Re: No 757 Hit the Pentagon Re: Four More Years of Murder
From: Phat Albert Camus (master_at_mason.snuh)
Date: 07/31/04
- Next message: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Previous message: Dr. Jai Maharaj: "Re: DR. B V RAMAN - A PROFILE"
- In reply to: lensman1955: "Re: No 757 Hit the Pentagon Re: Four More Years of Murder"
- Next in thread: lensman1955: "Re: No 757 Hit the Pentagon Re: Four More Years of Murder"
- Reply: lensman1955: "Re: No 757 Hit the Pentagon Re: Four More Years of Murder"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 31 Jul 2004 20:54:58 GMT
lensman1955@hotmail.com (lensman1955) wrote in
news:633b063b.0407310243.3e60a472@posting.google.com:
> Phat Albert Camus <master@mason.snuh> wrote in message
> news:<Xns95366E6BAF95Espamspamsnuhspam33@207.14.113.17>...
>> lensman1955@hotmail.com (lensman1955) wrote in
>> news:633b063b.0407300207.6585066f@posting.google.com:
>>
>> > Phat Albert Camus <master@mason.snuh> wrote in message
>> > news:<Xns9535B71BB265Fspamspamsnuhspam33@207.14.113.17>...
>> >> lensman1955@hotmail.com (lensman1955) wrote in
>> >> news:633b063b.0407290425.5f6b5288@posting.google.com:
>> >> > I asked (re; Pentagon) what people expected the wings to do?
>> >> > Drop off outside the building a la the James Bond movie "Live
>> >> > and Let Die" or leave little wing shaped holes in reinforced
>> >> > granite.
>> >>
>> >> No, that is your stock reply. It is the stock reply of many
>> >> Pentagon story defenders. Almost a trademark of the debunker who
>> >> has exhausted his limited bag of tricks.
>> >>
>> >> > I never got an
>> >> > answer, I was just told I was being stupid for thinking the
>> >> > wings could crumble up and be dragged into the building.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Can you explain the physics of these wings disappearing into this
>> >> tiny hole? It seems to me, if they struck the wall, the last thing
>> >> they could possibly do is "crumble up and be dragged inside the
>> >> building".
>> >
>> > This is my understanding, and I'll type slowly so you can follow
>> > along. (Yes, that was deliberate.)
>> >
>> > The nose of the plane punches a hole in the wall.
>>
>>
>> The not very strong nose, which was inexplicably claimed to have been
>> recovered somewhat intact and in recognizable form.
>
> Since a nose was recovered,
Was a nose recovered?
That sounds extremely unlikely, and I've never seen a single photo of
one.
> are you suggesting it and the rest of the
> debris was somehow planted? If so, this conversation is over since you
> can claim any evidence against your theory is false and was planted.
I have seen no evidence of any recovered 757 parts. But run away again,
if you wish.
>> > As the base of the
>> > wings reaches the wall, there's more surface area and less
>> > structural strength to the wings than there is to the nose so the
>> > wings are unable to punch through the wall.
>>
>>
>> The engines being massively more structurally sound than the nose. Of
>> course, the right-side engine, if there was one, couldn't not have
>> done this. And it certainly didn't enter the wall, as there is no
>> entry point for it.
>
> The big massive engines were attached to the wings. The point where
> the wings were attached to the fuselage would have been less massive
> than the engines and would have hinged back on impact.
Only if they were connected with extremely strong hinges, of course.
Which clearly was not the case.
>>
>> > Taking the path of least resistance,
>> > they crumble back into the fuselage and are dragged into the hole.
>>
>>
>> Ignoring the whole of physics.
>>
>> What dragged them in, by the way? Electrical cabling?
>
> Ignoring WHAT "whole of physics"? And the wings being folded up into
> the fuselage hardly cancelled out their forward momentum which would
> have carried them into the building through the center hole.
No, you are ascribing a lateral movement that was not evident.You are
twisting the facts to suit your theory. Their forward momentum would
translated into reverse motion as they struck the wall. Not sideways
motion.
Why, the very idea of the thin fuselage exterior entering that 16-foot
wide hole, instead of peeling back like a ripe banana, is patently
ridiculous.
>
>> > If there's something wrong with that idea, let me know what it is
>> > and what you think _should_ have happened to the wings.
>>
>>
>> Oh, they got sucked into the too-small hole, of course.
>>
>> It's so bloody obvious. They hit a reinforced wall, and then then
>> moved sideways a bit, and then continued to move forward.
>> Disappearing without a trace.
>
> "Sideways?" Where did I say "sideways?"
Let's see.
You claim the wings, which extend 50 feet on either side of the center
hole, entered in the middle, after 'hinging'.
But they didn't move sideways to get there?
Did they teleport?
>> >> > In regards to the Towers. Someone said the puffs of debris
>> >> > shooting out of the floors as they collapsed was "proof" the
>> >> > Towers were brought down by "controlled demolition." I've seen
>> >> > quite a few controlled demolitions and if this is true it's the
>> >> > first time I've seen the explosions go off DURING the collapse
>> >> > of the building in question.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> How many demolitions of a building that tall have you observed, if
>> >> I may ask?
>> >>
>> >> Did the explosions go off after the collapse or something?
>> >
>> > Quite a few actually. Controlled demolitions are fun to watch and
>> > people like to film them. In the demolitions _I_ saw, the
>> > explosions go off, then the building collapses. In cases of strings
>> > of explosions, the explosions are still way ahead of the collapse.
>> > I've _never_ seen an actual "controlled demolition" where the
>> > explosions pace the collapse.
>>
>>
>> You might need to clarify, here. Sounds like you're talking about the
>> same thing in both cases.
>>
>> And how many WTC-size buildings did you say you've seen demolished
>> again?
>
> Sorry. Missed the "buildings that tall" part. I've seen a lot of
> controlled demolitions. The explosions do go off in a series, but they
> go off well ahead of the collapse and don't "pace" it that closely.
And you've seen how many buildings as tall as the WTCs demolished again?
Could you name them? I didn't realize there were so many.
Of course, if this were some sort of psy-op, it wouldn't do to have all
the floors collapse at once, would it?
>> >> > Also, I said I didn't believe the Towers tilted past their
>> >> > center of gravity and was told they "continued to tilt" which
>> >> > "proves" they moved past their center of gravity and should have
>> >> > toppled. Well, it doesn't really matter in that incidence
>> >> > whether the Towers fell due to the plane impact/fire or
>> >> > controlled demolition.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I believe I asked you what could have possibly stopped their
>> >> collapse to the side.
>> >>
>> >> Did you have an answer for that?
>> >
>> > Inertia. The Towers did tilt, having been slammed into by great big
>> > planes. But not far enough to topple.
>>
>>
>> So they just sort of sat there, leaning to the side?
>>
>> And you're citing inertia as the reason they didn't fall sideways?
Hel-lo? We're having a discussion, here.
>> >> > If they Towers had
>> >> > shifted past their center of gravity, they would have toppled
>> >> > over no matter what caused the collapse. The simple fact that
>> >> > they DIDN'T
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> They didn't?
>> >> > topple over shows that they DIDN'T move past their center of
>> >> > gravity. The simple fact that some people couldn't grasp this
>> >> > simple aspect of the law of gravity showed me that they weren't
>> >> > interesting in having a legitimate discussion, but only in
>> >> > having everybody agree with them that there was an "evil
>> >> > Government conspiracy" involved in the Towers collapse!
>> >>
>> >> I would love to know what stopped it from collapsing sideways, if
>> >> that even happened.
>> >
>> > I just said it, in my last paragraph.
>>
>>
>> As yes, intertia. The concept that something in motion tends to stay
>> in motion unless an opposing force stops it.
>>
>> That's a bit of a non-answer, I'm afraid.
>
> The opposing force was the strength of the building. Take a big stack
> of floppy disks or books. Bump into it. If you don't hit it hard
> enough to take it beyond its center of gravity, it will sit there,
> tilted to one side. Inertial does not mean things keep moving forever,
> it means things keep moving until another force stops the momentum. In
> this case the structural strength of the building kept the tilt from
> going past the center of gravity.
I'm sorry, I believe your "stack of books" analogy is pretty far off of
the mark. Several floors of a building do not behave anything like a
stack of floppy disks. That should be obvious.
On one hand, you cite the structural weakness of the building to support
your claims. Now you claim it was so strong as to stop the toppling of
several floors near the top.
>> >> > As Mark Twain once observed; "Never try to teach a pig to
>> >> > whistle, it wastes your time and annoys the pig." I got tired of
>> >> > wasting my time. So I left. I may pop back into this or a
>> >> > similar thread at some point, but not right now. If you consider
>> >> > that "winning," Godspeed.
>> >>
>> >> I notice you've avoided the WTC-7/Meridian Plaza stuff yet again.
>> >> That's what caused you to drop the threads, it seems to me.
>> >
>> > OK, let's see. Was the Meridian damaged by having pieces of a great
>> > big tower fall on it? No. Was the Meridian left to burn unattended
>> > because the firefighters were busy dealing with another
>> > catastrophe? No.
>>
>>
>> Yes. I can see you've done your research.
Dodged.
>> > You don't know that the Meridian fire ran hotter or was more
>> > damaging than the WTC7 fire because you don't have any data on the
>> > WTC7 fire except what you could observe through pictures.
>>
>>
>> Do you have any data that supports your claim? I'd love to see what
>> it is. Unless it involves circular logic, of course.
Dodged.
>> > We do know
>> > the WTC7 fire ran unchecked because they were busy with the Towers,
>> > do you know how long the Meridian fire ran?
>>
>> Something like 19 hours. I provided you with very compelling accounts
>> that not only showed the Meridian Plaza fire was much more intense
>> (you provided nothing but your own conjecture, if I recall), but it
>> burned much longer than any of the WTC buildings.
>>
>>
>> Building fires, being a very visual phenomenon, can usually safely be
>> judged largely by visual evidence.
>>
>> http://www.sgh.com/expertise/hazardsconsulting/meridian/meridian.htm
>> "The twelve-alarm fire burned for 18 hours. The extreme heat caused
>> window glass and frames to melt and concrete floor slabs and steel
>> beams to buckle and sag dramatically. Large shards of window glass
>> fell from the facade, cutting through fire hoses on the ground around
>> the building. Three firefighters were trapped on a fully engulfed
>> floor, and efforts to rescue them failed.
>>
>> The fire would not yield and there were increasing concerns about the
>> stability of the structure. Fire officials called off the attack and
>> allowed the fire to "free burn," concentrating their efforts on
>> containing the fire to this building. When the fire reached the 30th
>> floor, a tenant-installed fire-sprinkler system was activated, and
>> the worst high-rise fire in U.S. history was finally brought under
>> control."
All dodged.
>> http://www.fire-police-ems.com/videos/vo4900.shtml
>> "It would later be described by Philadelphia officials as "The most
>> significant fire in this century".
>>
>> On February 23, 1991 the thirty story office building at One Meridian
>> Plaza suffered a major fire that killed 3 firefighters and destroyed
>> much of the building.
>>
>> Firefighters on arrival found flames coming from the 22nd floor. An
>> initial interior attack on this 250' x 250' building was attempted.
>> As the fire gained in intensity, the decision was made to allow the
>> fire to "free burn" until it reached the upper floors where
>> sprinklers were able to extinguish the fire."
Another dodge. Your "intense fire" claims seem to be deflating rapidly.
>> Say, did that debris leap over WTC 6 to get to WTC 7?
>
> Well, the debris did actually hit 7 and not 6 so it must have passed
> over it.
So WTC-6 wasn't hit by debris, now?
> I don't know why Meridian didn't collapse and WTC7 did. But you
> haven't presented anything that convinces me that there was a
> conspiracy or that the firefighters actively "pulled" the building
> down.
I'm not interested in convincing you of a conspiracy. All I am doing is
poking holes in your defense of an impossible story.
Larry Silverstein said the building was pulled. I merely repeated his
claims, if I mentioned it at all in this thread.
Which I didn't.
No 757 Hit the Pentagon
http://www.bedoper.com/eastman
-- BeDoper - http://www.bedoper.com/ Meter Versus Yard - http://www.soundclick.com/bands/3/meterversusyard.htm DJ Manticore - http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/manticore.htm http://www.soundclick.com/bands/9/monteau.htm High-C - http://www.garageband.com/artist/jasongortician http://www.soundclick.com/theoriginalhighc
- Next message: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Previous message: Dr. Jai Maharaj: "Re: DR. B V RAMAN - A PROFILE"
- In reply to: lensman1955: "Re: No 757 Hit the Pentagon Re: Four More Years of Murder"
- Next in thread: lensman1955: "Re: No 757 Hit the Pentagon Re: Four More Years of Murder"
- Reply: lensman1955: "Re: No 757 Hit the Pentagon Re: Four More Years of Murder"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
