Re: No 757 Hit the Pentagon Re: Four More Years of Murder
From: George Ringo John Paul Jonestown Massacre (master_at_mason.snuh)
Date: 08/01/04
- Next message: Dale Trynor: "Re: What Hawking REALLY meant and his theory"
- Previous message: Mike: "Re: Mileva Maric Einstein"
- In reply to: lensman1955: "Re: No 757 Hit the Pentagon Re: Four More Years of Murder"
- Next in thread: Tupac Chopra: "Re: No 757 Hit the Pentagon Re: Four More Years of Murder"
- Reply: Tupac Chopra: "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: 1 Aug 2004 06:40:07 GMT
lensman1955@hotmail.com (lensman1955) wrote in
news:633b063b.0407311946.2701ba57@posting.google.com:
> Phat Albert Camus <master@mason.snuh> wrote in message
> news:<Xns9537A1DD49607spamspamsnuhspam33@207.14.113.17>...
>> 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.
>
> I'm not the guy who said a nose was recovered.
No, People at the Pentagon did.
Do you buy that aspect of their story?
It doesn't sound like it.
>> > 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.
>
> I'm not running anywhere.
You seem to be looking for another way out.
The single piece of unsinged metal in the close-ups on the lawn certainly
does appear to be planted.
>> >> > 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.
>>
>
> "Hinging" was my term. "Folding back at the point where the wings are
> connected to the fuselage" would have served the same purpose.
And would be equally nonsensical.
>> >> > 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.
>
> I didn't say sideways. I said folding up into the fuselage which would
> be backwards movement. Are you suggesting the wings would fly
> backwards into the grass a'la the wings of the Piper Cub in "Live and
> Let Die?"
Why do you constantly try and drag silly movies into this discussion? It
doesn't serve your case at all.
Are you saying when things hit walls, there is no rebound action
involved? This ignores basic physics, I'm afraid. If they hit the wall,
and didn't penetrate the wall, as has been previously established, they
would stay at the wall, probably bouncing off the wall in pieces.
On one hand, you say the plane was shredded. Then you say the wings were
pulled, by some unknown force, into the Pentagon.
Can you explain this process? It sounds like something out of a bad
movie.
>> 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.
>
> Now it's 16, didn't you say 20 earlier?
Not to my knowledge.
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=%2220%20feet%22&safe=active&ie=UTF-8
&as_uauthors=master@mason.snuh&lr=&num=50&hl=en
Your search - "20 feet" author:master@mason.snuh - did not match any
documents.
http://groups.google.com/groups?num=50&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8
&safe=active&c2coff=1&q=%2220+foot%22+author%3Amaster@mason.snuh
Your search - "20 foot" author:master@mason.snuh - did not match any
documents.
http://groups.google.com/groups?num=50&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8
&safe=active&c2coff=1&q=%2220-foot%22+author%3Amaster@mason.snuh
Your search - "20-foot" author:master@mason.snuh - did not match any
documents.
Someone else did mention the insanely large and wildly incorrect figure
of 120 feet. If I did say 20, I was being generous. Is there a point to
this sideline discussion?
Do you have an exact width of the circular hole? Is it closer to 20, or
120?
>> >> > 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?
>
> No. They snapped back against the fuselage and were dragged in. NO
> "sideways" motion needed.
And what dragged them in?
You're saying the wings rebounded, but only partially. On one side, but
not the others.
Does that really make sense to anyone but you?
What made them "snap back", and then change direction again?
>> >> >> > 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.
No? How 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?
>
> And if it were just air shooting out at tremendous pressure from the
> weight of the floors above, you wouldn't be able to tell the
> difference would you?
Perhaps not, if that was the sole indicator. Of course, we both know that
there are many such indicators.
>> >> >> > 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.
I'm losing faith in you.
>> >> >> > 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.
>
> It kept some amount of its structural strength until the strain and
> fire finally weakened the supports enough for them to let go.
If one side toppled, then the structural strength was already destroyed.
But I'll let this pointless aspect go, absurd as it may be.
>> >> >> > 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.
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.
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.ht
>> >> m "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.
Dodgers win the pennant.
>> >> 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.
Dodgeball, anyone?
>> >> 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?
>
> That was your claim, not mine.
You said it three sentences above this one.
>> > Well, the debris did actually hit 7 and not 6 so it must have
>> > passed over it.
See?
>> > 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.
>
> You haven't shown me that the story was impossible. In fact the
> "controlled demolition" story could only be considered if we lived in
> a James Bond world where bizarre things like that could happen without
> a hitch. We don't.
The story is impossible at its base, as no 19 foreigners could have
possibly evaded all of the intelligence agencies, and the military, and
NORAD.
The rest is just window dressing. Something for people to argue about in
chatrooms and on Usenet.
Your presumed behavior for the wings of the alleged 757 is also
impossible.
>> 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.
>
> In demolition terms, "pulled" would probably mean "pulled down."
Yes. Very good. I agree.
> The
> Fire Chief who called for the building to be "pulled" would not be a
> demolition expert,
I don't have to be a brain surgeon to use the term 'neuromagnometer'. It
doesn't matter who is and who isn't a demolition expert. That is standard
contractor parlance. I'm sure the kid who picks up broken bricks and 2 x
4s says "pulled" every day. "What time are they pulling the building?"
You are making a specious argument. Furthermore, how do you know who is
and isn't a demolition expert? You are piling assumption on top of
assumption.
> so the term _probably_ ment "pull firefire support
> from the building."
Actually, no. They used the same terminology when they pulled WTC-6 a few
days later.
Words have meaning. Saying "pull the building" is a far cry from saying
"pull the firefighters".
And there were no firefighters to pull in the first place, according to
your reasoning behind the WTC-7 collapse.
Remember?
> I'm sorry if you think I'm dodging. I notice you keep changing the
> parameters of my comments (claiming I'm talking about "sideways"
> movement when I'm discussing "folding back along the fuselage,"
The weird gyrations responsible for this to happen make absolutely no
sense, except that you are trying to shove a square peg into a very round
hole.
You offer no real support for this allegation, you just keep repeating
it. And it makes less and less sense each time. If your entire case for
believing a 757 hinges on this, pun intended, then it is a very weak
case, and deserves re-examination.
Of course, the engines are designed to fall off under certain stresses.
But their weight would actually cause the inner portions of the wing to
fly in the opposite direction than you are claiming.
> bringing up WTC6 as having been passed over then claiming _I_ claimed
> WTC6 wasn't damaged.)
Your exact words:
>> > Well, the debris did actually hit 7 and not 6 so it must have
>> > passed over it.
No 757 Hit the Pentagon
http://www.bedoper.com/eastman
I notice you snip this URL every time. That is probably making more
people interested in seeing it. Why do you persist?
-- 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: Dale Trynor: "Re: What Hawking REALLY meant and his theory"
- Previous message: Mike: "Re: Mileva Maric Einstein"
- In reply to: lensman1955: "Re: No 757 Hit the Pentagon Re: Four More Years of Murder"
- Next in thread: Tupac Chopra: "Re: No 757 Hit the Pentagon Re: Four More Years of Murder"
- Reply: Tupac Chopra: "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
|
