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 18:04:04 GMT

JJ <radiobuff66@mailcity.moc> wrote in news:0JmdnSgB19t0Io7cRVn-
sA@gbronline.com:

> Synchrodestiny's Child AKA Tapicoa Pudding wrote:
>
>>
>> Are you saying that no eyewitnesses claimed to have seen a commuter
>> plane, or an airbus?
>
> Are you saying there are? If so, then please post quotes with
references
> or shut up. There were two eyewitnesses that thought they saw a
commuter
> plane

Well, there you go. And you sort of almost found that out on your own.

> but they were far away from the Pentagon, as opposed to the scores
> of other eyewitnesses who were close enough to see it was in fact a
> large commercial jetliner and some could see clearly it had American
> Airlines painted on the fuselage. You are living in a fantasy
conspiracy
> along with Eastman.
>>
>> Are you as ignorant as he is?
>
> Who, Eastman? I hardly think so. You seem to be.

Mr. Eastman is leagues ahead of any of you in the Pentagon research
department.

 
>> Do you also not know that almost half of
>> the "hijackers" are still alive?
>
> If they are, please name them and post references to back up your
> statements or shut up.

I bet you could find out, if you weren't a disinformation-oriented troll.

 
>>
>> I don't think you have room to talk, dodging this post as you do:
>
> I am not dodging this post, either back up your silly statements or
shut
> up. I provided plenty of accounts that are documented, you seem to be
> incapable of doing the same. Either put up or shut up.
 

You already proved one of my points for me. If you try, you can prove my
other statement.

But you can't seem to answer this:

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?
>

Such cowards. I guess this ends their little disinformation campaign. 

-- 
http://BeDoper.com - BeOS and a hell of a lot more
BeDoper Portal - http://www.bedoper.com/portal

Relevant Pages

  • Re: No 757 Hit the Pentagon Re: Four More Years of Murder
    ... >> Are you saying that no eyewitnesses claimed to have seen a commuter ... >> plane, or an airbus? ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: ALERT Plane hits NYC apartment building
    ... Kris Baker wrote: ... Multi-engine small plane has crashed into a high-rise ... Watched another channel and there are eyewitnesses just as sure it was ... Strange, strange. ...
    (alt.true-crime)
  • Re: No 757 Hit the Pentagon Re: Four More Years of Murder
    ... And it's the same eyewitnesses the rest of you are trying to cite. ... > "When someone says he saw a plane of a size that could not possibly have ... > Like you say, just hearsay evidence from a third party web site, dosen't ... > I can just hear the eyewitness, "hey Bob, look that American Airlines ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Buy that pilot a drink
    ... :> straightened-out?!?!?!,...., the plane wasnt actually going fast ... :> the pilot tried to turn the plane any direction at that speed ... :> on its side and possibly its nose, ... 'eyewitnesses trying to look good for the cameras!!!.' ...
    (rec.arts.marching.drumcorps)