Cynthetiq

no i'm not even claiming that the rest of the items made it inside the hole.

showing a lengthwise photo inquiring how it fits into a smaller whole is disingenious at best to this conversation.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

From no angle, even spinning, can a 757 fit into a 15' diameter hole. That's the point. The picture in profile is intended to show the tail and the size of the fuselage, neither of which can fit in the hole produced by the projectile that hit the Pentagon.

The_Jazz

Flaming? Hardly. He's debating the point.

Wings aren't designed to stay attached to a plane if it crashes into a concrete building. I EXPECT that they would fold back and follow through the hole made by the main body of the plane.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Willravel

Except there are no hinges on the wings of most commercial planes. In order for what you say to be true, in the fraction of a second that the plane hits the building, the 124' wingspan folded into the plane. They didn't explode because they were full of fuel. They didn't even make a scratch, they folded so quickly.

I don't get how that's intellectually insulting. I don't understand how people can assume the wings folded into the fuselage somehow, despite the fact that it's almost impossible. And when I say almost impossible, I mean like it's almost impossible that I can lay an egg.

Racnad

The tail and wings would have shattered upon impact on the heavy concrete building, and yes, there were peices of airplane scattered across the site. The main mass of the plane was in the fusalauge, that that was enough to punch relatively smaller hole into the building.

BTW, I watched the History channel documentary. The hole in the 3rd ring contraticts the cruise missle theory. If missle exploded upon impact on the outer ring, then what could have created the hole in the third ring?

And what about all the people near the Pentagon who saw a plane, not a missle?

BTW, please answer my previous questions about Monica Lewinski and the lack of planted WMD in Iraq.

Cynthetiq

really need to check into reality based facts as opposed to your conjecture:

I'm going to try to refrain from sounding like someone beligerent asking how to get 2 6" sections from 1 8" plank, but I feel no matter how I shape the next parts it will be taken as such.

I've not done the due diligence, but since you question "can a 757 fit into a 15' diameter hole?" On its face the answer is yes, 12"6" is less than 15".

As for the wings folding, too many Transformer movies or something. There was plenty of debris in front of the Pentagon, if I recall, photos of at least 1 engine.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...s/q0110c.shtml






note this crash in NJ was a low speed crash into a brick building. Brick is notoriously not good as a defense against high speed impacts or even siesmic activity.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

I didn't make myself clear enough, I guess. Assuming the wings folded into the plane, somehow, the plane still would have been wider than 15'. The 12 or so feet plus the wings would have still made it wider.


According to all reports, the first impact would have been the nose cone impacting where you can later see a hole I'm estimating is less than 15', but that's been described as little as 10' wide. I can't be sure because of photographic evidence not giving exact scale. The second impact would have been the right wing (from the back) into the second story window on the far right in the image. That impact left NO damage. As a matter of fact, the areas where the wings and tail would have impacted show absolutely no evidence of damage whatsoever. Not only that, but I've yet to see any evidence that there was more than maybe a handful of debris on the front lawn in front of the impact. If you've got a picture or video I've not seen, I'd love to see it.

The wings and tail didn't leave any evidence of impact, despite the suggestion that the boeing 757-200 struck the building at 500 mph. The engines didn't even leave holes, despite there being an engine found at the opposite end of the crash site from the impact.

Racnad

It looks like in your illustration that there IS chipping damage where the wings & tail impacted. Keep in mind that the building was heavy concrete and planes, especial the tail & wings, are made of lightweight materials. Most of the mass of a plane is in the fuselaugh, and all the weight impacting in a 12-15' (or whatever) area was enough to punch a hole in the building.

This contrasts with the WTC impacts. The outer walls of the WTC towers were mostly glass and light framwork to stableize the floors. The wight-bearing structure was all near the middle of the towers. That's why the towers had plane-shaped holes in them.

Willravel

We must not be looking at the same image.
Even heavy concrete chips.

Cynthetiq

and you can tell that there are no chips, from a photo taken from many many feet away???? some good eyes you have there to see them that other cannot see.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

That's why I posted such a large image. You can look closely. Here's another:
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero...e-hte-def1.jpg

Racnad

Look at the texture of the building where the wings would have hit. It is not pristine like the area on the far right of the image near the tree. If not the wings, what caused that damage?

Cynthetiq

even at the distance of this shot will, the chips you are expecting to see would be feet in size... not chips but actually damage.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Racnad

Other Questions:

If the WTC Towers were rigged with explosives, then why did the impact of the planes and subsequent fires not set off the explosives, causing an immediate collapse?

Willravel

I see no damage whatsoever. The picture I just posted has a clearer shot of the area in question. There is no visable damage around the last window on the second floor.

Under the hypothetical situation in which the whole thing was planned, it would stand to reason that the area where the planes crashed would be predetermined. If that were the case, I suspect that any planners involved in the demolition would have left the floors at and around the impact free of explosives.

Racnad

You're assuming that the red line ends exactly where the wing would have hit.
There's visible damage the next window over and even more two widows over, and below.

So the pilots were accurate enough to know exactly which floor they were flying into? Can you look at 100 story building (while flying at it at 500 mph) and know exactly there the 72nd floor is?

Also, in the video footage, the both of the collapses clearly begin in the impact zones, where intense fires had been burning since the impacts.

I'm afraid that the idea that the jet-fule fires weakened the support structures of the buildings (which were already damaged by the impact) untill they could no longer supprt the weight above them is a much more plausable explanation of why they fell.

Willravel

The red line isn't arbitrary. It's based specifically on the location of the hole, assuming that was where the fuselage contacted the building.
I'm not here to prove something, I'm here to disprove something. It makes no sense to present alternate theories when it's apparently not yet established that the official story is incorrect.

Some theories state, with some evidence, that the planes were not piloted from the cockpit by pilots. That would explain how the planes were able to strike a specific place. But again, that's not really relevant until the official theory is disproven. I hope that's clear.

I don't want to put my cart before my horse.

Racnad

The History channel documentary mentioned that the wing struck a truck parked nearby before the plane hit the building. The large photo you posted shows a large truck engulfed in flames. If the impact with the truck pulverized the last several feet of the wing (the truck looks heavy but a plane wing is light, although it contains fuel which would have drenched the truck on impact), that would explain why the damage to the building to the right of the hole doesn't extend as far as one might expect.

Sticky

What drives me nuts about this thread is that we can't keep to one issue at a time. As soon as we start rolling on one issue sombody throws in another.

To continue on the pentagon
willravel, I took the image that you posted and circled a couple of areas where the wings might have hit based on the red lines and you do see some damage.


Photos from around the pentagon showing what looks like debris from a plane.
http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html (posted earlier in the thread)

__________________
Sticky The Stickman

Willravel

The truck was burned but not struck.

Sticky, the white stuff was just fire suppressant compound, though there could be damage under that which we can't see.

Sticky

I am not referring to the white stuff.
I tried to circle the areas that I was talking about as best I could with MSPaint.
- On the left side it is that area just to the left of where the white/grey section ends on the lover level.
- On the right side there is a small section that is outside (to the right) the white/greay area where their is damaged

__________________
Sticky The Stickman

fastom

Oh no, not the dreaded pulver again. Look , stuff just doesn't disappear like that. Even the logs in your campfire will leave behind some evidence. Drop an egg and there will be shell fragments and yolk... etc.

It is a wild theory to suggest wings folded back and went through a hole and then disappeared. Far wilder a theory than suggesting evil White House villains running remote control planes and setting explosives in buildings.

Racnad

Of course the wings didn't fold up and pass through the hole.

They shattered against the wall of the Pentagon and the pieces scattered in the nearby area.

Here are some pictures:
http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

Willravel

The wings shattered? The wings, full of fuel that was exploding, shattered?

And did the engines shatter as well?

Racnad

This page on rense.com (not exactly a mouthpiece of the establishment on the Internet) shows one of the engines inside the building. Your image seems to show a hole in the building where an engine would have impacted, although it's hard to tell because there was a lot of smoke & fire redardant when the image was made, and the section soon collapsed.

http://rense.com/general32/phot.htm

To be more precise, yes the wings would have shattered, splattering instantly-igniting aviationc fuel all over the place.

Your large image also seems to she a lot of debris in the impact area. The other page I linked to shows debris on the nearby grass, right where shattered peices not heavy enough to penetrate concrete would have been deflected to.

MrTia

i’d like to take this opportunity to plunge even further into the rabbit hole and offer the opinion that the “cruise missile hit the pentagon” theory is deliberate information designed to readily discredit anyone who questions the official narrative of 9/11. there’s plenty of reason to doubt the bush administration’s story about 9/11 without getting bogged down in technical engineering questions like what happens when a jet engine slams against a several-foot-thick concrete wall (the only honest answer anyone other than a certified structural engineer can give is, ‘i have no idea’) or what the melting point of reinforced steel is (ditto). i think it’s much more apropos to wonder what the hell the hijackers were doing training at US military bases, why the (still unsolved) anthrax attacks were traced to another military base, what was with that story about a bunch of the 9/11 hijackers turning up alive in various parts of the world, how they were able to find one of the hijackers’ passports after it had been through a fireball and fallen into 1.6 million tons of rubble...

the whole story about 9/11 has stunk to high heaven from day one but i think the cruise missile thing is a distraction. it reminds me a little of the abu ghraib thing -- i argue with conservative friends and they are able to present the abu ghraib fiasco as a “fraternity prank”. why? because of that one photo where they put panties on someone’s head. if you want to support what went on in abu ghraib (and i’m frankly shocked how many people do), you bring up the panty thing with a chuckle and suddenly everyone who brings up the waterboarding, stress positions, mock executions, sleep deprivation and psychological torture looks out of touch. THAT’s diversionary misinformation and it’s quite sickly clever. i think the cruise missile thing is similar. the second anyone questions 9/11 an administration supporter can just go, ‘oh, you’re one of those cruise missle hit the pentagon nutjobs?’ and thereby foreclose on the discussion.

Racnad

What are you talking about? They trained at civilian flight schools. Anyone with a credit card can do that.

I don't know. That's why it's unsolved.

What are you talking about? If anyone wanted to make the US look stupid, they could just put a tape of a hijacker on youTube.

Small objects and pieces of paper can survive. Lots of paper documents were scattered all over. The momentum of the plane debri probably carried it past the fireball and some distance away from the building before it fell to the ground, or maybe the roof of a nearby building.

MrTia

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/mi...8&EDATE=Sep+15

i'm talking about this.



it's also why i'm asking. does it not strike you as odd?



i'm talking about this...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/1559151.stm

and this...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...23/widen23.xml



really? the WTC was obviously full of papers and so forth but you believe a passport at the point of impact would survive the fireball? it's possible, sure, but possible in the way that it's possible to throw a bucket full of watch parts on the ground and have them automatically fall into an assembled watch. possible, but incredibly unlikely.

Racnad

If you look at the still pictures of the impact, you see a lot of debris coming from the building and falling that is not on fire. This debris would be mostly pieces of the plane. If the passport happend to be right behind a larger chunk of metal - perhaps one of the pieces visible in the photographs - it could have traveled through the building without being shredded and then fell, while the fireball, being hot, traveled mostly up.

Your watch metaphor does not apply, since nothing needs to randomly re-assemble.

I'll look at your links later.

MrTia

well, again, it's possible, but beggars belief. and we haven't gotten to the part where it surfaced out of such a mammoth mountain of debris within hours after the towers fell.

really, it’s subjective. for those already inclined to believe the official version of the story, it seems innocuous. for those willing to question the official version, it looks an awful lot like planted evidence.

Willravel

I think one should consult Occam's razor on this one.

Fact: only one piece of paper debris recovered was from on the plane.
Fact: that piece of debris happened to be the passport of one of the alleged hijackers.
Fact: The only other part of the plane to have survived was one engine.
Fact: This is the photo in question (right) and a picture of the man who was credited with owning the passport (left)


Occam's Razor tells us that because this is unreasonable and more reasonable explanations exist... well I think you know where I'm going with this.

MrTia

i feel like i’m missing something obvious with those two photographs. they actually do look like the same person to me. what am i missing?

Racnad

How do you know that a passport and an engine were the only objects from the plane found? What about the debris visible in the photographs? While they more accurately be called pieces rather than plane parts, I'm sure aircraft engineers could identify (from the pieces not the photos) what parts they came from. Are you telling me that no nuts, bolts or rivits survived?

I recall a news report about an airline seat containing a body being found on the roof of a nearby building, so there were other parts found. In fact most of the debris found on the roofs of buildings that were not destroyed would probably be plane parts, since the planes were traveling horizontally at 500 mph while the buildings fell down.

Willravel

I suppose that's subjective. I don't think they look alike, but I could be wrong. The other stuff is the important stuff. According to Occam's Razor, it was planted.

None have been recovered. All the debris you saw was from inside the offices.

MrTia

one of the pictures is much more brightly exposed than the other, it’s throwing me off.

photos are surprisingly inconclusive for determining identity... did anybody notice the flap way back in the first few days of the iraq war when they were having that allegedly staged celebration -- when the statue of hussein was brought down, that whole flap? well, someone found a photo where there was someone who looked a lot like ahmed chalabi, i think it was. then there was this big back and forth where some people found pictures of chalabi that looked like the dude in the photo, and then others countered by finding pictures of chalabi that didn’t. and was chalabi there? still dont know. i think there’s a pretty good argument that the celebration was staged, though -- it’s just that the photo give and take didn’t help make the argument.

similar thing with that one bin laden video -- some folks found a frame where it really doesn’t look like bin laden and circulated it around...

Racnad

What source says that no plane debris other than an engine and a passport were found?

As for the pictures, the ear, eyebrow, nose, upper lip and chin all look very similar. The passport photo has longer hair and he may be a little thinner, but that may be due to different lighting. If you do photography, you know that two pictures of the same person taken on different dates with different lighting can easily be a dissimilar as these two shots are.

Datalife2

wow, this topic can goon forever. I just know there is something real sketchy about this whole thing.

__________________
where's my lighter?

Sun Tzu

One thing is very conclusive the Bush Administration was very fast to point out Osama's guilt, quickly followed by Guilliani.

The problem is the FBI states there is no hard evidence pointing to Osama, and has not charged him with 9/11.

This seems like a small detail at first, but stop and about what this really means.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

Racnad

It means that he hasn't been arrested, so he's not charged. What did you mean by "no hard evidence" and where did you read that? Were his fingerprints found at ground zero? Of course not. But if you can shoe that the hijackers and those who directly planned and supervised this plan were part of an organization and Osama ran it, then that is evidence.

Willravel

Absolutely and profoundly wrong. When the Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, said, "He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.", he made clear that when people blame Osama bin Laden for 9/11, the only evidence of that is that he may have claimed responsibility in a film long since debunked as fake. This is why when you click on the link on the FBI most wanted web-page, Osama isn't wanted for anything pertaining to 9/11. What the statement means is that if there is evidence, it's not solid enough to charge with. An example of evidence of this type might be weak circumstantial evidence.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082700687.html
http://www.milligazette.com/dailyupd...en_911_fbi.htm
Who has shown that the hijackers were trained and supervised by the al Qaeda? They were trained in the US, supposedly.