9/11 facts - weigh in - OS VS others

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Thermo Klein

 

DOES THIS LOOK LIKE THE SCENE OF AN AIRPLANE CRASH?

Yes.

There - now what are you going to do? I say it looks like an airplane crash site. Therefore it must be, correct? Or are we going only by your opinion?

You could also say it's alien craft landing site, but normally people have some evidence for why they say things.

What do you mean evidence? I have my reasons why I think it looks like a plane crash site (burnt ground and woods, debris from the plane, etc.) but I guess my opinion doesn't count only yours.

Originally posted by hooper
but I guess my opinion doesn't count only yours.

If your not going to accept my opinion why should we accept yours?

Thats why we post something called evidence.

Originally posted by REMISNE

If your not going to accept my opinion why should we accept yours?

Thats why we post something called evidence.

This is true. This is why I rely on the the evidence that says it's mind numbingly stupid for the gov't to manufacture some fake crash site in broad daylight in the middle of nowhere that serves no purpose whatsoever, and then turn around and try to cover up the fake crash site they manufactured. All this, when they had at least two or more genuine disposable planes under their command that they were already crashing into buildings.

Either that, or the evidence says the conspriators behind these secret plots are a bunch of stoned high school kids with no real goal oriented agenda whatsoever.

reply to post by REMISNE


Actually, opinions are just fine also, as long as they are recognized as such. "Facts" are difficult things to absolutley establish in this environment. So as long as everyone is playing the same game then there can be progress. But if all you want to do is say everything you present is a fact because you presented it and everything else is just an unsubstantiated opinion then it will go nowhere fast.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
This is true. This is why I rely on the the evidence that says it's mind numbingly stupid for the gov't to manufacture some fake crash site in broad daylight in the middle of nowhere that serves no purpose whatsoever, and then turn around and try to cover up the fake crash site they manufactured.

I never stated it was a fake crash site.

But you also have no evidence (with proper sources) that 93 crashed at that site.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
This is true. This is why I rely on the the evidence that says it's mind numbingly stupid for the gov't to manufacture some fake crash site in broad daylight in the middle of nowhere that serves no purpose whatsoever, and then turn around and try to cover up the fake crash site they manufactured.

I never stated it was a fake crash site.

But you also have no evidence (with proper sources) that 93 crashed at that site.

Is not the FBI a proper source and if not, why not?

reply to post by Thermo Klein

You can dig up some pictures of airplane pieces that allegedly came from this, but... DOES THIS LOOK LIKE THE SCENE OF AN AIRPLANE CRASH?

So how many crash scenes you been to ? How do you know what a crash
scene looks like?

Is this a crash scene ? It is picture of same scene only from different angle




Look at the aircraft debris - so is this a crash scene?

reply to post by thedman


I would say "Not a crash site." There is one single piece of airplane-like debris laying on the lawn, but there's no hole in the ground, no hole in the building, and the alleged impact site is not in the picture.

Turns out there is no impact site! The picture I presented earlier shows the after-explosion view of the whole front area affected, and there is no airplane debris, no hole in the Pentagon wall, and fire crews on the scene of the fire. The hole isn't there yet, because the hole you could see later happened AFTER the upper floors collapsed, not as a result of an airplane crash.

Based on the after-explosion picture, there was no plane.

Originally posted by hooper

What do you mean evidence? I have my reasons why I think it looks like a plane crash site (burnt ground and woods, debris from the plane, etc.) but I guess my opinion doesn't count only yours.

This has NOTHING to do with opinions. I assume we both have eyes... we're looking at a wide-angle, clear view of the front of the Pentagon, after the explosion. There are no visible aircraft parts - no wheels, no seats, no luggage, no burned up people, no engines, no black box... there is NOTHING in that picture that indicates an airplane crashed there. Lots of things can make burnt ground and woods. Besides, the alleged hole is not even visible behind the 12-15 foot water spray from the fire engine so there's no way the plane is inside the building - the collapse hadn't happened yet.

Incidentally, there are no "burnt ground and woods", and no "debris from the plane" - you sure you're looking at the right picture?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9deb5955a169.jpg[/atsimg]


[edit on 3-2-2010 by Thermo Klein]

reply to post by Thermo Klein

...you sure you're looking at the right picture?

You are only looking at (or using) one picture, and ignoring all the rest.

Why???

reply to post by weedwhacker


Fair, and very appropriate question Weed. Because it's a wide angle, whole view shot, that is very clear and right after the explosion, before any part of the building collapsed. It is without doubt the most appropriate picture of the explosion and aftermath.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e7bd4d6e2310.jpg[/atsimg]

This is a casual but "get the idea across" picture to compare the sizes of what we're looking at. Give it correct plus/minus 10 feet if you like.

The wingspan of a Boeing 757-300 is 124 feet. I haven't heard which model number 757 was supposed to be crashed there but it will be close in size, if not exact. I'm an ex-American Airlines, and America West, employee and have plenty of experience with airplanes - there's not much size difference in the two.

We see empty ground and no hole... the airplane would barely fit into this picture but it's just not there.

www.boeing.com...


[edit on 3-2-2010 by Thermo Klein]

Originally posted by REMISNE

But you also have no evidence (with proper sources) that 93 crashed at that site.

Yes, I have evidence. Namely, the evidence that faking a crash site in the middle of nowhere serves no purpose whatsoever, is a waste of time and resources, adds unnecessary extra layers on top of an already heavily convoluted conspiracy plot, and just makes it that much more dangerous that the plot would be exposed.

Thus, the likelihood that flight 93 crashed there grossly outweighs the likelihood that flight 93 didn't crash there.

reply to post by Thermo Klein

The wingspan of a Boeing 757-300 is 124 feet. I haven't heard which model number 757 was supposed to be crashed there but it will be close in size, if not exact.

The airplane operated as AA 77 was a B-757-200, not a -300 (American did not then --- since they didn't yet exist --- nor does it now operate and B-757-300s.

I'm an ex-American Airlines, and America West, employee and have plenty of experience with airplanes - there's not much size difference in the two.

Brilliant. Two different airlines, with no merger nor anything else to lump them together.

I was at Continental, as a PILOT, for 22 years!!! With thousands of hours on many various types, including thousands on the B-757/767...to include the B-757-300 version, AND the B-767-200/400 models...

reply to post by weedwhacker


Cool =) always good to see an industry guy.

Also means you know how little difference in wingspan there is between a -200 and a -300. If you like, Weed, I'll be happy to look up the precise measurement of the airplane, but remeber my estimation is +/- 10 feet. It's not THAT relevant - it's close to the whole width of the picture, but STILL doesn't exist.

Edited to add:
No use derailing the thread over a petty detail so I went and checked. The Boeing 757-200 has the exact same wingspan dimensions as the Boeing 757-300; at 124'10". (further down on the previous Boeing.com link]


**

As an irrelevant sidenote: My experience at two different airlines makes quite a bit of difference. I worked directly with many types and models of Boeing planes at both jobs so my ability and experience to spot the wingspan similarity turned out to be accurate. Was it really that necessary for you to try to discredit me personally over such a minute point that you already knew the answer to?


[edit on 3-2-2010 by Thermo Klein]

reply to post by Thermo Klein


Yes.

Thermocline (see, I saw your avatar, and figured out your clever name) the wingspans are the same, within inches (the addition of the winglets, by a later STC, increases the span slightly, but is irrelevant since AA77 did not have winglets, and the STC did not yet exist anyway in 2001...)

Point is, I LIVE here, drove past the Pentagon numerous times, in the immediate aftermath (even from I-395 the west portion is visible, if you crane your neck). The size and extent of the damage NEVER looked wrong to me --- it is only these many years hence, when people post photos such as the one you are using, and try to convince you of something that they really don't represent as truth.

There are ample OTHER photos, unadulterated and not so misleading, if you care to search for them.


Keep in mind, also, that merely looking at the total wingspan doesn't tell the entire story, IE, the portions of the wings that extend beyond where the engines are mounted aren't nearly as strong, or as heavily constructed, as the inner portions...BECAUSE of the engine and landing gear mounting, and the strength needed in the center wingbox where it attaches to the fuselage.

The majority of the strength of the construction of the wing is, also, designed for "up/down" loads....it is NOT designed, nor does it encounter in normal flight, very strong horizontal load forces (except, of course, those from the force of the air, in as I said, normal flight regimes. Actaully, not very strong forces, compared with impacting a building such as the Pentagon facade at over 480 knots...).

reply to post by GoodOlDave


"mind numbingly stupid" is not evidence...

Just take that as a snarky, rhetorical statement - I have no interest in discussing what happened over Pennsylvania.
With Rumsfeld's statement (on video) that it was shot down, to the complete lack of wreckage, to the cooperation of NORAD, that whole mess is likely never going to be figured out. I'll stick to more realistic proof of conspiracy.


[edit on 3-2-2010 by Thermo Klein]

reply to post by weedwhacker


So while driving on a freeway, craning your neck, you could get a glimpse of the damage, from one- to two- hundred yards away.

There are ample OTHER photos, unadulterated and not so misleading, if you care to search for them.

I'd like to see some of those that include a lot of the wreckage from AA 77. Also, are you insinuating the main picture I've been showing (of the alleged impact site) has been edited?

looking at the total wingspan doesn't tell the entire story

Any aspect of wing construction is ENTIRELY irrelevant if there's no proof they ever crashed there, unless you're trying to imply the entire airplane fit through a 12' hole behind the water stream.

So, how 'bout those pictures that have appropriate damage and wreckage? I will happily change my mind if I see what I consider an airplane crash site. I don't mean a single piece of unburnt aluminum on the ground, or a burnt pancake of a black box, or a few burnt wattsits in the backyard - I mean a plane crash site.

Thermo, can you say how you arrived at the impact point in your schematic above? You suggest it's in the centre of the photo, but why?

I'm not saying you're wrong. Just interested.

reply to post by Thermo Klein

Any aspect of wing construction is ENTIRELY irrelevant if there's no proof they ever crashed there, unless you're trying to imply the entire airplane fit through a 12' hole behind the water stream.

No, of course not.

But, my point is that that one photo being used (and probably one you found on some conspiracy-minded website) does not thoroughly represent the true extent of devastation at the impact point. You have been fooled by others who cleverly (?) manipulate which images they wish to use in order to foist their twisted version and views of events.

There are ample more reliable sources one can search via the Google-monster-machine...with substantially better, more accurate photographs to give those who NEVER saw the damage with their own eyes a better perspective.

I think what's happened is simple: A photographic image can be mis-interpreted very easily, and used to influence opions, based on a full absence of other facts. Basing a belief on the "faking" of the crash scene at the Pentagon based solely on those misleading photos is rash, and ill advised.

I have looked very criticaly at the FDR evidence from AA 77 (and UA 93 as well) and find the data totally consistent with what I know about how the airplanes are operated, how the data is collected and stored, and of particular note, I am completely satisfied that ALL of the autoflight operating procedures seen in the data are also consistent with the facts, and the truth, of American 77 and United 93.

ALL of it fits perfectly, from takeoff through the cockpit intrusion and takeover, until recordings end on impact.