Re: No 757 Hit the Pentagon Re: Four More Years of Murder

From: lensman1955 (lensman1955_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 08/04/04 

Date: 4 Aug 2004 03:10:20 -0700

George Ringo John Paul Jonestown Massacre <master@mason.snuh> wrote in message news:<Xns953810ED15A91spamspamsnuhspam33@207.14.113.17>...

OK, we're going to try and do some snipping here. I hope I don't tick
anybody off.

> lensman1955@hotmail.com (lensman1955) wrote in
> news:633b063b.0407311946.2701ba57@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.

I'm at the point where I don't care WHAT you think, as long as you
understand what I'm saying and don't rearrange my points.

> >> > 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.

There you go. Unless you have some EAL evidence it was planted, you
have no case.

> >> >> > 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.

Why? Explain yourself please.

> >> >> > 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.

I mention the movie because it's the only real case I've seen of
"wings snapping off and falling to the ground" which appears to be
your argument. However, in order to get the wings to behave this way,
they had to cut the supports on the plane, otherwise, the wings would
not have snapped off so cleanly.

> 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.

No, you've already suggested the "bad movie scenario." There was no
"unknown force" involved. The wings began to tear off upon hitting the
reinforced wall, the back of the wings, not receiving the full brunt
of the impact and not having been previously weakened to snap off
properly, bent backwards and allowed the wings to fold up against the
fuselage where they were dragged into the building by the forward
momentum of the plane. You don't seem to be able to picture that,
that's your lack of ability, not mine.
>
>
>
> >> 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.

Thought you said "20" when he said "120." I don't know how big the
hole is, there's too much smoke in the pictures I've seen to really
measure it.

> 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?

As I mentioned above, I can't measure the hole through the smoke. I'd
like to know how YOU did it!

> >> >> > 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.

Again, you have to show me how you arrived at the size of the hole.

> >> >> 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?

The forward momentum of the plane!

> 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?

Again, the impact with the wall which they couldn't punch through,
made them snap back along the fuselage. The continuing forward
momentum of the plane caused them to be dragged into the hole. (the
size of which I can't calculate and I'd like to know how YOU did!)

> >> >> >> > 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?

Since the WTC was the world's tallest building for quite awhile,
obviously none. But I still stand behind my contention that the puffs
are air and debris being forced out by the weight of the falling
building. If you have any evidence otherwise, I'd like you to stand up
and share it with the class.

>
>
> >> 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.

And of course, you're not going to tell us what they are! McCarthy did
it better back in the 50s!

> >> >> >> > 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.

And this is suppose to affect me why?

> >> >> >> > 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.

A "tilt" is not a "topple." A topple would mean the top of the tower
is actually in the processing of falling off. A tilt is just that, the
building got slammed into by a big jet and tilted or leaned, but not
enough to break off and topple.

> >> >> >> 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.

whatever. You seem to think the Meridian fire was bigger and hotter
because you could see flames. You have no idea how comparatively hot
either fire was.

> >> >> > 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.

But it was being fought for those 19 hours, not left unchecked because
there was a bigger disaster happening at the time.

> >> >>
> >> >> Building fires, being a very visual phenomenon, can usually safely
> >> >> be judged largely by visual evidence.

...and there you are; "I saw more flames so it MUST have been hotter!"

> Dodgers win the pennant.

Now you're dealing with fantasy!

> >> >> 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.

You brought up the fact that the debris hit 6 and not 7. Since the
debris actually hit 6 and not 7 I agreed that it must have passed over
it, but it was YOUR original point, not mine.

>
> See?

I see you like to think you're playing mind games.

> >> > 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.

It's only impossible to you because you sit there with your fingers in
your ears going; "La la la, it's a conspiracy, la la la, I don't need
to listen to anyone else!"

> > 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.

Not if there was an active search for them going on at the time. But
there wasn't. The information the intelligence agencies had received
was dismissed as unrealistic and was months old by 9/11.

>
> 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.

Since your case involves changing the parameters of what I said. You
haven't shown me how my points are "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.

Be still my heart!

> > 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'.

Maybe not, but you'd probably have to be one to understand the term
and use it correctly.

> 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.

And you're not? You're assuming the Fire Chief used a term for
demolition when he may have been using a term for lack of support. Has
anyone ever actually ASKED Mr Silverstein why he said "pull the
building?" Or would his response simply qualify as part of the
"conspiracy?"

> > 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?

My argument was that they had not fought the fire because of
everything else that was happening. I would assume that they examined
the building while it was burning, decided it had gone too far to
effectively fight, and decided to pull their support. You haven't
shown me anything otherwise except YOUR understanding of one man's
words.
>
> > 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.

You've offered NOTHING for your allegations either, yet you expect me
to buy them wholesale.

> 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.

Again, how many jets have hit "reinforced granite walls" at that
speed?

> > bringing up WTC6 as having been passed over then claiming _I_ claimed
> > WTC6 wasn't damaged.)
>
> Your exact words:

No. You brought it up and I agreed with your point.

> >> > Well, the debris did actually hit 7 and not 6 so it must have
> >> > passed over it.

In response to YOUR observation that WTC6 was not damaged. WTC7 WAS
damaged so WTC6 MUST have been passed over by the debris.

> 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?

Because it's not important. You put it at the bottom of each of your
messages, anyone following this thread (which appears to be NOBODY)
can use your link from your own message.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Four More Years of Murder
    ... >> Can you explain the physics of these wings disappearing into this tiny ... It seems to me, if they struck the wall, the last thing they could ... > The nose of the plane punches a hole in the wall. ... How could an engine penetrate the wall without ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: No 757 Hit the Pentagon Re: Four More Years of Murder
    ... >> The nose of the plane punches a hole in the wall. ... >> they crumble back into the fuselage and are dragged into the hole. ... >> You don't know that the Meridian fire ran hotter or was more ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Sloppy Pentagon Investigation was Re: Four More Years of Murder
    ... >> reinforced granite, slammed back into the fuselage and were dragged ... >> This guy tells me that's wrong because the hole was larger than ... Why then couldn't the wings have ... I was thinking they hit the wall, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Holes in Your Head from a "Jet."
    ... JET could ever in a million years fit into the hole in the ... The engines and wings didn't make any holes. ... The outer wall was too thick for them ... Seems we should see photos of wings and engines. ...
    (misc.survivalism)
  • Re: No 757 Hit the Pentagon Re: Four More Years of Murder
    ... Are you suggesting the wings would fly ... > wall, and didn't penetrate the wall, as has been previously ... > were pulled, by some unknown force, into the Pentagon. ... > It doesn't matter who is and who isn't a demolition expert. ...
    (sci.physics)