where is the airliner crash debris in the 911 Pentagon attack?

Parenthetically, where did you get the information thjat supports the last of your paragraphs above?

Therefore, the world's ills are merely psychological in nature. Conspiracies happen, but only in the minds of those searching for meaning. Why cannot a search for meaning be directed at incompetence of political leaders? You hypothecise without, the slightest attempt to show some observable justification (as if you were born with the critical information ou have just shared with us, qs opposed to have learned of it from hard invetigation and research) that the conspiracy was confined to a half-dozen incomptents, and yet you seem unable to accept a scenario as realistic that conspiracies can be perpetrated, assuming vast amounts of tempting money is availible (maybe drugs, women etc), which it is here, that people can be bought to commit the most evil and hideous crimes against others. I have a view that the majority of persons, as individuals, are basically honest and trusting people and instinctively accept what is fed to them as information. Most people don't have evil thoughts about political figures, though this same group readily recognize incompetence, stupidity, negligence, greed and a drive for persoal power in political figures and have no personal interest or desire to seek a public life with all the perks available to the powerful.

All of the questions you posed that demand answers are interesting. Why were there no firings, where does one acquire sufficient pilot skills and so on? Yet these questions, to your understanding are mere distractions tossed out to the rabble to his personal and collective errors, negligence and so on even though answers are discoverable to trained investigators. But efficieny demands that the answers are best found in the imagination and are not so otherwise found as quite so laborious.

If, for example accepted the official line as advertised since 9/11/01 and also had judged Bush as as a second rate intellect and even accepted, more or less, the claim of weapons of mass destruction being prepared by Saddam and pointed at us, then when the weapons did not materialize and Bush expressly admitted to this fact, that discovering that Al Qaeda was nonexistent in Iraq itsd political structure being a secular tyranny that bitterly and brutally weeded out "Islamic Fundamentalists, seeing Bush ponting to the sign on theaircraft carrier, "Mission Accompliched", that Bush has never indicated any personal or poliical interest in ridding the earth of despots (Africa, Siut America) that the decision to remain in Iraq and protect it from evil forces bent on enslaving that country in yet another tyranny, that probable cause exists in sufficient persuasive quantity and quality to jsutify a serious investigation into answering your questions, your questions, for instance, and that a shift in my understanding did not arise from my imagination alone, unstimulated by analysis of factually presented materials, listening to debates from all angles, that my shiuft in opinion and understanding was really just a psychological quirk or characteristic of a person seeing himself as insignificant in a grossly complicated and overwhelming universe, that when projecting 911, not resultiung from to inciompetence but to evil plotters and schemers, that all of this was because I would rather believe in the consopiracy than accept the fact, as you ahve characterized it, that all of the 911 scenario is just a manifestation of stupidity at work.

I assume that you see yourself as a a pragmatist and accept as a a reality the trivial fact of life that poiliticians are basically just stupid and incomopetent. Otherwise, assuming you are an honest persons, at least to yourself, that if the thought began nagging at your soul that traitors of the most mischievious intended were real and that you as an honest person with a sense of civic duty and with a self assumed obligation to impede the spread of tyranny would have directed your interest in combating those erstwhile perceined as inciompetent now viewed as enemies of your country and would have engaged yourself in the singular goal of hanging them from the nearest convenient tree, after a Guantanamo trial, that is?

I do have a theory that many persons would rather live in a world veiled by rationalizations designed to maintain a dogmatic acceptance of 'mainstream' dogma, rather than do so little as making a meager look into the mere possibility of the existence of a huge criminal conspiracy, have a weakened state of mind that I can only characterize as slothful, tired, 'too much to consider, or reconsider', in a word, lazy. Imagination is so much easier to deal with than actually researching, looking, discussing and fixating on, as one's most feared enemy, and as a living embodiment of one's most dreadful fantasy, that turned out to be a true picture of abject terror and horror.

I suppose that you and I differ so drastically that it would be of little value to make any serious attempt to educate and inform with an intention of freeing the other from their obvious mode of mental defect seen as a challenged psychological state of mind. But of one thing we can be sure of, both of us really believe in what we are doing based on what we have observed and analyzed and concluded as an accurate and objective model of the universe.:shrug:​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

false -- miscontrued -- coincidental

Geoffp,
I must share an observation here. This post of yours is remarkably free of cynical content.

Be that it may, what specifically is false? misconstrued? and coincidental?

I did make a serious attempt to be as accurate as possible when constructing the questions and answers that appeared to me as unobjectionable, though as I progressed I found it of increasing difficulty to find answers that you and the others I addressed in the post would not, or could not, object to with seriously intended responses. Some of the objections I suspect you all may have aren't worth a response, others may be seriously objected to, but I do sense that at least between the four of us, (perhaps including Tiassa) there has been a significant communication and if nothing else there is little that we do not understand of the others points of view. In the rhetoric of modern day discourse, 'we are on the same page'.:shrug:​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is an F-4 = Boeing 757?

(was the concrete wall the same stuff (concrete) as the Pentagon building?)

Ola' SL,
Where did the 500 mph ground speed number come from?
What angle did the airplane and building surface make - perpendicular or 45 degrees - i have seen references to both?
Where are the markings of impact damage to the outer surface of the building expected at wing/building contact points?
Where is the evidence of exterior fire due to spewed jet fuel igniting when the fuel tanks ruptured on impact?
Did the wings actually fold up like a jack knife when striking the building (as one contributor recently proposed above)? :shrug:
Are there some shadow problems here?scroll down a few pictures and you will see the frame of the initial explosion that illuminated the ground surface without making any cast shadows.​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I swear to God, if this is another conspiracy thread....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Are you sure? After only ten pages, that's pretty good perception - don't see how I missed it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Howdy Big G.

I've examined the link you posted and I see nothing unusual in any of the pics. As for your other questions, did you get a degree in impact physics and analysis since we last talked?

 

The reinforced concrete amounted to one wall only.

The 500 mph ground speed is from the 767 cruise speed, which is 530 mph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767

It hit perpendicularly. I have no idea why anyone would say it hit at a 45 degree angle, or where anyone has said so.

The marks of damage are clearly visible on every vid ever taken - with the exception of Dylan Avery's film, which deliberately covers a section of wall about 50 yards away from the actual impact strike. The fire damage is visible there. Most fuel would have gone into the building.

There are no "shadow problems". These have already been discussed. I do not rate your interpretation of the video very highly, as you were singularly unable to correctly identify a movable parking barrier, or the shot angle from which it originated.

 

No, I've always has a degree in physics.

 

Has youse indeed.

 

No, it is not secret - and it's a very touchy operation. You have to run installation crews all over, drill holes in steel, make a mess everywhere, things have to be timed to the millisecond, and any screwup would reveal the whole plot.

A simple successful demolition is not good enough, remember - it has to be invisible, guaranteed, through weeks of building preparation and close TV surveillance, with professional firefighters and other experts on hand, and with no rehearsal.

Not only that, the whole sequence has to work perfectly after crashing a jetliner into the middle of it at some unspecifiable place.

Good thing that was known in advance, eh? Do you supppose they practiced somewhere, built a replica tower and ran a Boeing into it just to check? Because everything rides on that. Be a complete disaster if crashing a full size passenger airliner into your unrehearsed demolition setup accidently messed it up somehow.

It's a comically stupid idea. If you can plant bombs in the towers, what do you need hijacked airplanes for - you can't blame bombs on AQ?

You're a physicist? Compression heating from the collapse, never mind fires in other substances than jet fuel - - -

Now you have #7 falling faster than free fall in a vacuum - this is getting more ridiculous by the paragraph. And not only did the two main towers not drop at free fall speed, but neither did much of the ejected debris - some of it actually rose, even failry heavy stuff, propelled upward by the ejecting mechanism, sailing on thermals from the fire, etc.

I have no problem believing conspiracy theories, when conspiracy is indicated. There are a good many conspiracies strongly indicated in the wake of 9/11 - the Saudi connection with the White House figures prominently among them. And one of the conspiracies I find more likely than many\ others is that this 9/11 hallucinatory stuff is being supported by the bad guys, to draw the sting of the real possibilities, and make all conpsiracy theorizing about 9/11 look like the work of nutjobs.

 

All is lost in the cloud of dust.

How do you know that the airplane was flying at the speed you say? I have no problem with a statement that the cruise airspeed is as you stated, but this is not to say that you've proved the airplane was flying at the speed you stated when it impacted the Pentagon Building.

Why do you so casually say that the the impact angle was perpendicular. Neither you or I have any recorded flight data, movies, or black boxes. I suspect that we might end up sparring with a long list of published opinions claiming some flight speed. Ido not see how any one could determine the speed of the aircraft and it is beginning to look like our arguments are going to be conclusive to ourselves alone.
You may be entierly correct in your claim and it isn't of much importance as I don't believe an airplane impacted the Pentagon in the first place.

here’s one who said it struck at 45 degrees.

There are more similar sites out there, ut bringing them all into this thread would just be accumulative.
__________________________________________________________
A Digressison from the topic.
I do have one advantage, however ( if it is an advantage), I once believed as strongly as yourself that 'Fundamental Islamic Terrorists' pulled off 911. I still think it ironic that the the Muslim World also beleieves radical Fundamentalists were the perpetrators of 911. Hell, they are probably more committed to that belief than are you.
I sat through a discussion of a recent employee of the Iraqi Government, now associated with some New York 'think tank'. He mnade a few comments that have remained indelibly etched on one of my two brain cells:
1. Al Qaeda was non-existing as a force in Iraq and would have been brutally dealt with (violently suppressed) by Saddam if discovered.
2. Arabs that generally support Al Qaeda like organizations initially reacted with scorn and disdain for those attacking America, thousands of miles away, when they couldn't do anything to effectively remove them (the Americans) from Arab territor.
3. Iran, shortly after 9/11/01 made a sincere and open arms offer to assist and fully cooperate with the US Governement in any way that would bring the 911 criminals to juistice.
_____________________________________________________________

No, if the airplane was flying as fast as you say, then when the wings struck the building they would have ruptured immediately. There is no mechanical damage to the façade of the building caused by the supposed impact of the airplane.
Here’s another ruptured wings.

Where are the shadows on the objects in the fore ground? No one gives a shit about your personal ‘rating system’.

The shadows should be near to intensity (value) as are the sun made shadows.
The lack of shadows in view of the light flashes emanating from the explosions baffles the mind, or should baffle the mind......

Surely these shadow less flashes on the ground aren’t recording results from low tech cameras and is merely examples of anomalous camera physics isn’t due to mere camera physics.

The dust like material supposed come from the supposed aircraft aircraft skidding on the ground was not supported by photographic evidence of gouges in the lawn in front of the West Wing.
Also the airplane didn't become unstable as its physical parts began gougiung into the earth at "500 mph".

I understand your point(s), however, it's the lack of observational verification [that you haven't supplied] that makes it difficult to accept your claims here. As an aexample, in another part of this post you mentioned that most of the jet fuel from the wing tanks ended up inside the Pentagon Building. How do you know this? Is it a deduction from the physical facts, or the result of experimental interpretation? It seems that the statemnent was offered because it dove tailed with your basic opinion of who attacked us on 911. I am not criticising methodology here, I merely desire, better, I need, some references to your sources.

speaking of dust and squibs – it is difficult to rationalize away what the cameras have captured as squibs firing, but I'll bet you know someone who is going to do just that.


oPuffs Of Dust:shrug:
CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."
:shrug:​

 

It's cruise speed; it's standard. After a dive of some kind, it might even be faster.

Because I can see the plane hit at a perpendicular angle in the frame from the link you posted.

This is the problem: your belief. You're hopelessly biased.

Not found. Please cite page and position. I don't have time to dig through a poorly done French conspiracy site. In fact, the site gives the angle as about 3 degrees:

http://0911.site.voila.fr/index1.htm

__________________________________________________________

This is completely irrelevant. The opinion of the "Arab on the street" with respect to al Qaeda, OBL or anything else matters absolutely nothing.

Your point?

Rather, no one gives a shit about your absurd notion that a distant fireball should have created shadows against the light of the noonday sun.

Now you're not making sense at all.

How so? BTW, the French site you've linked is excellent evidence of a plane hitting the building. They even mention a plane themselves.

Would that matter much, as the plane hurtled into the building at 500 mph, with its mass, after even grazing the ground at about 200 feet from the building? Of course not.

A deduction. When several tonnes of jet fuel travels quite quickly it tends to keep going that way.

Anyway: no, you have not proved your thesis and all the websites you link to keep ending up supporting the official story. You're going to have to do better than that.

 

Then why are you ignoring all of Newton's Laws? aren't they the basis of the laws of physics?

Tell me how the Laws of motion were not in effect at the point of impact of a 225 ton 767 when it hit the Pentagon, Newtons First Law of Motion,

You have 225 tons in motion, now tell me how you stop that in 40 ft. That is the width of each ring of the Pentagon, and the length of the plane 201 ft., gives a massive ballistic coefficient which translate to penetration of the resisting material, (the Building). The mass of the 767 collapses into its self, creating a solid projectile, that erodes as it expends energy going through the wall, and building structure, and that material is more than visible in the pictures.

 

Yes, it was a huge truck bomb. If it were placed differently, it could have caused similar damage, in fact that was the intention.

I bring it up because it proves Islamic terrorists had the motive and the means to carry out such operations.

I think Islamic Fundamentalists are inherently irrational because of their religious beliefs. They feel the US is the biggest obstacle to establishing Islamic rule in predominately Muslim nations.

In light of the fact of previous Islamic fundamentalist attacks, all the Bush administration would have to do to have their "Pearl Harbor" is NOTHING. The idea of a deliberate bombing of the WTCs and the pentagon and the downing of FL 93 is completely irrational, as well as inconsistent with established facts.

Furthermore, your rant above is without foundation.

 

New evidence has surfaced, this will make you change your tune!

 

Out standing proof, we have at last the reel story of 9/11, OH! the damming evidence, hidden camera, White House Tapes! right from the Presidents Mouth! OH! the shame.....................

 

O-M-G. I never realized.

 

UHHHHHMAZZZZING!!!!!!!

Those evil bastards!

 

Look, I can sense with my keen Troofer senses that you're all being sarcastic. But it makes so much sense. It didn't look like a knife. It wasn't brown. This is so revealing. Everything I thought before now doesn't make sense.