It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Another Look At The Generator Trailer Damage

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Translation: It doesn't matter to pinch that the generator damage is irreconcilable to what 13 independent witnesses in this critical area unanimously report.



So then what you're saying is that the 13 are wrong.

That the physical damage means they are mistaken.

That the radar tracks prove them wrong.

That the 13 statements that say the plane hit the Pentagon proves that there was no flyover.




posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz


What does it matter what I think? This thread is about your theory.


As you obviously agree it certainly does not matter what you think in the least.

You simply have exposed that your motive for contributing to my thread about my theory is to be an antagonist who will flip his argument in a heartbeat in order to promote an adversarial tone that is not conducive to civil or honest discussion.



If it is aluminum, would you admit that there's nothing fishy? And that the side being missing is explained by simple melting aluminum?


Of course not because the evidence we present proves the plane was nowhere near the trailer and also because the official data and physical damage does not line up properly with their own story anyway.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the trailer is aluminum or steel nor have we ever made a claim either way.

The point is that you are now arguing FOR a scenario that you mockingly arguing against when you interjected yourself into the discussion.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


We choose to accept scientifically validated independent verifiable evidence.

You choose to accept what the government tells you based on pure faith and blanket accepting of all controlled, sequestered, and provided unverifiable data with zero skepticism.

I am a skeptic and you are a zealot.

That is the difference in mentality between us and why further discussion is pointless.

You've simply positioned and exposed yourself as the antagonist and are determined to aggressively pursue this role even if you are forced to completely flip your own argument in the process.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Of course not because the evidence we present proves the plane was nowhere near the trailer



But a "comprehensive investigation" would take into account ALL evidence.

You don't do that. You cherry pick. Period.

And yes, I'm aware that you have made no claims about the material used for the trailer enclosure. I'm asking you if you know. You admit you don't.

But it's important to know because it would indicate that no exotic explosives were necessary to cause the missing side.

But you don't want to hear anything about it.

Fine.

Carry on.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

I am a skeptic



Really?

What is your explanation again for why the 13 believe the plane hit the Pentagon again?

That they were brainwashed by the media reports?

And you're not skeptical of THAT?

Sounds like YOU'RE the zealot, for only a zealot could believe that tripe....



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz


But a "comprehensive investigation" would take into account ALL evidence.

You don't do that. You cherry pick. Period.


Wrong.

Nothing was cherry picked and you provide no evidence for this accusation.



And yes, I'm aware that you have made no claims about the material used for the trailer enclosure. I'm asking you if you know. You admit you don't.

But it's important to know because it would indicate that no exotic explosives were necessary to cause the missing side.


I NEVER claimed that "exotic explosives" were used or necessary for ANY of the damage at the Pentagon let alone the trailer.

Stop lying about my claims.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

you provide no evidence for this accusation.



You exclude the cabbie's statements by accusing him of being a shill. That's cherry picking.

You exclude the priest's statements by saying he's a shill. That's cherry picking.

You exclude the 13 saying that 77 hit the Pentagon, by saying that they were brainwashed by media reports, or something similar. That's cherry picking.

You exclude the dude at the heliport when he said he saw 77 hit the Pentagon. That's cherry picking.

You've excluded the FDR data by purposefully made incorrect statements about it. That's cherry picking.

You've excluded radar data by saying it was faked. That's cherry picking.

I could go on, but the point is made.

You cherry pick data and testimony to make it fit your ideas, and exclude/attack any that doesn't.

Period.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

I NEVER claimed that "exotic explosives" were used or necessary for ANY of the damage at the Pentagon let alone the trailer.



Ok.

So do you know if the skin is aluminum?



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


It's not aluminum. It's steel. Page 3 shows the material components for the enclosure.



Powder coated 14-gauge (minimum) galvanealed steel panels
Bolted panel construction using Caterpillar grade 8 fasteners
Steel deck plate on floor
Three (3) lockable, gasketed personnel doors
Steps, OSHA rated, one (1) for each personnel door, three (3) total.
Two (2) access panels provided for bus bars and discharge
plenum access
Eight (8) 100 Watt incandescent lights with globes and guards.
Switches at each door (3 total)
Three (3) duplex GFI receptacles, one by each personnel door.
Removable lift provisions


Emphasis mine.

EDIT: trying to fix link


[edit on 23-1-2009 by cogburn]

[edit on 23-1-2009 by cogburn]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Where's the generator? Well, let's take a look.



Here's a cutaway view for the trailer in question from manufacturer's publications previously posted in this thread.



Given the position of the door in the cutaway is consistent with the image presented, one may assume the position of the trailer is the same. Here is the same image with an estimate of the evident damage overlaid.



The damage occurred most significantly in the section containing the fuel tank and front standing breaks. It is possible that the impact and resulting fire destroyed those components, as possibly evidenced in the background refuse in the original image.



I see nothing in the images that suggest anything other than an impact and resulting diesel fuel fire.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by cogburn
 


Your assumptions and speculation do not refute the fact that the north side evidence proves the trailer was not hit by the plane OR the fact that the NTSB data and dimensions of a 757 are irreconcilable with the damage as well.

You have not even addressed as single point made in the OP let alone refuted it.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 

You stated that the damage to the generator was not caused by an aircraft.

I showed there is nothing in those pictures that in any way indicates anything that contradicts the story of an aircraft causing the damage.

The assertion that NoC proves a fly-off is false, as I've said multiple times.

A true statement would be "NoC is contradictory to the damage pattern as presented".

Evidence could then be presented that provides evidence as to how the damage pattern was created, highlighting the exact nature of the contradiction.

What in those photos is in contradiction to the "official" story?



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   
What caused the rear gouge?


original photo source

It couldn't have been the flap track of a 757 wing as suggested by many impact proponents that's for sure!



Not even if you lower the plane to be too low to match the bent corner.


These are scale models.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   
I don't see anything that indicates the direction of the object that made the gouge.

Perhaps it was made by material being ejected from the explosion of impact and not the plane as it headed towards the Pentagon.

Sure, perhaps NTSB/NIST/whomever got the assumption about the gouge incorrect.

It does not invalidate any of the other physical evidence, it simply leaves a portion potentially with a poor explanation.

By what facts do you claim this potential mistake invalidates the rest of the scene of the generator?

[edit on 23-1-2009 by cogburn]



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by cogburn

It's not aluminum. It's steel. Page 3 shows the material components for the enclosure.



I don't think it's a CAT generator though, for a couple of reasons.

1-In Craig's first post, he has this photo:

i40.photobucket.com...

You've also posted a similar photos. They show louvres on the left side extending to the floor. The CAT sheet you posted doesn't show that. Neither do the photos in his 3rd post of the "3516B" - it has louvres like that on the RIGHT side. If it was a CAT, it would have been one of these, and NOT a 3516B :

www.cat.com...

or maybe :

www.cat.com...

Which has louvres that come CLOSE to the floor of the trailer, but not quite, so I don't think that's it.

It looks like CAT and Cummins takes old shipping containers and modifies them with doors, sound insulation, etc to make them into enclosures.

2- in Craig's first post, he has a close up of the area where the engine hit, and it has a small square port there. None of these photos or drawings of the CAT show that.

Anyways, I have no idea what it is.

I did find this however :

www.dieselserviceandsupply.com...

Click on the photo of the interior, and it's clearly aluminum.

And this:

www.generatorjoe.net...

Where they make custom enclosures - from aluminum.

But who knows...



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Here's an image that Russell Pickering had up on his now defunct site.



Looks like the same trailer to me.

Sounds like you are in desperate denial mode.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Looks like the same trailer to me.



LMAO.

I'm sure it does.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 

This is all specualtoin and arm chair quaterbacking.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Is there any documentation as to what was stored in those trailers?



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


Specifically? No.



This image was shot within minutes of the impact and shows fires still raging inside the trailer. This is obviously indicative of some sort of flammable material existing inside the trailer long after the explosion, as the images presented in the OP were taken after this one and the fire is still present. The trailer certainly wasn't empty. The assumption is that it is the diesel fuel required by the generator that is burning off. No other explanation has been offered as to what is fueling that fire.

It also shows an excellent perspective of the facade damage in relation to the position of the trailer.

If one believes that the explosion was some sort of munitions detonation that originated in the trailer, it would have had to have been sufficient to burn the entire facade of the building up to the rear of the air tower. If there was a munition, luckily it wasn't powerful enough to kill Sean Boger... who was in the air tower and witnessed the impact.

If anyone would like to suggest such a munition that resolves all of the above facts I'd be open to entertain it.

[edit on 26-1-2009 by cogburn]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join