanding 911 aircraft impacts.

... , where did the parts go to? Big parts, such as those big engines. Did you try to look for them?

pgimeno

18th April 2011, 11:13 AM

1. The FDR and RADAR records are in conflict with each other.

You've shown no valid evidence for this. They match quite correctly, including the left turn you allude to. You can check by watching this video while you still can (Google Video is closing):

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6529691284366443405
6529691284366443405
The left turn starts at about minute 38. It's the one during which the transponder was turned off.

2. Witnesses attest to seeing airplane on an approach path to the Pentagon that is inconsistent with the physical damage path.

And others claiming that the plane downed light poles, consistently with the physical damage path. At worst, what we would have here is a contradiction of eyewitness accounts, something quite expectable in any event. The physical damage can be used to discern who is right though.

3. Evidence inside the Pentagon (stopped clocks, etc.) correspond to an explosive event approximately 6 minutes before the official time attributed to an airplane impact.

That evidence also corresponds to an earthquake at that time. Why aren't you claiming there was an earthquake instead of an explosive event?

Oh, and incidentally it also corresponds to a plane crashing into the building.

4. No reporting of evidence has occurred that would tie any airplane parts in the debris to any particular airplane.

http://11-s.eu.org/11-s/pgimeno-AA-serial.jpg

Now if you really want to get those parts identified, you can go and file a FOIA request with the relevant authorities to ask for the identification of them. Unless your objective is actually NOT to find the truth, that is. However, in that case it will make your case much more feeble, since the burden of proof is on you to prove your claims, you know.

5. Failure of air defenses to respond to an obvious inflight emergency (complete loss of contact with AA77 by Indianapolis ATC approximately 40 minutes prior to events at Pentagon).

That has nothing to do with the identification of AA77 at all. Why are you including that among your reasons to question AA77?

Have you attempted to find out when the air defenses were notified about AA77? Obviously not. You'll be surprised.

When witnesses and physical evidence conflict, open an inquiry and start asking questions. Be sure to put people under oath.
(points at sig)

Anyway, what we have here is many reports matching physical evidence, and a few reports which conflict with those and which were taken years after the event. It's a no-brainer to me.