9/11 facts - weigh in - OS VS others

Originally posted by weedwhacker

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.

Well , got to say , who are you that we should care about your "Critical Eye"

We have a General , in charge of Global Security , who looked at those pictures with a Critical Eye, and he says , and I quote, "NO WAY"

reply to post by Thermo Klein


I believe we were talking about Flight 93 in Pennsylvania. But the same applies to the photo you posted of the Pentagon. If a plane crashes INTO a building I would be very suprised to see a lot of wreckage OUTSIDE of the building AHEAD of the point of impact. The photo you posted is, again in my opinion, consistent with a large plane crashing into that type of building.

reply to post by hooper


Alright - case solved then. I see an intact wall that should either have fallen or left a lot of airplane wreckage. Somehow you see an intact wall but that there's airplane wreckage on the other side - I guess you assume the plane went through the windows or something?

reply to post by Thermo Klein


Ever wonder why the windows above the hole, where the Tail should have hit,

weren't broken?

They say the plane traveled so fast as to be "sucked" into a 16 foot hole.

Surely at that speed the windows would break.

The plane crushed steel entering the Tower's, tail incl.

Thing's that make you go , Hmm.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
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.

*** Edited to change pics - both after explosion, but before and after the collapse of the building ***

The damage to the front of the Pentagon was in a small area, so the collapsed portion must have been the only place someone could assume an airplane hit - so I consider that the center (lower pic collapse).

The upper pic shows the same area, based on the fires. The building hadn't collapsed yet though - which is the main reason I say no airplane hit there.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a73806855e73.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 4-2-2010 by Thermo Klein]

Thanks. I'm not sure I can see why you think they're showing that exact place - to me the crash point could be further left (I'm not saying it definitely is).

The lower picture looks odd to me, even doctored?

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


I got some more clear pics. I agree, that lower previous lower picture looked weird to me too. I added circles around a few telling details, showing it is without doubt the same location.

This is a touchy subject - I'm glad we all agree diligence is required. I think these two pictures measure up.

By the way - I searched the AP, Associated Press, website for pics but I couldn't find any that show this. I got these pictures from a simple Google search using "Pentagon 9/11 pics"

[edit on 4-2-2010 by Thermo Klein]

reply to post by Thermo Klein


No offence, but you're definitely incorrect above.

Look at your right hand line (of the box) and then compare it to the long columns that frame the windows in the section to the right of the pictures. Your upper photo has three sets of windows with no columns, whereas the collapse seems to include them.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
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.

Once again you conspiracy theorists are taking quotes out of context to suit your own antiestablishment political agenda. What Rumsfeld said EXACTLY was...

"And I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten -- indeed the word "terrorized" is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be."

...so going by your own unbending strict methodology to accept every word, apostrophe, and comma at face value, Rumsfeld is saying it was *the terrorists* that shot down flight 93, not the gov't. Thus, you need to explain why the gov't would want to cover up the fact that al Qaida operatives shot down a plane that had been hijacked by other al Qaida operatives. Just becuase you're so madly in love with the idea that the gov't shot it down it doesn't give you the right to deliberately change the evidence around to artificially make thinks look that way, you know.

BTW who the heck told you there was no plane wreckage at the crash site? Were you there?

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


You're right; I extended the box over. I also circled the truck, the broken window, and that white thing on the ground. This is a very slightly different angle but you can't honestly say that's not the same spot...

Originally posted by Sean48

Ever wonder why the windows above the hole, where the Tail should have hit,

weren't broken?

If you don't like the current explanation, then it becomes your obligation to give us an alternative scenario that better fits the facts. So then,, how does your "cruise missile" theory (or predator drone or sky warrior or hologram or UFO or whatever the heck you think it was that hit the Pentagon) explain the windows not being broken?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Dave , its your story , the OS remember.

If you are starting to seek other answers, god bless.

We as TM, need only shoot holes in the OS.

NON BROKEN WINDOWS = Another hole in the OS

DECISION TIME

I posted easily attainable photos from an internet Google search. They have exact details showing without doubt:

FIRST) The wall was intact after the explosion
SECOND) THEN the wall collapsed

Neither picture of the supposed crash site (the spot with the most damage) shows ANY indication at all that an airplane crashed there.

The argument that the airplane is INSIDE the building is absurd because the wall was intact! No 124 foot wide plane goes through a wall without breaking it down.

My challenge to you is this:

ACCEPT THAT NO AIRPLANE CRASHED INTO THE PENTAGON.

It's an emotion-invoking and tough decision to think maybe you misinterpreted that horrific, emotional event on 9/11, or that the media lied to us. Most of us experienced it and believed what we heard that day. On 9/11 I accepted everything except that the twin towers collapsed without explosives. It wasn't until after seeing 100s of pictures that didn't look like an airplane crash, and the Pentagon film showing an explosion but NOT showing an airplane that I really started looking into this.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a73806855e73.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 4-2-2010 by Thermo Klein]

Originally posted by Sean48

Dave , its your story , the OS remember.

If you are starting to seek other answers, god bless.

We as TM, need only shoot holes in the OS.

WRONG! If your entire mission in life is to argue over every nut, bolt, and door hinge durign the events of 9/11 then you might as well stop arguing now, becuase sooner or later, you WILL ask a question that simply can't be answered. That doesn't mean there isn't a logical answer. It means we don't know, and its usually becuase we don't care.

I don't know...and I really don't care to know... the EXACT component of WTC 7 that originally caught fire when wreckage from WTC 1 fell on it, the EXACT amount of aviation fuel in gallons each plane was carrying during the impact, or even the EXACT number of toilet seats that were up vs how many were down in WTC 2 when the plane hit. Your job, if you truly doubt the commission report, is to give us a reasonable sounding alternative scenario that better fits the contradictions you perceive are there. If you can't do that then all you're doign is muddying the waters and getting people all worked up over trivial details that make no difference in the end one way or the other.

Case in point...

NON BROKEN WINDOWS = Another hole in the OS

Non broken windows = another hole in EVERY CONSPIRACY CLAIM there is, as well, becuase everything from cruise missiles to pre planted bombs would have broken them too. Are you saying that since the windows weren't broken, and since no logical explanation for this exists, it must mean the Pentagon was never really attacked, then...?

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

ACCEPT THAT NO AIRPLANE CRASHED INTO THE PENTAGON.

So then explain the blizzard of eyewitnesses who all saw that it was an airplane that hit the Pentagon. The place ain't out in the middle of the desert or on the bottom of the ocean. It's in an industrial park with a major highway running right next to it.

I said it before and I'll say it again- if you don't accept the explanation of the commission report, it then becomes YOUR obligation to give us an alternative scenario that better fits the facts. What alternative scenario do you have that explains passenger jet wreckage inside the PEntagon, AND the eyewitness accounts AND the mysterious wall damage?

reply to post by GoodOlDave

it then becomes YOUR obligation to give us an alternative scenario

I made my case: pictures of an explosion with no airplane.

One step at a time Ol Dave. First we disprove the media story with actual facts/pictures. Then, when enough people accept we were lied to, THEN we can look into the real story. It's not my place to speculate on things I don't know about, and have no pictures of.

An explosion with no airplane remains exactly what shows up in the pictures - an explosion with no airplane.


[edit on 4-2-2010 by Thermo Klein]

reply to post by Thermo Klein

No 124 foot wide plane goes through a wall without breaking it down.

Again, we are missing the point!!!!!

A consistant repeating of the 'wingspan' of nearly 125 feet is irrelevant!!!!!

It is an intentional distraction from the other facts.

I tried to explain earlier....the MASS of the wing sections, outboard of the heavier structure more inboard (where the relatively heavy engines are mounted....and where most of the landing --- vertical --- loads must be distributed throughout the structure...)

...the wing structure 'outboard' of the main center "beefier" sections is actually quite fragile.

...WHEN it is smashed up against a building facade, such as was seen at the Pentagon!

(Please, keep in mind, there was an incredible difference in the facades of the WTC Towers' facades, when compared to how the
pentagon is constructed).

I have been wondering if the PHYSICS involved with incredibly high-speed airplane crashes just aren't comprehended by these folks who 'question' the events of 9/11.

Or, if PHYSICS basics in general aren't understood!

Also (and this may deserve its own thread, perhaps) I am beginning to wonder if most of these "questioners" of the 9/11 facts aren't just too young, with limited life experience, to fully understand the real sciences involved....maybe THIS is why these 'arguments' continue???


(This co-incides with other threads that try to continually cry "fake" on the great work of NASA, and especially the Apollo Moon missions....I see a pattern of mis-understanding, based on POOR information, and inadequate research....)

reply to post by Sean48

Ever wonder why the windows above the hole, where the Tail should have hit,

weren't broken?

What were they made of?

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

I made my case: pictures of an explosion with no airplane.

...and the case *I* made trumps the case *YOU* made: eyewitnesses in the area specifically saw that it was an airplane that hit the Pentagon.

So I will ask again- what alternative scenario do you have that explains both the strange wall damage AND the eyewitnesses seeing an airplane hitting the Pentagon? Many of them were pretty explicit.

Eyewitness accounts of the Pentagon attack

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Sean48

 

Ever wonder why the windows above the hole, where the Tail should have hit,

weren't broken?

What were they made of?

I know they were "blast proof" , what exactly , dont know.

But if the plane made a hole thru the Pent at 500 mph, the tail would be traveling just as fast .