Originally posted by johnlear
You certainly have presented a lot of evidence for your theory, CatHerder, but so did the Warren Commission and that didn't make it true.
Stating something isn't true is hardly a refutation of the evidence presented to establish its truthfulness.
In other words, you aren't saying anything, aren't addressing any of the issues brought up, and are simply stating a silly opinion.
What difference does it make at this point as to why the empty wings didn't smash thru reinforced concrete? The engines? Maybe they fell off with
the wings and were destroyed in the explosion, and thats why there are no entry holes in the concrete barriers for them. But what difference does it
make at this point? People saw the plane screeching torwards it. People saw the plane actually hit it. There were human remains in the debris, along
with parts of the plane. The blast hole was big enough for the fuselage. Its absurd to say that the strangeness of the engines throws the whole
thing out (and there are parts of the engine there too!). Its more parsimonious to say that it was a plane than something else, merely because there
are no entrance holes for the engines.
And if you had bothered to read the innovations site report and analysis of the crash, you would see why there are no engine holes. And comming
back to this, CH noted that in other plane crashes, the wings and engine do fall apart anyway.
So basically, you're actually irrationally, and not even looking at the evidence.
The hypothesis that the wings and tail and fuel from a Boeing 757 disintegrated from the high kinectic energy of impact is pure, unadulterated,
unmitigated B.S. [because] I have been a pilot for almost 50 years
Oh ok. So you've been a pilot for almost 50 years, therefore the laws of physics work as you would personally like them to when its something that
And there is something else I don't understand about this.
If the plane didn't hit the pentagon, but everyone on it was murdered and the plane was trashed scorched, and transported either to the site or to
the labs that did the research (and this means that all the witnesses were lying and the photos and videos that show parts of the plane on site while
this was going on are fake of course) and then the 'real' conspirators fired a missile into the pentagon, well, but, why? If they had the plane,
killed everyone on it and demolished it, and had rammed two planes into the wtc, then why did they go thru all this for the pentagon?
There hasn't been one shred, one single shred, of evidence suggesting that something else hit the pentagon, and there hasn't even been any good
reasoning to suggest so. If planes could hit the wtc, then they could hit the pentagon. There is obviously debris from a plane at the crash site,
and there are people who saw the plane crash into the pentagon
what stopped the wings from vaporizing before reaching the WTC?
The walls of the wtc are entirely different than the reinforced contrete walls of the pentagon. The larger hole could be from the wings, or could,
more likely i think, be from the resultant explosion.
Somone needs to give [catherder] a medal.
I agree. Its amazing that stating the blatantly obvious should warrant such, yet there it is.
Your telling me the wing hit across that window and the window didn't break?
Amazing. Even if i was an explosion, you'd've thought the windows would've broken. Or are people now denying that any damage was done at all? That
all damage photos are fakes and the attack never even happened? They're reinforced
windows! The pentagon was built and then rebuilt (and now
rebuilt again) to withstand an attack
! You think they put the same glass in the windows as you or I have in our homes?! Heck even the local
schools have wire reinforced windows, and this is the command center for the combined arms of the most advanced army on the planet! There are windows
all over it that I'd've thought should've been broken, that doesn't mean a plane didn't hit!
Again, I think the video actually hinders the 757 argument, not helps it.
what does that matter if the rest of the evidence indicates a plane hit it? If the terribly grainy and (imo) useless video is fake, what does it
matter? And how does it hurt the arguement if its real? You've said that a few times so far, but haven't said why, why?
The fire was so hot, Evey said, that it turned window glass to liquid
This does not say all windows were melted.
I didn't misinterpret the news article.
So back to the original question about the wings and windows: How could the exposion which was hot enough to destroy the wings
Yes, you did misinterpret. The report says the fire, not the explosion, the fire that resulted from the explosion became so hot that it melted some
windows, it doesn't say it melted all windows, and it doesn't have to, and the windows are bomb
resistant. That means that they resist
explosions, otherwise know as impacts
. So its perfectly probable that they can melt when you ignite jetliner fuel and bake them in it for a
while but not have been smashed by an impact, and of course this complain of your ignores that the windows in question obviously
sort of impact. The walls around them are badly damaged. Yet these particular windows were able to survive. How does that mean that there wasn't a
plane? The source of the impact is irrelvant at that point, they windows were plainly strong enough to withstand some impacts.
the evidence YOU proposed are not consistent with the theory you proposed.
The problem apparently is that you haven't read the inovations website report, which goes into what happens during the high speed impact/explosion.
Are some of them mistaken or lying?
They're mistaken mostly. Some of them thought they saw then plane, and then said they actually saw a smaller plane, and hell one of them even says
he saw the plane hit the building.
see horizontal stabilizers on top of the vertical stabilizers
Ok, what was it then. How'd the plane parts get there, how'd the bodies get there, what happend to the actual plane and teh actual people and
why'd a different plane get used?
Who says whatever hit the building wasn’t custom built
Why would it be a different custom built plane?
Were the passengers really found and identified
Why was the security video that was confiscated never released/shown
What difference does that make?
Witnesses that were close to the Pentagon are less likely to have seen much at all
Hence their inability to say what flight number it was, and the variance in size estimates. Also, some of the people were far enough away to see that
it was a plane.
HOW THE F**K CAN A PLANE GET THAT BLOODY CLOSE TO THE MOST SECURED AND GUARDED BUILDING IN THE WORLD!
How would you have defended the building from teh plane? Send security out with their rubber guns? There is no heavy artillery on or near the
pentagon, there aren't sams, rpgs, or any of the crap, and no one knew where that plane was until it was too late. The building was still occupied.
It'd be almost impossible to defend a kamikazi plane. hell, battleships and aircraft carriers can't defend against them even! Hows an unarmed
immobile unwary building
supposed to fend it off? And what mathematical analysis are you using to calculate the damage radius of the plane?
What mass are you using for the plane, what was its inertia upon impact and what effect on that does the ingiting jetfuel have?
Why, if the wing went across that window, is there still a window there
are you stupid or something? The outline of the wing shows it stopping before the _ it shows the frame damaged, and maybe even shows part of
the two part window blow out with teh remaining portion clearly damaged, but not knocked out. and, as CH has repeatedly stated, some of the windows
were blasted out of their frames, hit so violently that they were ripped out of their frames, and were so strong that they weren't destroyed and
instead lay on the ground. This reinforced blast proof window
did what it was designed to do, survive a high impact/explosion.
Wings shear off when planes enter holes,
At least you are stating reasons, unlike some of the jokers here. Infact, thats a perfectly sensible question, however, its addressed in the analysis
links provided. From what I understand of it, upon impact, the thing was terrible smashed up , like CH said [well, paraphrased0 it acted like a
liquid, and poured (in a sense) thru the holes. The wings weren't sheared off, and if that was the claim, you would expect there to be lots of wing
on the lawn. But, in plane crashes, even regular ones, the bulk of the debris is often squished up in a lump beyond the impact site. Remeber, the
item is traveling, with an incredible intertia, in a single direction.
Now...which parts in the debris go with which part in diagram
So somone else found the photos, and the diagram, and now you need them to do what exactly, match every part of the debris to the schematics of the
plane? i would think that the people who built the damned thing would have difficulty doing that. But really, no one should bother telling you
anything, because you apparently are too lazy to even click on the source link provided. The parts the can be identified are the engine compressor or
turbine disk and the combustion chamber houseing, according to the site that skibum got the diagram from and clearly linked to. You keep talking
about 'scrutinizing', when you aren't even doing that. You're doing nothing but asking someone to point out everything to you.
What is your
theory to explain the evidence? Or can't you put the information together? Having eyewitness accounts of a plane hitting a
building, damage consistent with a plane hitting a building, parts of a plane damaged and deposited at the crash site, and near simultaneous attacks
of planes hitting other building isn't enough for you? If you can't come up with a better explanation, then, guess what, this is the best
Catherder, I applaud you and sympathize with your obvious and well warranted frustration. You've obviously been more patient that I have been, and
I've only put one (albiet ludicrously long) post into this thread. Is there some thread where you are addressing the other issues that you are trying
to keep seperate here? Its obvious that you are capable of rational thought, I'd like to see that discussion if its already started.