What Happened to the Planes? 911 and Logic

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

You can't tell us what ain't there you can just lie and imply that it is.

Well, I guess you'll never know for sure. That's a pity. What motivates you to complain about a lack of information and at the same time tell everyon that you won't waste your time reading the source where the information can be found?

Tell you what - I'll give you a hint - you can't search for it.

So you are saying that if you find every use of the word concrete in the NCSTAR1 report and read the sentences around the use of the word you can't figure out what they are saying about the concrete? So you think that if they specify the total for the concrete in the towers that it can't be found that way?

It works for the steel. They specify 200,000 tons in three places.

Some people are really good at advertising their stupidity.

There are more than 3,000 uses of the word concrete in the NCSTAR1 report but that is still a lot less than reading 10,000 pages especially since the use of the word tends to cluster together. Just because I say I have not read the whole NCSTAR1 report does not mean I have not read any of it.

Of course if it ani't there then you can't find it to tell us even if you read the entire report.

Great demonstration of stupidity.

psik

To even speculate we need information about the ammount of debrie recovered. As other posters said, you cant just assume everything has been posted online in pictures.

If you say that the debrie has been planted, how do you think it has been done? Before the explosion, after the explosion? imbedded during the renovation of the wing? You dont touch on that.

Originally posted by Cassius666
To even speculate we need information about the ammount of debrie recovered. As other posters said, you cant just assume everything has been posted online in pictures.

If you say that the debrie has been planted, how do you think it has been done? Before the explosion, after the explosion? imbedded during the renovation of the wing? You dont touch on that.

Don't assume anything.

But that also means you don't ASSUME an airliner went into the Pentagon. It needs to be PROVEN that an airliner went into the Pentagon. So why can't people who say an airliner did that provide sufficient pictorial evidence for debris sufficient to be an airliner? The empty plane would have been about 100 tons. How could 50 tons be cleared out without lots of pictures from such a news worthy event?

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
It needs to be PROVEN that an airliner went into the Pentagon. So why can't people who say an airliner did that provide sufficient pictorial evidence for debris sufficient to be an airliner? The empty plane would have been about 100 tons. How could 50 tons be cleared out without lots of pictures from such a news worthy event?

psik

edit on 26-4-2012 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)

Well, this was the day of miracles, when all laws of physics were suspended, according to the OS'ers. Somehow, this miracle "plane' for the most part "disintegrated" on impact with that Big, Bad, Concrete outer wall of the Pentagon, but at the same time, it managed to penetrate SIX of those concrete walls to the far side of the C-ring, and still retained enough mass to create a nice 16-foot round hole.

If it was one of the engines that did this, what happened to the other of these engines from hell?

Was it the nose? That hollow aluminum nose?

That would be preposterous. But then, what do the OS'ers ever say that ISN'T preposterous?

So the Pentagon releases these five ridiculous frames that show the trail of white smoke, the "plane" has not yet impacted the building, and there is clearly no 757 behind the parking gate box thing. It has been proven beyond any doubt that AT LEAST the vertical tail section would have been very visible over the box thing. So yes, we can PROVE that there was no 757 from the Pentagon's own photos.

If it looks like a missile, smells like a missile (cordite, according to Navy personnel on the scene), and flies like a missile, it's usually a missile. But not to an OS'er. It's a 757. Because the gubmint says so.

That's why it is so mind-boggling that these threads even continue, that these deluded OS'ers/trolls/shills can even show up day after day.

There have been rumours circulating on the web, especially over the last few months, that a plane didn't actually strike the Pentagon, in fact, apparently according to some eye-witnesses, they didn't see a plane at all, but a definitive missile-like shaped object. Recently footage of this 'missile' surfaced. The following video purportedly shows a missile-shaped object just before the Pentagon explodes, and perhaps even more unbelievably, this so-called 'missile' was manned. There is even footage from inside the missile's cockpit: www.youtube.com...

reply to post by SimontheMagus


You mean the two concrete walls? The outer ring wall and then the outer wall of the C ring? Or were you completely unaware that the outer three rings were conjoined on the first and second stories?

Originally posted by Cassius666
To even speculate we need information about the ammount of debrie recovered. As other posters said, you cant just assume everything has been posted online in pictures.

If you say that the debrie has been planted, how do you think it has been done? Before the explosion, after the explosion? imbedded during the renovation of the wing? You dont touch on that.

apparently one engine was found intact on top of an intact bus shelter!

Originally posted by Nathan-D
There have been rumours circulating on the web, especially over the last few months, that a plane didn't actually strike the Pentagon, in fact, apparently according to some eye-witnesses, they didn't see a plane at all, but a definitive missile-like shaped object. Recently footage of this 'missile' surfaced. The following video purportedly shows a missile-shaped object just before the Pentagon explodes, and perhaps even more unbelievably, this so-called 'missile' was manned. There is even footage from inside the missile's cockpit: www.youtube.com...

edit on 26-4-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)

Yep, people sitting in traffic near to the pentagon said they saw no plane, go figure. Even early reporters said that it did not look like a plane had crashed. Obviously they had not been handed their scripts by them.

Whoever wrote all the scripts for that day forgot to brief everyone. When real eye-witnesses say there was no plane I'm inclined to believe them.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by SimontheMagus

 

You mean the two concrete walls? The outer ring wall and then the outer wall of the C ring? Or were you completely unaware that the outer three rings were conjoined on the first and second stories?

Either way, the trajectory of the "757" must have been parallel with and INCHES off the ground.... geez, what a pilot!!

Please show me diagrams that show there were no load bearing walls to hold up the upper walls. Please enlighten me on this and anything else I might be "completely unaware" about. Thanks

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Cassius666
To even speculate we need information about the ammount of debrie recovered. As other posters said, you cant just assume everything has been posted online in pictures.

If you say that the debrie has been planted, how do you think it has been done? Before the explosion, after the explosion? imbedded during the renovation of the wing? You dont touch on that.

Don't assume anything.

But that also means you don't ASSUME an airliner went into the Pentagon. It needs to be PROVEN that an airliner went into the Pentagon. So why can't people who say an airliner did that provide sufficient pictorial evidence for debris sufficient to be an airliner? The empty plane would have been about 100 tons. How could 50 tons be cleared out without lots of pictures from such a news worthy event?

psik

edit on 26-4-2012 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)

How do you account for the debrie that has been found? Planted evidence? Photoshop, pictures not taken at the pentagon?

Is there any testimony of the people who have been on the site that there was foulplay involved? So far the evidence for a wrecked plane at the site seems to be pretty overwhelming, such as landing gear, tires etc. and you do not account for it.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by SimontheMagus

 

You mean the two concrete walls? The outer ring wall and then the outer wall of the C ring? Or were you completely unaware that the outer three rings were conjoined on the first and second stories?

Either way, the trajectory of the "757" must have been parallel with and INCHES off the ground.... geez, what a pilot!!

Please show me diagrams that show there were no load bearing walls to hold up the upper walls. Please enlighten me on this and anything else I might be "completely unaware" about. Thanks

edit on 27-4-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-4-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-4-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-4-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-4-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

You evidently haven't read this paper published last year analysing the final seconds of data from AA 77's flight data recorder :-

www.journalof911studies.com...

You will note that the last radio height recorded by the fdr was 4 feet, not inches.

reply to post by SimontheMagus

Well, this was the day of miracles, when all laws of physics were suspended, according to the OS'ers. Somehow, this miracle "plane' for the most part "disintegrated" on impact with that Big, Bad, Concrete outer wall of the Pentagon, but at the same time, it managed to penetrate SIX of those concrete walls to the far side of the C-ring, and still retained enough mass to create a nice 16-foot round hole.

Wrong numb nutz.....

Pentagon is made of BRICK. Outer E ring wall has a facade of limestone over the brick

Empire State Building in New York is built of the same materials

"When the Pentagon was designed and built in the early 1940s," reflected Walter Lee Evey, director of the Pentagon Renovation Program Office, "there were a number of concessions made to a country at war. The original designers exercised economies in construction to lessen the impact on strategic materials needed to equip the military." The extensive use of reinforced concrete and non-reinforced masonry was one concession. Certainly the threat of any kind of terrorist attack on the building was far from the thoughts of the original designers. As a result, the Pentagon was constructed with a thin limestone facade over a brick infill between reinforced concrete floors, structurally supported by a reinforced concrete beam and column frame. Enough to protect from the elements but not from the potential forces of significant blast events.

There are no interior walls on the 2 lowest floors between the E ring and C rings

Many researchers have asserted that whatever produced the C-Ring hole had to pass through six masonry walls, since it had to traverse three rings -- C, D, and E. However the exterior walls between the outermost three rings did not go down to ground level, since the intervening light-wells were only three stories deep. The outer three rings were unified on the first and second floors, meaning that the only heavy structures between the facade and the C-Ring wall with the hole were occasional columns. Thus it is plausible that an engine could have passed through the three rings, missing the reinforced concrete pillars, and puncturing the C-Ring wall.

As an aside, back to Empire State building - B25 struck it in July 1945

One engine shot through the side opposite the impact and flew as far as the next block, landing on the roof of a nearby building and starting a fire that destroyed a penthouse. The other engine and part of the landing gear plummeted down an elevator shaft. The resulting fire was extinguished in 40 minutes. It is still the only fire at such a height that has ever been successfully controlled.

Engine from World War 2 aircraft punching completely through a building ......


Does it bother you that every statement you make is wrong.......

Originally posted by Alfie1
You will note that the last radio height recorded by the fdr was 4 feet, not inches.

4 feet is 48 inches. To me, when it comes to ground effect, it is still "inches". How about you go take a flying lesson, fly 48 inches off the ground at near maximum speed for whatever aircraft you're in, and have your next of kin notify us of how far you were able to maintain it. I'll forget about the five sheared off light poles for the purposes of your experiment.

Originally posted by thedman
Wrong numb nutz.....

Pentagon is made of BRICK. Outer E ring wall has a facade of limestone over the brick

Empire State Building in New York is built of the same materials

There are no interior walls on the 2 lowest floors between the E ring and C rings

Does it bother you that every statement you make is wrong.......

I'd rather be wrong about a couple of minute details than to be a complete and utter fool trying to dismantle the truth piece by piece with stuff that your own garbage evidence admits is only "plausible". This is the perfect illustration of the meaning of the phrase "cannot see the forest for the trees". It's a never ending load of horse-manure that you dish out, and I'm the numb nutz??

So you're saying that one engine penetrated through the c-ring, but the other didn't even put a dent in the outside wall. In response, this "numb nutz" presents Exhibit A:



Is it supposed to make a difference whether it was "brick" or "concrete"? Your "evidence" uses words like "plausible".... in the meantime, please explain why the vertical stabilizer wing visible in this frame is about one third the size of a 757....

Exhibit B:



Just to help you along, here's what a 757 would have looked like, if there had been one....

Exhibits C and D:

reply to post by psikeyhackr

There are more than 3,000 uses of the word concrete in the NCSTAR1 report but that is still a lot less than reading 10,000 pages especially since the use of the word tends to cluster together. Just because I say I have not read the whole NCSTAR1 report does not mean I have not read any of it.

I told you before you can't search for it, you have to read the report.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by Alfie1
You will note that the last radio height recorded by the fdr was 4 feet, not inches.

4 feet is 48 inches. To me, when it comes to ground effect, it is still "inches". How about you go take a flying lesson, fly 48 inches off the ground at near maximum speed for whatever aircraft you're in, and have your next of kin notify us of how far you were able to maintain it. I'll forget about the five sheared off light poles for the purposes of your experiment.

If you had read the report I linked you to you would have noticed that the aircraft struck the first lightpole about 5 feet from the top. As the pole was 36 feet high the aircraft height was then about 31 feet. This was a little over a second before impact. So in its final second and a fraction the aircraft descended from 31 feet to 4 feet. At no time did it fly parallel to the ground and inches above as you alleged.

So far as your ground effect argument goes, it is not shared by aerospace experts.

www.aerospaceweb.org...

Originally posted by 4hero

Originally posted by Nathan-D
There have been rumours circulating on the web, especially over the last few months, that a plane didn't actually strike the Pentagon, in fact, apparently according to some eye-witnesses, they didn't see a plane at all, but a definitive missile-like shaped object. Recently footage of this 'missile' surfaced. The following video purportedly shows a missile-shaped object just before the Pentagon explodes, and perhaps even more unbelievably, this so-called 'missile' was manned. There is even footage from inside the missile's cockpit: www.youtube.com...

edit on 26-4-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)

Yep, people sitting in traffic near to the pentagon said they saw no plane, go figure. Even early reporters said that it did not look like a plane had crashed. Obviously they had not been handed their scripts by them.

Whoever wrote all the scripts for that day forgot to brief everyone. When real eye-witnesses say there was no plane I'm inclined to believe them.

A witness to a "no plane" is nonsense. The only thing a witness can say is " I didn't see one"

Perhaps you could provide your list of witnesses who say they didn't see a plane to counter this list of plenty who did..

911research.wtc7.net...

Originally posted by Cassius666

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Cassius666
To even speculate we need information about the ammount of debrie recovered. As other posters said, you cant just assume everything has been posted online in pictures.

If you say that the debrie has been planted, how do you think it has been done? Before the explosion, after the explosion? imbedded during the renovation of the wing? You dont touch on that.

Don't assume anything.

But that also means you don't ASSUME an airliner went into the Pentagon. It needs to be PROVEN that an airliner went into the Pentagon. So why can't people who say an airliner did that provide sufficient pictorial evidence for debris sufficient to be an airliner? The empty plane would have been about 100 tons. How could 50 tons be cleared out without lots of pictures from such a news worthy event?

psik

edit on 26-4-2012 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)

How do you account for the debrie that has been found? Planted evidence? Photoshop, pictures not taken at the pentagon?

Is there any testimony of the people who have been on the site that there was foulplay involved? So far the evidence for a wrecked plane at the site seems to be pretty overwhelming, such as landing gear, tires etc. and you do not account for it.

I am not saying that the Pentagon was not hit by anything. I am saying that if it was hit by an airliner then there should have been sufficient debris and there should be sufficient photographic evidence of that debris to show that it was indeed an airliner. So why aren't there plenty of photographs of seats and more than just one photo of one wheel that we can't even tell the size of?

psik

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by thedman
Wrong numb nutz.....

Pentagon is made of BRICK. Outer E ring wall has a facade of limestone over the brick

Empire State Building in New York is built of the same materials

There are no interior walls on the 2 lowest floors between the E ring and C rings

Does it bother you that every statement you make is wrong.......

I'd rather be wrong about a couple of minute details than to be a complete and utter fool trying to dismantle the truth piece by piece with stuff that your own garbage evidence admits is only "plausible". This is the perfect illustration of the meaning of the phrase "cannot see the forest for the trees". It's a never ending load of horse-manure that you dish out, and I'm the numb nutz??

So you're saying that one engine penetrated through the c-ring, but the other didn't even put a dent in the outside wall. In response, this "numb nutz" presents Exhibit A:

What an exhibit ! I don't imagine it was possible to find anything more utterly obscure .

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

There are more than 3,000 uses of the word concrete in the NCSTAR1 report but that is still a lot less than reading 10,000 pages especially since the use of the word tends to cluster together. Just because I say I have not read the whole NCSTAR1 report does not mean I have not read any of it.

I told you before you can't search for it, you have to read the report.

So you have talked bullsh# before and you keep talking bullsh#.

But I notice you don't say what the amount is and where it is so you can repeating the same empty claim.

I AM impressed.

psik