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

From: Synchrodestiny's Child (master_at_mason.snuh)
Date: 08/06/04 

Date: 6 Aug 2004 04:01:22 GMT

"Ralph Nesbitt" <ralph-nesbitt@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:w4DQc.2492$q_1.116@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com:

>
> "BDK" <kingratboyoboy@buckeye-express.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1b7c07da27426ad0989bfd@news.buckeye-express.com...
>> In article <TNSdnaxjTrsBUIzcRVn-pw@gbronline.com>,
>> radiobillxx@aagbronline.com says...
>> > Tupac Chopra wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > >>>How about you do your own fucking footwork?
>> > >>
>> > >>Ah, the old "how about you do your own (jr high vulgularity left
>> > >>out) footwork" ploy. In other words you can provide any evidence.
>> > >>You know when someone is losing the argument when they resort to
>> > >>jr high
>> > >
>> > > language.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > If you weren't such a lazy, ignorant bitch, I wouldn't treat you
>> > > like one. There's no argument, dummy. Read the eyewitness
>> > > accounts, and
> you'll
>> > > see I'm right about this.
>> >
>> > Oh wow, now I'm a bitch! All I ask is you give me something
>> > substantial to back up your statement, something you obviously
>> > cannot do.
>> >
>> > >
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>>Just what happened to AA flight 77 and it's passengers and
>> > >>>>crew?
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>I have absolutely no idea. They didn't hit the Pentagon,
>> > >>>obviously.
>> > >>
>> > >>So an entire AA airliner with crew and passengers just flew off
>> > >>into
>> > >
>> > > the
>> > >
>> > >>wild blue yonder and dissappeared never to be heard from again.
>> > >>An entire plane of crew an passengers were part of this great
>> > >>conspiracy including an 11 year old boy. Heck, he probably was
>> > >>the head CIA operative on the flight. Yea right! I guess it was a
>> > >>stealth airliner and took off from Dulles completely undetected
>> > >>by Air Traffic Control and they could not track it on radar like
>> > >>all airliners are under ATC until they are handed off to another
>> > >>sector.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Argumentum ad absurdum is a great tactic, for you.
>> >
>> > And yet you can't provide any answers or proof of anything you say.
>> >
>> > Why does the word moron come to mind when I read your rantings?
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Whackjob is what comes to me when I see their nonsense. The bedoper
>> website is pretty pitiful and the fact that they dont seem to be able
>> to see it's a joke, well that puts them into the loon catagory. I
>> enjoy talking to them for the most part, but I always know they
>> probably aren't going to really get any better...
>>
>> BDK
>>
> Jason Christie, by what ever posting name he is currently using does
> not claim the Webb site it actually his or he had anything to do with
> putting it together. Christie is nothing more than a "Court
> Jester/Front man" for Eastman.
> Ralph Nesbitt
> Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
>
>
>

Non-alcoholics would refer to it as "web hosting".

No 757 Hit The Pentagon
http://www.bedoper.com/eastman

I don't guess you could address this post for me, Ralphie?

Tupac Chopra <master@mason.snuh> wrote in
news:Xns953BDA982BE70spamspamsnuhspam33@207.14.113.17:

> Tupac Chopra <master@mason.snuh> wrote in
> news:Xns953BD72C1BCD3spamspamsnuhspam33@207.14.113.17:
>
>> Tupac Chopra <master@mason.snuh> wrote in
>> news:Xns953AF143E820spamspamsnuhspam33@207.14.113.17:
>>
>>> Tupac Chopra <master@mason.snuh> wrote in
>>> news:Xns953AC3EB77858spamspamsnuhspam33@207.14.113.17:
>>>
>>>> Laurence Doering <ljd@bcpl.net> wrote in
>>>> news:2nagm5FuqkikU1@uni-berlin.de:
>>>>
>>>>> On 31 Jul 2004 00:38:23 GMT, Phat Albert Camus <master@mason.snuh>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Laurence Doering <ljd@bcpl.net> wrote in
>>>>>> news:2mvig1Fr5vj3U1@uni-berlin.de:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem with the idea of the wings "crumbling back into the
>>>>>>> fuselage" is that it accepts at face value the "No 757 Hit The
>>>>>>> Pentagon, You Idiot" peoples' claim that the hole in the
>>>>>>> Pentagon's exterior wall was relatively small.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> In fact, the hole in the Pentagon's outer wall was about 120 feet
>>>>>>> wide.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is false, by any stretch of the imagination.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, you're right. According to the ASCE report [1], the area
>>>>> of severe damage to the Pentagon's facade was 120 feet wide.
>>>>
>>>> So you've changed your story from a 120-foot wide hole, to 120 feet
> of
>>>> exterior damage?
>>>>
>>>> Why do you persist in calling it a hole, then? A hole is contiguous.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> However, the hole in the wall (the portion of the first-floor wall
>>>>> where the facade and brick infill was missing,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is not a hole, that is exterior damage.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> with all exterior
>>>>> columns demolished or severely damaged)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is a huge difference between missing and damaged. Only missing
>>>> columns count, if we are talking about a hole. The rest are exterior
>>>> damage.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> extended from column lines
>>>>> 8 through 18 for a total of 100 feet. The facade and infill were
>>>>> missing between column lines 18 and 20, for another 20 feet.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If the columns are in place, and they clearly are, then you have no
>>>> 100- foot wide hole. You have 100 feet of exterior damage. Which is
>>>> exactly what you describe above.
>>>>
>>>> Are you saying the plane only had a left wing and engine,
> furthermore?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I was wrong -- the hole was only 100 feet wide.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The circular hole was at most, 16 feet or so wide.
>>>>>
>>>>> There was no circular hole in the exterior wall of the Pentagon.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are you claiming that the hole wasn't perfectly round? Is that your
>>>> angle?
>>>>
>>>> Few things in life are perfectly round, especially when dealing with
>>>> plane crashes. I agree, it was not perfectly round.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are you saying it was square?
>>>>
>>>> Rectangular?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What was the shape of the hole that covered two stories?
>>>>
>>>> Was there a 100 foot-wide hole in between the first and second
> floors?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Figure 3.10 in the ASCE report shows the actual shape and extent
>>>>> of the hole.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://bedoper.com/eastman/ shows a circular hole, as do many other
>>>> photos.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you lie about things that are plainly visible?
>>>>
>>>> Circular
>>>> http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon-pics/pentagon-hole-big2.jpg
>>>>
>>>> Circular
>>>> http://perso.club-internet.fr/mouv4x8/11Sept01/A0019b%20Entry%
20hole%
>> 20
>>>> by% 20calcul%20Pentagon.jpg
>>>>
>>>> Circular "Punch-Out"
>>>> http://perso.club-
>>>> internet.fr/mouv4x8/11Sept01/A0004b_Passage_Missile_Pentagon.jpg
>>>>
>>>> Circular "Punch-Out"
>>>> http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon-pics/pentagon-punchout.gif
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We'll just ignore how very unlikely it is that a 757 would create a
>>>> nice round hole on exit...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Figure 6.6 shows that the punch-out would have been physically
>>>> impossible, with intact columns in the path of the alleged 757.
>>>>
>>>> So does figure 7.9. Can you explain this round "punch-out", and how
> it
>>>> was formed?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> The damage to the face of the Pentagon cannot be properly termed a
>>>>>> hole at all. The columns are still extant.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. The exterior columns are missing entirely between column
line
>>>>> 8 and column line 15. Feel free to point out a picture that shows
>>>>> the columns in that area "still extant."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Figure 6.2 shows a total of 5 columns missing from the exterior
wall.
>>>> Are the columns 20 feet apart?
>>>>
>>>> No?
>>>>
>>>> Then where are you getting this figure of a 100-foot wide hole?
>>>>
>>>> What about all the columns to the right of that?
>>>>
>>>> By the way, the area between columns 8 and 15 is the bottom of the
>>>> circular hole that you claim somehow didn't exist.
>>>>
>>>> Nice work.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps the width of the damage was 120 feet. The hole was
>>>>>> certainly not 120 feet wide.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're right, it was only 100 feet wide.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You don't really know what a hole is, do you? A hole doesn't have
>>>> columns. A hole would have a lack of columns. You are describing
>>>> exterior damage.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> But I would love to see some pictures supporting your claim, and
>>>>>> disproving mine.
>>>>>
>>>>> One of the pictures is on your own website.
>>>>>
>>>>> Figure 3.8 and 3.9 in the ASCE report show the north and south ends
>>>>> of the 100-foot wide hole in the Pentagon's outer wall.
>>>>>
>>>>> Figure 3.9 is the same as the third image from the top on your 'No
>>>>> 757 Hit the Pentagon, You Idiot' page, except that someone has
>>>>> cropped the image so it doesn't show the sag in the Pentagon's
>>>>> roofline caused by the destruction of the support columns in the
> area
>>>>> of the hole in the exterior wall. Who cropped that image, and why?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't know who cropped it. But it clearly shows that the hole was
>>>> circular. Despite your protestations to the contrary.
>>>>
>>>> Here's a GREAT composite shot that shows the circular nature of the
>>>> hole.
>>>>
>>>> And the stunning lack of a 100-foot wide hole.
>>>>
>>>> http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/damage/punch-in.jpg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> A simple glance at the following photo reveals the falsehood in
> your
>>>>>> statement. Which tends to cast doubt on the rest of your analysis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/bugle/images2/bugle4.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> That's the same image as figure 3.9 and the third from the top on
>>>>> your page, and clearly shows the south end of the large hole in the
>>>>> Pentagon.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> With columns in place. Which means you are using a very funny
>>>> definition of hole. You're describing damage to the exterior, and
>>>> calling it a hole.
>>>>
>>>> And you think you're somehow clever for doing so. You only undermine
>>>> your own case by lying.
>>>>
>>>> Even figure 6.2 and 6.3 in your own evidence shows you're lying.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The north end of the hole is beyond the left edge of the image, and
>>>>> north of column line 14 the hole is obscured by the smoke in the
>>>>> foreground.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're ignoring the fact that the southern side of that shows all
the
>>>> columns that were in place, which proves that there was no 100-foot
>>>> wide hole.
>>>>
>>>> It also shows a circular hole in the middle.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ljd
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Figure 3.3 is a blatant lie. Why don't you ever address this?
>>>>
>>>> Do you think that bumpy white smoke trail is really a 757?
>>>>
>>>> Figure 7.4 shows the essential fallacy of the "wings folded and
>>>> followed the plane into the center hole".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No 757 Hit the Pentagon
>>>> http://www.bedoper.com/eastman
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Let's hope Larry doesn't do the same cowardly thing and snip the
> entire
>>> message...
>>>
>>
>> Neither Larry nor Ralphie nor Lensman seem to want to touch this post
>> with a 10-foot pole. Or even a 120-foot pole.
>>
>> Interesting.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Such a badge of shame. Is there no one in the world who can address
this
> post without snipping its content?
> 

-- 
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