Re: The Pentagon Post Ralph, JJ, Lensman Had To Avoid was Re: ASCE Report Crumbles was Re: Sloppy Pentagon Investigation was Re: Four More Years of Murder

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

Date: 6 Aug 2004 22:21:51 GMT

"Synchrodestiny's Child" <master@mason.snuh> wrote in
news:Xns953CE491D60A8spamspamsnuhspam33@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...
>>
>
> Ralphie? Larry? Lensman? JJ?
>
> One can only assume that you can no longer defend the Pentagon story.
>
>
>
> No 757 Hit The Pentagon
> http://www.bedoper.com/eastman
>

Oops, Larry tried, and got himself in even deeper than he was before. I
guess it's good that the rest of you stay far away from this thread.

Cowards.

; ) 

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

Relevant Pages