What caused the hole in the C-Ring of the Pentagon?

[MIKILLINI]

Question for Swing, TC, Tana and whoever else afflicted with twoofwack.

What possible purpose could it serve for those "inside job agents" to intentionally blow a hole in the C-ring? To draw attention to it?

[WildCat]

If you want to see a discussion on this that defies reality, check out the LC thread: http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChange...topic/77034/1/

It's like a stupidity duel between the CIT and Terral and his supporter...

[leftysergeant]

There is no better proof of Nelson's mental inadequacy than his delusions of a pod.

If he believes there is a pod, he is senile. He has been around enough aircraft to know better.

If he knows that there is no pod, and that it is a normal feature of an aircraft of this type, he is an utterly disgusting bald faced liar.

That he thinks he is fooling the majority of people with his lie strengthens the argument that he is less brilliant than he thinks himself.

It is, ergo, probable that Nelson is both evil and incompetant.

[Confuseling]

Originally Posted by WildCat

If you want to see a discussion on this that defies reality, check out the LC thread: http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChange...topic/77034/1/

It's like a stupidity duel between the CIT and Terral and his supporter...

Oh dear God make it stop...

[leftysergeant]

They even bring out a supposed mechanical engineer who thinks that the wreckage passed through six reinforced concrete wall to get to where it ended up.

Michael Meyer is hereby dismissed from the council of rational persons discussing this event, on grouinds of his talking through his trousers.

[Sabrina]

Just to bring up an earlier point of TC's for further debunking...

While driving to my chiropractor's office for an appointment yesterday, I was crossing over the Woodrow Wilson Bridge (inner loop side, so I was heading west, more or less), I happened to see not one, but TWO planes flying overhead on approach to the airport, both of which were following the Potomac River which the bridge happens to span. The Potomac flows NORTH of the Pentagon, therefore, neither one of those planes were on an approach that would take them to the south of the Pentagon on the possible approach that DOES EXIST (there is photographic evidence of it; if someone knows where that photo is that shows the Pentagon out of the plane's front window and could post it, I would appreciate it) to the SOUTH of the Pentagon and that Flight 77 was more or less following.

Not that he'll believe me; after all, I won't give him anything remotely personal so he can verify (read: harass and irritate the heck out of me) that I do in fact live in DC.

[sts60]

I live in the Maryland 'burbs, but have been to DC quite a bit (and flown in and out of National multiple times) and that jibes with my experience.

[tanabear]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Ridiculous.

Please follow me on this, it is quite hilarious:

You're basing your argument that a plane didn't crash in the Pentagon because according to you, the hole in the C-ring is not where it is supposed to be. You know this "fact" based upon studies that confirm that a plane impacted the building.

So because the plane crashed in a way that couldn't have produced that hole, the plane never crashed in the Pentagon?

Holy guacamole!

I'm not basing my argument on the fact that a plane did not impact the E-ring of the Pentagon. I merely stated that what impacted the E-ring and what caused the hole in the C-ring could have been two separate events.

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

It is amazing how the STRUCTURAL ENGINEER you quoted in your OP, who was a part of that performance study, came to the conclusion that it was the landing gear.

I guess them dang stupid engineers got it all wrong, and should have consulted TC and tanabear instead...lol

TAM

Which engineer are you referring to? Lee Evey said, "the nose of the plane just barely broke through the inside of the C Ring, so it was extending into A-E Drive a little bit." Popular Mechanics referencing Mete Sozen said that, "What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass." Allyn Kilsheimer explaining the C-Ring hole said, "The plane became almost like an artillery shell or tank round." Obviously not all claims can be true.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

What Say I is that there's nothing inconsistent about the column damage and the hole out to AE Drive...

...I explained all of this to the very man you're getting your fantasies from, Mr. Russell Pickering, over fourteen months ago. Read here. You will also note that Mr. Pickering himself had no reply, but instead resorted immediately to insults, prior to slinking away.

Furthermore, I defy you to explain why anyone would bother blowing a hole there. The hole is insignificant from a structural point of view. Everything in the interior on the other side was destroyed by aircraft impact. The hole is perfectly aligned with the impact. Domenick couldn't come up with a good reason, and neither can you. Nobody can.

Nobody should care about this particular feature. It's totally insignificant.

These fantasies come from the Pentagon Building Performance Report. It shows that the main force of impact was not directed to the C-Ring hole, but to the south of it. As well, the PBPR states, "The direction of column distortion consistently formed an angle of approximately 42 degrees with the normal to the west exterior wall of the Pentagon." The hole was not created at a 42 degree angle.

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

The hole lines up with the trajectory of the aircraft. This would be the direction in which most of the fuselage and the deck would have travelled, pushing stuff along in front of it. This is a long, narrow object, compared to the rest of the aircraft. This moving debris, combined with what office furniture it picked up on the way, was like a shotgun blast of a massive scale.

The trajectory can change of course when it impacts another object. As the PBPR shows most of the more severely damaged columns are to the south of the C-ring hole. There is no reason to assume that most of the force of the impact was directed at the C-ring hole. As well, why wasn't the hole created at an angle?

Originally Posted by MIKILLINI

Question for Swing, TC, Tana and whoever else afflicted with twoofwack.

What possible purpose could it serve for those "inside job agents" to intentionally blow a hole in the C-ring? To draw attention to it?

One does not have to prove motive to convict someone of a crime. The prosecution just needs to lay out the evidence. "Motive is not an element of crimes. Therefore, prosecutors do not have to prove motive to be successful in a prosecution." Daniel Hall, Criminal Law and Procedure.

"The prosecution does not have the burden of proving motive...We needn't introduce one solitary speck of evidence as to motive." Vincent Bugliosi

Of course, providing a motive can always be helpful in obtaining a conviction. However, the broad motive behind 9/11 was to help bring to fruition all aspects of the neo-con foreign and domestic policy. 9/11 helped to remove all serious ideological and political opposition to them. If you agree with the neo-cons you have a post 9/11 mindset. If not, you have a pre-9/11 mindset. The details of the case, as to motive, are not that important. It is like a prosecutor trying to show the motive behind why a man used a rifle as opposed to a handgun.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by tanabear

I'm not basing my argument on the fact that a plane did not impact the E-ring of the Pentagon. I merely stated that what impacted the E-ring and what caused the hole in the C-ring could have been two separate events.

And you have been wrong for 6 years. What is new? One event caused all the damage; one event caused all the destruction in the Pentagon, and that was the impact of Flight 77.

6 years and all 9/11 truth has done is displayed ignorance on all disciplines relating to 9/11. They, 9/11 truth, have even proved it beyond a shadow of doubt. (cause and effect, grade school topics; lost to all of 9/11 truth)

[Totovader]

Originally Posted by tanabear

I'm not basing my argument on the fact that a plane did not impact the E-ring of the Pentagon. I merely stated that what impacted the E-ring and what caused the hole in the C-ring could have been two separate events.

[...]

One does not have to prove motive to convict someone of a crime.

Of course, providing a motive can always be helpful in obtaining a conviction. However, the broad motive behind 9/11 was to help bring to fruition all aspects of the neo-con foreign and domestic policy. 9/11 helped to remove all serious ideological and political opposition to them. If you agree with the neo-cons you have a post 9/11 mindset. If not, you have a pre-9/11 mindset. The details of the case, as to motive, are not that important. It is like a prosecutor trying to show the motive behind why a man used a rifle as opposed to a handgun.

In the first sentence you elude to the fact that the hole in the C-Ring "could" have been caused by something other than the plane that impacted the building (you offer no reason as to why or how, but let's ignore that for now).

You then proceed to elude to this being a crime.

There are quite a few contradictions, here- the first being that you are claiming that the legitimate event was not likely to be the cause of the hole in the C-Ring. This entire thread goes into great detail as to why that assertion is nonsense. Second, without explaining what the purpose of this C-Ring hole would be, you assert a crime- and you assert a crime when there is a legitimate plane crash that you eluded to in the first sentence.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it to- by staying away from any sort of an argument, you think that simply waving your finger and demanding an unreasonable amount of specificity is enough. You can't even get your story straight, let alone your analogy.

In a criminal case, you need evidence. You have none.

[tanabear]

Originally Posted by beachnut

And you have been wrong for 6 years. What is new? One event caused all the damage; one event caused all the destruction in the Pentagon, and that was the impact of Flight 77.

6 years and all 9/11 truth has done is displayed ignorance on all disciplines relating to 9/11. They, 9/11 truth, have even proved it beyond a shadow of doubt. (cause and effect, grade school topics; lost to all of 9/11 truth)

The original purpose of this thread was to ask the people who believe the official 9/11 story what they think caused the hole in the C-ring of the Pentagon. So what was the cause of the hole in the C-ring?

Originally Posted by Totovader

In the first sentence you elude to the fact that the hole in the C-Ring "could" have been caused by something other than the plane that impacted the building (you offer no reason as to why or how, but let's ignore that for now).

You then proceed to elude to this being a crime.

There are quite a few contradictions, here- the first being that you are claiming that the legitimate event was not likely to be the cause of the hole in the C-Ring. This entire thread goes into great detail as to why that assertion is nonsense. Second, without explaining what the purpose of this C-Ring hole would be, you assert a crime- and you assert a crime when there is a legitimate plane crash that you eluded to in the first sentence.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it to- by staying away from any sort of an argument, you think that simply waving your finger and demanding an unreasonable amount of specificity is enough. You can't even get your story straight, let alone your analogy.

In a criminal case, you need evidence. You have none.

If you have evidence of what caused the hole in the C-ring then why don't you present it? I am not demanding an unreasonable amount of specificity, merely an explanation. As far as motive goes, why did Hani Hanjor strike Wedge 1 of the Pentagon? As MSNBC's Ashleigh Banfield reported, "It's ironic says Pentagon Renovation Manager Lee Evey that the hijacked airliner smashed into the very area of the Pentagon that had just undergone a renovation to strengthen the building against a terrorist attack. The death toll could have been much worse." If you can't explain Hani's motive for attacking Wedge 1 then obviously he didn't do it.

[beachnut]

77 did all the damage. (it is kind of sick, the mass of the people on board helped create the damage; 9/11 truth is pathetic trying to make up lies and false information about 9/11; sick people making up hearsay and false information – 9/11 truth)

When 9/11 truth has evidence to prove 77 did not do the damage, they can get a Pulitzer Prize. But the odds of that are zero.

[jhunter1163]

Quote:

These fantasies come from the Pentagon Building Performance Report. It shows that the main force of impact was not directed to the C-Ring hole, but to the south of it. As well, the PBPR states, "The direction of column distortion consistently formed an angle of approximately 42 degrees with the normal to the west exterior wall of the Pentagon." The hole was not created at a 42 degree angle.

This means that the plane entered the Pentagon at an angle of 42 degrees relative to the west exterior wall. This is exactly what we see when we look at that graphic of the Pentagon damage and where the bodies were found.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by tanabear

If you can't explain Hani's motive for attacking Wedge 1 then obviously he didn't do it.

Hani was an adequate pilot but not a great one. He almost over-shot D.C. and had to descend rapidly. His original target may well have been the White House or the Capitol, but he found himself to low and off-course and took a target off opportunity or alternate target. He may have figured he didn't have time or perhaps the skills for another go-around to hit his primary, so he just took a secondary target. That wall was just the one that he was pointed at when he finished his descent.. Fortuitously, it also had the approach most free of elevated roadways, trees and out buildings. Perfect. It would have lessened the impact had he hit one of the annexes on some of the other faces of the building.

Kilsheimer's comments are probably the closest to the actuality of the situation. The mass of debris was pretty well broken up, but still quitre energetic. It was still shoving material ahead of it.

An explosive charge at the punch out would have blown stuff back into the center of the impacted space.

Epic fail.

[Totovader]

Originally Posted by tanabear

The original purpose of this thread was to ask the people who believe the official 9/11 story what they think caused the hole in the C-ring of the Pentagon. So what was the cause of the hole in the C-ring?

That question has been answered far too many times.

You are dodging the issue at this point. You refuse to accept the evidence, and think that this excludes you from having to provide your own.

It does not.

Quote:

If you have evidence of what caused the hole in the C-ring then why don't you present it?

I already have- and so have many others in this thread. You refuse to accept the evidence, because it destroys your fantasy. You would rather assert- without any proof whatsoever- that the hole was created by anything but a plane. Remember my discussion about why the "Truth" is divided- it's because of unthinking positions such as yours: it doesn't matter what it was as long as it wasn't the plane- evidence be damned.

Quote:

I am not demanding an unreasonable amount of specificity, merely an explanation.

You have that- and you have rejected it time and time again without explanation.

Quote:

As far as motive goes, why did Hani Hanjor strike Wedge 1 of the Pentagon? As MSNBC's Ashleigh Banfield reported, "It's ironic says Pentagon Renovation Manager Lee Evey that the hijacked airliner smashed into the very area of the Pentagon that had just undergone a renovation to strengthen the building against a terrorist attack. The death toll could have been much worse." If you can't explain Hani's motive for attacking Wedge 1 then obviously he didn't do it.

You dodged the question- and are attempting to derail your own thread.


I will ask again, what evidence do you have that it was not a plane? What evidence do you have that contradicts the widely held scientific position?

Or is your only argument that it could have been something else- and then to ignore the evidence that it was not?

This is a really simple concept that you cannot seem to grasp, here's how it goes:

You ask "what caused this hole?"
Many people respond "Flight 77."
You ignore that and continue to ask "what caused this hole?"
People still answer "Flight 77."

At what point does it stop? When do you accept the evidence?

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by Totovader

That question has been answered far too many times.

Is your answer Flight 77?

Because then you're going to have to answer: what part of Flight 77 survived the initial impact, travelled through the bldg, to blast a circular hole in the C ring without leaving any discernible evidence of itself?

I look forward to some of your spinning verbosity.

[Totovader]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Is your answer Flight 77?

Because then you're going to have to answer: what part of Flight 77 survived the initial impact, travelled through the bldg, to blast a circular hole in the C ring without leaving any discernible evidence of itself?

I look forward to some of your spinning verbosity.

You're the one spinning.

Why would you require that amount of specificity? Does that make any sense to you at all? Do you also demand that every broken or destroyed column also have a specific plane part that describes what happened to it? And if we are somehow able to do this for 98% of the columns, will that 2% cause this same bullcrap doubt?

It's not at all unreasonable to expect that parts of the plane would continue past the "initial impact"- planes and buildings are not indestructible.

So, once again, Red- what evidence do you have contradicting these findings?

None? Oh, then move on.

[Totovader]

Originally Posted by Totovader

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

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

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

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

It's just plain stupidity.

This is the 3rd time I've posted this, now.

Red, your thoughts?

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by Totovader

You're the one spinning.

Why would you require that amount of specificity? Does that make any sense to you at all? Do you also demand that every broken or destroyed column also have a specific plane part that describes what happened to it? And if we are somehow able to do this for 98% of the columns, will that 2% cause this same bullcrap doubt?

It's not at all unreasonable to expect that parts of the plane would continue past the "initial impact"- planes and buildings are not indestructible.

So, once again, Red- what evidence do you have contradicting these findings?

None? Oh, then move on.

I have a fantasy baseball draft in about 15 minutes. I promise to come back and deconstruct this lovely piece of rationalization and your strange confirmation through ignorance.

[Totovader]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

I have a fantasy baseball draft in about 15 minutes. I promise to come back and deconstruct this lovely piece of rationalization and your strange confirmation through ignorance.

I have no doubt that whatever you do will be through ignorance.

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by Totovader

I have no doubt that whatever you do will be through ignorance.

You obviously haven't seen my previous fantasy baseball teams.

[Totovader]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

You obviously haven't seen my previous fantasy baseball teams.

Nor would I care to.

Let's stick to the topic, shall we?

Unless you have an answer to my questions above, and a response to the previous post where you demand an unreasonable amount of specificity- then I suggest you do not post.

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by Totovader

Nor would I care to.

Let's stick to the topic, shall we?

Unless you have an answer to my questions above, and a response to the previous post where you demand an unreasonable amount of specificity- then I suggest you do not post.

Sorry,but I"m not able to oblige your sincerest desires. See you in a few hours. I will give your posts due consideration.

[Totovader]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Sorry,but I"m not able to oblige your sincerest desires. See you in a few hours. I will give your posts due consideration.

Well, I will at least be the last one to post, then...

This is ridiculous, Red. There's no reason to waste this post space with your incessant threats. If it takes you an hour to respond, then take an hour and then respond. This is not a chat room, and I do not expect your responses within 15 minutes.

Frankly, I don't think your response will have any more credibility if it comes now, or in the next 20 days, though. Your problem is not the time it takes you to respond- it's that you ignore the issues.

This does allow me to make a prediction, however: I suspect that you will ignore the fact that I have pointed out that you demand an absurd amount of specificity- while at the same time demanding no evidence whatsoever for your own claims- while also ignoring the fact that there is a mountain of evidence for Flight 77 impacting the Pentagon. You will ignore my question demanding that you provide evidence that it was not Flight 77, and instead focus on the fact that each of the columns were documented- and then claim that this specificity matches your own.

Of course, you will ignore my reply that this is because this is a structural categorization, not a "cause finding" study- we know it was a plane. Requiring more specificity than that is not a valid excuse to dismiss evidence.

The conspiracists position here is a special brand of an argument from ignorance- they ignore the evidence in conjunction with demanding more of it, and then pretend that a lack of this specificity is proof of an anomaly or an irregularity- and then insert their own theory which not only contradicts all of the available evidence, but has no evidence supporting it.

I suppose we could simply call this the conspiracists fallacy.

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by Totovader

Well, I will at least be the last one to post, then...

Don't be too sure.

Quote:

This is ridiculous, Red. There's no reason to waste this post space with your incessant threats. If it takes you an hour to respond, then take an hour and then respond. This is not a chat room, and I do not expect your responses within 15 minutes.

I find it strange that you were threatened by my post.

Quote:

Frankly, I don't think your response will have any more credibility if it comes now, or in the next 20 days, though. Your problem is not the time it takes you to respond- it's that you ignore the issues.

You obviously don't see the irony in the fact that I'm asking for specifity.

Quote:

This does allow me to make a prediction, however: I suspect that you will ignore the fact that I have pointed out that you demand an absurd amount of specificity- while at the same time demanding no evidence whatsoever for your own claims- while also ignoring the fact that there is a mountain of evidence for Flight 77 impacting the Pentagon. You will ignore my question demanding that you provide evidence that it was not Flight 77, and instead focus on the fact that each of the columns were documented- and then claim that this specificity matches your own.

And yet, after all that, the question remains the same: what part of Flight 77 caused the exit hole? Secondly, what serially charged plane parts found at the Pentagon site confirm that the plane which struck the Pentagon was in fact, Flight 77?

Quote:

Of course, you will ignore my reply that this is because this is a structural categorization, not a "cause finding" study- we know it was a plane. Requiring more specificity than that is not a valid excuse to dismiss evidence.

Why are so many investigations into 9/11 related events not "cause finding"? This is exactly what it should be.

Quote:

The conspiracists position here is a special brand of an argument from ignorance- they ignore the evidence in conjunction with demanding more of it, and then pretend that a lack of this specificity is proof of an anomaly or an irregularity- and then insert their own theory which not only contradicts all of the available evidence, but has no evidence supporting it.

I suppose we could simply call this the conspiracists fallacy.

And what is this, proof by verbosity?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Don't be too sure.



I find it strange that you were threatened by my post.



You obviously don't see the irony in the fact that I'm asking for specifity.



And yet, after all that, the question remains the same: what part of Flight 77 caused the exit hole? Secondly, what serially charged plane parts found at the Pentagon site confirm that the plane which struck the Pentagon was in fact, Flight 77?



Why are so many investigations into 9/11 related events not "cause finding"? This is exactly what it should be.



And what is this, proof by verbosity?

Ask questions, ignore answers. Rinse, repeat. The mantra of the "truth" movement in a nutshell.

[DavidJames]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Ask questions, ignore answers. Rinse, repeat. The mantra of the "truth" movement in a nutshell.

Red, LC, Sizzler, Swing, Oxigen, all the pdoh puppets et al....People who offer zero evidence to support their fantasies. People who do nothing to further what they believe to be the biggest miscarriage of justice in U.S. history, except post on Internet forums.

We really are seeing the bottom of the CT barrel aren't we?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by DavidJames

Red, LC, Sizzler, Swing, Oxigen, all the pdoh puppets et al....People who offer zero evidence to support their fantasies. People who do nothing to further what they believe to be the biggest miscarriage of justice in U.S. history, except post on Internet forums.

We really are seeing the bottom of the CT barrel aren't we?

The truther's fact barrel is empty, but the stupid barrel is bottomless.

[Totovader]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

I find it strange that you were threatened by my post.

I did not say I felt threatened by your post, I said it was a threat.

Two completely different things- and the fact that you feel the need to beat your chest and mock up a victory is quite telling. Let's make sure we're clear on this, though: you are not the least bit intimidating. In fact, I know that all I need to do in order to watch you bury your own argument is simply ask a question.

Quote:

You obviously don't see the irony in the fact that I'm asking for specifity.

Since I have been quite clear on why that requirement is highly irrational- I'm not even sure what you think this "irony" means.

Quote:

And yet, after all that, the question remains the same: what part of Flight 77 caused the exit hole? Secondly, what serially charged plane parts found at the Pentagon site confirm that the plane which struck the Pentagon was in fact, Flight 77?

You completely ignored my post. This information has been provided for you countless times. Every single time you ignore it. Repeating it for you is unlikely to cause you to stop ignoring it.

Quote:

Why are so many investigations into 9/11 related events not "cause finding"? This is exactly what it should be.

Because rational and sane people are more interested in how to prevent these types of attacks from occurring again, and learning from them to improve building performance and save lives.

The vast majority of the population is not interested in playing stupid fantasy role-playing games about super secret government operations and ignoring the facts. When you demand that we stop investigating what caused the deaths of so many people, and instead demand that we listen to your absurd fantasies, then you become nothing more than an annoyance.

Quote:

And what is this, proof by verbosity?

Actually, it's called a prediction. The strongest indicator that it was a prediction is when I said the phrase: "I predict". Since you did almost exactly what I predicted, my prediction was accurate.

What evidence do you have that it was not Flight 77, Red?

Anything at all?

[Totovader]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Ask questions, ignore answers. Rinse, repeat. The mantra of the "truth" movement in a nutshell.

That was Red "deconstructing" my argument...

I'm not particularly impressed.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Originally Posted by tanabear

If you can't explain Hani's motive for attacking Wedge 1 then obviously he didn't do it.

Oh! Oh! Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. You're assuming that his target was Wedge 1, because that's what he hit. Why are you making that assumption?

Also, I believe that's Stundie material...

[uk_dave]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

And yet, after all that, the question remains the same: what part of Flight 77 caused the exit hole?

What a stupid question.

Who cares (apart from desperate 'truthers')?

Quote:

Secondly, what serially charged plane parts found at the Pentagon site confirm that the plane which struck the Pentagon was in fact, Flight 77?

Ahhhhh the 'Lastchild' gambit. Gotta hand it to that kid, he's given the 'truth' movement a new direction based upon complete denial of anything and everything presented by the multitude of investigative bodies.

[leftysergeant]

No single object need be named as the causative agent in the punchout. By that time there were very few, if any, complete assemblies, but rather, an accelerated mass of odds and ends. the landing gear being merely the heaviest solid piece. The debris found lying on top of the sheetrock at the punchout was a mix of aircraft parts and contents as well as office contents. The longitudinal deck of the aircraft served as a guide for most of it, That was the only thing likely to have wiggled between the columns, though not without breaking randomly in the process. The bodies of passengers, having been, initially, strapped down to seats bolted to the deck would have continued on with that deck for some distance. That is why body parts were found so far inside the building.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

And yet, after all that, the question remains the same: what part of Flight 77 caused the exit hole? Secondly, what serially charged plane parts found at the Pentagon site confirm that the plane which struck the Pentagon was in fact, Flight 77?

Well Red it's been 6.5 years and it's time for you to [rule10] or get off the pot. If you don't believe that the physical evidence already presented indicates that flight 77 hit the Pentagon then you must think it was something else. What was it? Don't cop out and say you don't claim this or that, say it or STFU. It's time Red! Do it.

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Is your answer Flight 77?

Because then you're going to have to answer: what part of Flight 77 survived the initial impact, travelled through the bldg, to blast a circular hole in the C ring without leaving any discernible evidence of itself?

I look forward to some of your spinning verbosity.

reds fantasy straw man team highlighted

Red. please explain to us what happens to the contents within the fuselage of 757 when said fuselage decelerates from 530 MPH due to impact with a blast reinforced office building. keep in mind the fuselage 757's are circular ( 12' 4") in cross section.

[Hamradioguy]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

what part of Flight 77 survived the initial impact, travelled through the bldg, to blast a circular hole in the C ring without leaving any discernible evidence of itself?

Maybe this tire thing in the photo? It seems a bit large to be a caster from a Pentagon office chair.

[WildCat]

From another thread:

Originally Posted by RedIbis

neglecting to see the importance of an exit hole.

Originally Posted by WildCat

Please describe the importance of the exit hole in the Pentagon.

Originally Posted by RedIbis

There's a hole (pun intended) thread for that.

The floor is yours RedIbis.

[jsiv]

Originally Posted by tanabear

So please pick your best explanation for what caused the hole in the C-Ring of the Pentagon.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by WildCat

From another thread:



The floor is yours RedIbis.

<crickets>

[CurtC]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

what part of Flight 77 survived the initial impact, travelled through the bldg, to blast a circular hole in the C ring without leaving any discernible evidence of itself?

Does the answer have to be one specific part of the plane? Why?

Why can't it be a grouping of smaller chunks, and even material from inside the Pentagon that was entrained in the debris' path through the Pentagon, that collectively punched that wall out?