Re: The Ultimate Pentagon 9/11 Question Andy Carol couldn't answer. was Re: Flight 175 WAS a FUEL TANKER, for REAL. This is not a "theory".

From: Harvey (researchermd_at_netscape.net)
Date: 06/29/04 

Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:22:07 -0700

"Walter Sickert" <kill@killkill.org> wrote in message
news:Xns951780253F79F123456@207.14.113.17...
> "Harvey" <researchermd@netscape.net> wrote in
> news:B29Ec.1308$876.141@fed1read07:
>
> >
> > "Walter Sickert" <kill@killkill.org> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9516EFA98281A123456@207.14.113.17...
> >> "Harvey" <researchermd@netscape.net> wrote in
> >> news:sJ4Ec.1140$876.199@fed1read07:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "mellstrr" <mellstrr@nospam.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:cbqf9m0r3d@news4.newsguy.com...
> >> >> Harvey wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > "mellstrr" <mellstrr@nospam.net> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:cbq6m001706@news2.newsguy.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>Harvey wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>If a 757 didn't hit the pentagon, then something else did the
> >> >> >>>damage.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What was it?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>Well, it's about time you understood the question.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>Why that took days of posting on your part is an astonishing
> >> >> >>fact that I breathlessly await an explanation for.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Well, I frittered away all that time in denial.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Then my advice to you is to tackle a subject that isn't quite so
> >> >> difficult for you.
> >> >>
> >> >> This whole "bouncing-flying engine" thing must be way beyond your
> >> >> poor overwhelmed brain, since its taken you so many posts to "get
> >> >> it".
> >> >>
> >> >> Poor dear. Would you like a cold compress for your head?
> >> >>
> >> >> mellstrr--where are my hip boots?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I never mentioned anything about a bouncing engine... perhaps
> >> > you're thinking of someone else?
> >> >
> >> > That said, I did read some of the recent exchange about it. What,
> >> > you don't like physics? Don't think an engine can bounce?
> >>
> >> Bounce off of a wall? Wouldn't it go in the opposite direction?
> >>
> >> And is there a cite for this bouncing engine?
> >>
> >> The one recently provided said it "blew apart". And that was the only
> >> eyewitness I know of.
> >
> >
> > Okay, Walt, if you've read my other post, you know I'm signing off
> > this business, but I'll respond if ya want.
> >
> > Agent86 does have a very good point when he talks about physics. It
> > has to do with the behavior of objects hitting an obstruction at an
> > acute angle at high speed. Depending on the mass and rigidity of the
> > object, the angle, and the "dig" it can get into what it's hitting,
> > especially if the leading edge of the object is what hits first
> > (presumably the ground in this case), it can ricochette at a
> > relatively wide angle. In this case, clear the Pentagon wall. The
> > compression of the object itself turns it into something of a spring.
> >
> > You can convince yourself of the effect if you take a stick and throw
> > it hard roughly parallel to the ground. Don't worry about throwing it
> > without spin, like you'd do for a nice spiral on a football. Just
> > throw it end over end, hard.
> >
> > Most of the time the stick will hit the ground, bounce a little, and
> > that's it before it stops. Sometimes though, if you do it enough
> > times, it will hit just so and bounce quite high for the angle you're
> > throwing it at.
> >
> > Harvey
> >
> >
> >
>
> Theoretics are nice.
>
> However, the engine couldn't have possibly hit the ground first. Not
> without leaving some evidence of this happening.
>
> The only alleged eyewitness to the engine claims it blew apart. The
> flying engine theory came later, and not from the eyewitness. It is the
> weak point in the entire coverup.
>
> I don't fault you for waving the white flag. It's all very tedious, much
> as it probably was for JFK researchers 30 years ago.

Heh... you obviously have an active imagination, cook up all the white flags
you want.

>
>
>
>
> In summation, we have an engine that:
>
> Is claimed to have entered the Pentagon.
>
> Is claimed to have bounced over the Pentagon.
>
> Is claimed to have exited the Pentagon.
>
> Is claimed to have struck a low concrete wall and blew apart.
>
> Yet it seems to have done all of these things without leaving a trace of
> its existence.
>
> All of the amateur physics explanations in the world cannot account for
> this disparity.

Oh, don't you think a high speed crash site is a pretty chaotic environment?
Know anything about how surprising those are? Or indeed even know what I'm
referring to? Or have you done so many tests crashing 757s into low rise
buildings that you *know* to a high degree of statistical power the
probability all the possible outcomes?

On the other hand, anything's possible and I do wish you well.

Harvey

Relevant Pages