911 Pentagon - 757 or cruise missile???

[candycorn]

So a fire in the building turned it into an incinerator? After a body is cremated there are still bones that didn't burn, which contain DNA. There was not even DNA for 1500 people.
Body parts, very small body parts were found, not ash.

Are you trying to say that 1,500 people have not been identified?

1500 are identified and presumed dead because they never came home, but they were not confirmed dead by DNA or other means

Citation for that please?

 

[wihosa]

By the way, steel is denser and stronger than concrete so impact against the tower would have had the same effect on a real plane.
A real plane could never penetrate the building. Yes I know you saw it on TV so you believe but it is just physically impossible..
If you think I'm wrong, provide video of a less dense, less massive object pentetrating a more dense more massive object.

Don't have to. The outer walls of the buildings were not concrete. They were steel beams with a lot of glass between them. The load bearing columns were INSIDE the buildings so there would be no problem at all for an airplane to penetrate. Are you really trying to be serious with this?

The outer columns were structural load bearing 14" steel box columns spaced 1 meter on center. That leaves less than 24" of glass between. Look at my post #474.

And planes at full speed crashing into them would have behaved much like a liquid and spread flaming gas and very small parts of things into the inside of the buildings, which is exactly what we saw happen. There is absolutely no way the exterior walls of the buildings could possibly have absorbed the shock of that much material hitting them at the speed. The energy was tremendous, as we saw it was enough to collapse the buildings after the fires weakened the support columns.

Did you even read my post #474? I know it has math involved...

By the way, steel is denser and stronger than concrete so impact against the tower would have had the same effect on a real plane.
A real plane could never penetrate the building. Yes I know you saw it on TV so you believe but it is just physically impossible..
If you think I'm wrong, provide video of a less dense, less massive object pentetrating a more dense more massive object.

Don't have to. The outer walls of the buildings were not concrete. They were steel beams with a lot of glass between them. The load bearing columns were INSIDE the buildings so there would be no problem at all for an airplane to penetrate. Are you really trying to be serious with this?

The outer columns were structural load bearing 14" steel box columns spaced 1 meter on center. That leaves less than 24" of glass between. Look at my post #474.

And planes at full speed crashing into them would have behaved much like a liquid and spread flaming gas and very small parts of things into the inside of the buildings, which is exactly what we saw happen. There is absolutely no way the exterior walls of the buildings could possibly have absorbed the shock of that much material hitting them at the speed. The energy was tremendous, as we saw it was enough to collapse the buildings after the fires weakened the support columns.

Not convinced? Let's do the math. Consider just the exterior columns, just in the "impact zone". It spanned by my count 44 columns and crossed eight floors. The floors were 12 feet high so total length of columns in the affected area is 96 feet. We know the columns were 14" welded steel box columns with a minimum thickness of 1/2" so here is the calculation for the total steel in each column in the affected area. 96' x 12" x 56" (4 sides of column) x .5" = 32,256 cubic inches of steel / 1728 c.i. per cubic foot = 18.66 c.f. of steel per column. Steel weighs about 490 lbs. per c.f. so 18.66 x 490 = 9143.4. Divide that by 2000 lbs per ton = 4.57 tons per column. Multiply by 44 columns = 201.08 tons of steel.

A fully loaded 757 comes in at about 140 tons max. 140 tons of aluminum airplane against 201 tons of steel. No contest. Keep in mind this is just the mass of the exterior columns which were backed up by 8 concrete floors, each about an acre in size. 44,000 sf / 4" slab thickness = 14,666 cubic feet of light weight concrete at about 115 per cf = 1,686,590 lbs / 2000 = 843.3 tons per floor x 8 floors = 6744 tons of concrete in the affected area.

No plane flew through the side of a 500,000 ton building. Only an image of a plane could do that. Go back and watch the video of the plane, does it look like a collision to you? It doesn't slow down, it doesn't crumple or break. The face of the building doesn't buckle or bend.

 

[Faun]

By the way, steel is denser and stronger than concrete so impact against the tower would have had the same effect on a real plane.
A real plane could never penetrate the building. Yes I know you saw it on TV so you believe but it is just physically impossible..
If you think I'm wrong, provide video of a less dense, less massive object pentetrating a more dense more massive object.

Don't have to. The outer walls of the buildings were not concrete. They were steel beams with a lot of glass between them. The load bearing columns were INSIDE the buildings so there would be no problem at all for an airplane to penetrate. Are you really trying to be serious with this?

The outer columns were structural load bearing 14" steel box columns spaced 1 meter on center. That leaves less than 24" of glass between. Look at my post #474.

And planes at full speed crashing into them would have behaved much like a liquid and spread flaming gas and very small parts of things into the inside of the buildings, which is exactly what we saw happen. There is absolutely no way the exterior walls of the buildings could possibly have absorbed the shock of that much material hitting them at the speed. The energy was tremendous, as we saw it was enough to collapse the buildings after the fires weakened the support columns.

Did you even read my post #474? I know it has math involved...

By the way, steel is denser and stronger than concrete so impact against the tower would have had the same effect on a real plane.
A real plane could never penetrate the building. Yes I know you saw it on TV so you believe but it is just physically impossible..
If you think I'm wrong, provide video of a less dense, less massive object pentetrating a more dense more massive object.

Don't have to. The outer walls of the buildings were not concrete. They were steel beams with a lot of glass between them. The load bearing columns were INSIDE the buildings so there would be no problem at all for an airplane to penetrate. Are you really trying to be serious with this?

The outer columns were structural load bearing 14" steel box columns spaced 1 meter on center. That leaves less than 24" of glass between. Look at my post #474.

And planes at full speed crashing into them would have behaved much like a liquid and spread flaming gas and very small parts of things into the inside of the buildings, which is exactly what we saw happen. There is absolutely no way the exterior walls of the buildings could possibly have absorbed the shock of that much material hitting them at the speed. The energy was tremendous, as we saw it was enough to collapse the buildings after the fires weakened the support columns.

Not convinced? Let's do the math. Consider just the exterior columns, just in the "impact zone". It spanned by my count 44 columns and crossed eight floors. The floors were 12 feet high so total length of columns in the affected area is 96 feet. We know the columns were 14" welded steel box columns with a minimum thickness of 1/2" so here is the calculation for the total steel in each column in the affected area. 96' x 12" x 56" (4 sides of column) x .5" = 32,256 cubic inches of steel / 1728 c.i. per cubic foot = 18.66 c.f. of steel per column. Steel weighs about 490 lbs. per c.f. so 18.66 x 490 = 9143.4. Divide that by 2000 lbs per ton = 4.57 tons per column. Multiply by 44 columns = 201.08 tons of steel.

A fully loaded 757 comes in at about 140 tons max. 140 tons of aluminum airplane against 201 tons of steel. No contest. Keep in mind this is just the mass of the exterior columns which were backed up by 8 concrete floors, each about an acre in size. 44,000 sf / 4" slab thickness = 14,666 cubic feet of light weight concrete at about 115 per cf = 1,686,590 lbs / 2000 = 843.3 tons per floor x 8 floors = 6744 tons of concrete in the affected area.

No plane flew through the side of a 500,000 ton building. Only an image of a plane could do that. Go back and watch the video of the plane, does it look like a collision to you? It doesn't slow down, it doesn't crumple or break. The face of the building doesn't buckle or bend.

An "image" of a plane??

You said eyewitnesses say they saw a plane only because they were told that. Now you say they saw an "image" of one??

You're so crazy, you don't even know there's no such technology capable of displaying an image of a plane streaking across the sky and into a building some 80 to 90 stories up.



Do you still possess even the slightest amount of lucidity to comprehend why rational folks think you twoofers are completely batshit insane??

 

[wihosa]

And stop with the full speed line. First of all jet aircraft cannot fly full speed at under 1000 foot elevation, the air is 3 time thicker than at 30,000 feet. The engines actually become brakes at low altitude. Pilots for 911 Truth estimates maximum speed would have been about 400mph. The importance of the wrong speed is only that it proves the image seen was a fake, 580mph is a physical impossibility.

But regardless, high speed wouldn't allow a plane to fly through the side of a steel building because Newtons Third Law is an immutable law, not a possibility. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, in a collision, both objects receive the same impact force. At that point it becomes a test of material strength. Steel and concrete beat aluminum and plastic every time!

Airplane wings are not steel cutting tools, no matter how fast they go. Airplanes are fragile craft, so thin and lightweight that there are places on the wings that are so weak they label them NO STEP. In other words, maintenance man, don't step here or you'll break something. Airplanes are built so light they can fly!

 

[Faun]

And stop with the full speed line. First of all jet aircraft cannot fly full speed at under 1000 foot elevation, the air is 3 time thicker than at 30,000 feet. The engines actually become brakes at low altitude. Pilots for 911 Truth estimates maximum speed would have been about 400mph. The importance of the wrong speed is only that it proves the image seen was a fake, 580mph is a physical impossibility.

But regardless, high speed wouldn't allow a plane to fly through the side of a steel building because Newtons Third Law is an immutable law, not a possibility. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, in a collision, both objects receive the same impact force. At that point it becomes a test of material strength. Steel and concrete beat aluminum and plastic every time!

Airplane wings are not steel cutting tools, no matter how fast they go. Airplanes are fragile craft, so thin and lightweight that there are places on the wings that are so weak they label them NO STEP. In other words, maintenance man, don't step here or you'll break something. Airplanes are built so light they can fly!

Yeah, and a potato is stronger than a straw. And yet...

 

[wihosa]

By the way, steel is denser and stronger than concrete so impact against the tower would have had the same effect on a real plane.
A real plane could never penetrate the building. Yes I know you saw it on TV so you believe but it is just physically impossible..
If you think I'm wrong, provide video of a less dense, less massive object pentetrating a more dense more massive object.

Don't have to. The outer walls of the buildings were not concrete. They were steel beams with a lot of glass between them. The load bearing columns were INSIDE the buildings so there would be no problem at all for an airplane to penetrate. Are you really trying to be serious with this?

The outer columns were structural load bearing 14" steel box columns spaced 1 meter on center. That leaves less than 24" of glass between. Look at my post #474.

And planes at full speed crashing into them would have behaved much like a liquid and spread flaming gas and very small parts of things into the inside of the buildings, which is exactly what we saw happen. There is absolutely no way the exterior walls of the buildings could possibly have absorbed the shock of that much material hitting them at the speed. The energy was tremendous, as we saw it was enough to collapse the buildings after the fires weakened the support columns.

Did you even read my post #474? I know it has math involved...

By the way, steel is denser and stronger than concrete so impact against the tower would have had the same effect on a real plane.
A real plane could never penetrate the building. Yes I know you saw it on TV so you believe but it is just physically impossible..
If you think I'm wrong, provide video of a less dense, less massive object pentetrating a more dense more massive object.

Don't have to. The outer walls of the buildings were not concrete. They were steel beams with a lot of glass between them. The load bearing columns were INSIDE the buildings so there would be no problem at all for an airplane to penetrate. Are you really trying to be serious with this?

The outer columns were structural load bearing 14" steel box columns spaced 1 meter on center. That leaves less than 24" of glass between. Look at my post #474.

And planes at full speed crashing into them would have behaved much like a liquid and spread flaming gas and very small parts of things into the inside of the buildings, which is exactly what we saw happen. There is absolutely no way the exterior walls of the buildings could possibly have absorbed the shock of that much material hitting them at the speed. The energy was tremendous, as we saw it was enough to collapse the buildings after the fires weakened the support columns.

Not convinced? Let's do the math. Consider just the exterior columns, just in the "impact zone". It spanned by my count 44 columns and crossed eight floors. The floors were 12 feet high so total length of columns in the affected area is 96 feet. We know the columns were 14" welded steel box columns with a minimum thickness of 1/2" so here is the calculation for the total steel in each column in the affected area. 96' x 12" x 56" (4 sides of column) x .5" = 32,256 cubic inches of steel / 1728 c.i. per cubic foot = 18.66 c.f. of steel per column. Steel weighs about 490 lbs. per c.f. so 18.66 x 490 = 9143.4. Divide that by 2000 lbs per ton = 4.57 tons per column. Multiply by 44 columns = 201.08 tons of steel.

A fully loaded 757 comes in at about 140 tons max. 140 tons of aluminum airplane against 201 tons of steel. No contest. Keep in mind this is just the mass of the exterior columns which were backed up by 8 concrete floors, each about an acre in size. 44,000 sf / 4" slab thickness = 14,666 cubic feet of light weight concrete at about 115 per cf = 1,686,590 lbs / 2000 = 843.3 tons per floor x 8 floors = 6744 tons of concrete in the affected area.

No plane flew through the side of a 500,000 ton building. Only an image of a plane could do that. Go back and watch the video of the plane, does it look like a collision to you? It doesn't slow down, it doesn't crumple or break. The face of the building doesn't buckle or bend.

An "image" of a plane??

You said eyewitnesses say they saw a plane only because they were told that. Now you say they saw an "image" of one??

You're so crazy, you don't even know there's no such technology capable of displaying an image of a plane streaking across the sky and into a building some 80 to 90 stories up.



Do you still possess even the slightest amount of lucidity to comprehend why rational folks think you twoofers are completely batshit insane??

Perhaps I wasn't clear on this point, it's possible that there was an image of a plane and yes the military has a system call Strategic Perception Managment, which is an airborne image projector, it might be holographic or it may be another technology, they don't tell their secrets readily.

But we were told that the buildings collapsed so that is what we believed, but if you honestly look, it is obvious that the buildings turned to dust before they ever hit the ground.

 

[wihosa]

And stop with the full speed line. First of all jet aircraft cannot fly full speed at under 1000 foot elevation, the air is 3 time thicker than at 30,000 feet. The engines actually become brakes at low altitude. Pilots for 911 Truth estimates maximum speed would have been about 400mph. The importance of the wrong speed is only that it proves the image seen was a fake, 580mph is a physical impossibility.

But regardless, high speed wouldn't allow a plane to fly through the side of a steel building because Newtons Third Law is an immutable law, not a possibility. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, in a collision, both objects receive the same impact force. At that point it becomes a test of material strength. Steel and concrete beat aluminum and plastic every time!

Airplane wings are not steel cutting tools, no matter how fast they go. Airplanes are fragile craft, so thin and lightweight that there are places on the wings that are so weak they label them NO STEP. In other words, maintenance man, don't step here or you'll break something. Airplanes are built so light they can fly!

Yeah, and a potato is stronger than a straw. And yet...

Actually polyethylene which is what most straws are made of is denser than potatoe 59lbs/cf to 48lbs/cf. in addition polyethylene is far stronger so your just factually wrong. Also the demonstration points out that the straw can't go through the potatoe unless a finger closes off the opposite end trapping air which I turn supports the walls of the straw.

Your demonstration is not applicable.

 

[phoenyx]

Thank you for providing those pictures. I've traced them back to their site of origin, and I can see that they are from the Moussaoui trial. For those who don't know how to find their source, they are here:
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200047.jpg

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200042.jpg

The Moussaoui trial is something that I have gone over before, possibly with someone in this forum (Faun perhaps), or possibly in another forum I frequent. Essentially, my point was this: while the government provided this evidence, it doesn't specify -who- in the government provided it. This is a problem, as it has been mentioned before that the chain of custody regarding 9/11 evidence has frequently been non existent. What we have above looks to be the charred remains of -someone-, but we have only the government's word that it was photographed at the Pentagon, and who that someone was is unknown, blue and white shirt notwithstanding.

So how do you account for the bodies of civilians being in the Pentagon? Did your shadowy ninja-conspirators re-dress the bodies before planting them????

From CIT's FAQ:
Frequently Asked Questions » Didn't rescue workers see dead bodies inside the Pentagon? How do you explain that?

So the Moussaoui defense was able to get all of the DNA evidence thrown out then, right?

I don't know, but I highly doubt it.

After all, according to your continued denials, there's no proof any of it matched any of the passengers from flight #77.

These points are all old hat. CIT has another FAQ page for the question of Flight 77's DNA evidence:
**
Frequently Asked Questions » Didn't the government match DNA found in the Pentagon to the passengers of Flight 77? Why isn't this valid evidence proving that it hit the building?
These "DNA reports" are not valid evidence proving that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon because they were supplied by the same entity implicated by the independent, verifiable north side approach evidence and the independent, verifiable flyover/flyaway evidence. There is no independent chain of custody of these alleged DNA samples, which means that the scientists who allegedly analyzed the DNA and turned up matches -- if that did happen -- have no way of knowing whether or not it actually came from the Pentagon. Unverifiable, government-alleged evidence such as this cannot be accepted on pure faith as valid in light of the fact that it is contradicted by conclusive, independent, verifiable evidence indicating that the plane did not hit the building.**

Source: Does the government's "DNA evidence" prove Flight 77 impact? | 9/11 Pentagon

 

[phoenyx]

Again with the "Twoofers" -.-. Not sure if you're referring to when the facade caved in about 20 minutes after the initial explosion at the Pentagon? Most of us weren't at the Pentagon itself, let alone with measuring tape to measure the size of the hole in the first 20 minutes, but there are pictures that have people in it along with the initial damage to the Pentagon that give an idea as to size of the hole. Below is one, complete with a caption:
***

Look at the red image, it is scaled to size, (ACTUALLY EVEN SMALLER) and shows where the impact patterns SHOULD be, yet, there is no damage except a single hole that goes through 3 sections of the pentagon.

This wall collapsed or was brought down by explosives minutes after this picture, which clearly shows inconsistent damage for a Boeing 757.
***

Source: Missile Damage to Pentagon - Unseen Pentagon Fraud Footage? - The 9-11 Events...

The source of this particular photo believes it was caused by a missile, something I'm highly skeptical of, but he certainly agrees with me that it couldn't have been caused by a 757.

Draw that with your own crayon?

I didn't draw it, I found it online. I imagine it took a little more work then the yellow circle you have in the picture below...

A much more accurate picture (that fits in with the physical evidence)

Your picture has the same elements as mine, firetruck, firemen, a lawn unmarked by any noticeable plane parts.

Here you see where the two engines hit:

No evidence that engines made the damage. Also, no evidence of the engines themselves...

First on the right you see the generator knocked off it’s moorings. CIT and our new [insult removed] Phoenix [insult removed] would have you believe that it was set on fire separately. Notice the gash in the upper left hand corner generator that perfectly coincides with the outside of the starboard engine of a 757 (also known as AA77).

"Perfectly coincides"? Where do you get this stuff? I see someone drew a yellow circle on a picture of the Pentagon shortly after the attack. That's about all.

The yellow circle shows where the bottom of the port engine clipped the concrete surrounding what looked to be a Helipad outside of the Pentagon.

I must admit, you've got some imagination. But hey, if you want to believe that this picture has a "gash in the upper left hand corner" of the generator that "perfectly coincides with the outside of the starboard engine of a 757", be my guest. People are free to theorize whatever they like, regardless of how far into conjecture their theories go...

 

[phoenyx]

There's no evidence any plane exploded over the Pentagon.

You may well be right about that. Given the evidence, this leaves only one possibility- that it flew over it. But enough of what I and many others who disagree with the official story believe. What version of the -official- story do -you- believe? Did the aircraft fly according to the NTSB data, the 9/11 Commission data, or actual physical damage path? You can only choose one, as none of these versions concord with each other...

Now you're lying again... flying over the Pentagon is not actually the only remaining possibility.

Do you really think I’m trying to deceive you?

Yes.

I see. What would my motive be?

 

[phoenyx]

Twoofers reject reality...

And there you are, starting up with the ad hominem attacks again, sigh -.-. Why do I even bother with essay length ideas on how to further a progressive discussion when all I get in response is this -.-? If your goal is to kill the conversation, keep it up with those ad hominems -.-...

I tried engaging you in reasonable debate.

For a time, yes...

You refuse to post any actual proof whatsoever of anything you claim.

And, you, ofcourse, have posted lots of it, right ? When have I ever claimed I could prove anything to you? I focus on the evidence and what is most plausible.

So where else is there to go with this debate when I have evidence on my side whereas you have nothing but abject denial on yours?

Look, you want to believe that, you go right ahead. No one's forcing you to discuss things with me, or anyone else in this sub forum. I am fond of an old line: "Never argue with someone who knows they're right". It's a waste of time. Sometimes, the key to learning is to accept the possibility that your beliefs may not be correct. Or as Mark Twain once put it: "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

 

[phoenyx]

I have no desire to bring forward any witnesses. We've, or I, have moved beyond trying to prove anything to you since you're clearly only going to deny anything and everything which doesn't fit into your imagination of what happened. Evidence of this lies in my belief I have absolutely zero doubt that someone who has spent as much time researching this as you say you have, has already seen the witnesses who have stated they saw the plane fly into the Pentagon. So why on Earth would you ask me to show you what you have already seen except to set you up with yet more denials?

Yes, some people -believe- they saw the plane fly into the Pentagon. It certainly flew very close to the Pentagon, but if you were to actually closely examine the testimony from the credible witnesses who've made this allegation as CIT has, you'd see that they placed the plane on a flight path that simply couldn't have caused the damage that the Pentagon sustained. As Sherlock Holmes once said: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".

Huh? Which CIT witness said they saw a commercial plane fly over the Pentagon?

None put it quite like that, but these are the witnesses that CIT lists as flyover/away witnesses:
**Flyover/away witnesses and connections:
1. Officer Roosevelt Roberts
2. Dewitt Roseborough (person of interest)
3. Co-workers of Erik Dihle at ANC who said that "a bomb hit and a jet kept going"
4. Potentially witnesses interviewed by Dave Statter on 9/11. Witness(es) said "pilot tried to avert the building" and the plane "went to the side of the building not directly in"
5. Maria De La Cerda reports to the Center for Military History on Feb 6, 2002 that she thought it crashed on "the other side" and confirmed to us in 2008 that she did not think it was a side impact but rather that it was "on top".**

Source: http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82&st=0

 

[Faun]

And stop with the full speed line. First of all jet aircraft cannot fly full speed at under 1000 foot elevation, the air is 3 time thicker than at 30,000 feet. The engines actually become brakes at low altitude. Pilots for 911 Truth estimates maximum speed would have been about 400mph. The importance of the wrong speed is only that it proves the image seen was a fake, 580mph is a physical impossibility.

But regardless, high speed wouldn't allow a plane to fly through the side of a steel building because Newtons Third Law is an immutable law, not a possibility. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, in a collision, both objects receive the same impact force. At that point it becomes a test of material strength. Steel and concrete beat aluminum and plastic every time!

Airplane wings are not steel cutting tools, no matter how fast they go. Airplanes are fragile craft, so thin and lightweight that there are places on the wings that are so weak they label them NO STEP. In other words, maintenance man, don't step here or you'll break something. Airplanes are built so light they can fly!

Yeah, and a potato is stronger than a straw. And yet...

Actually polyethylene which is what most straws are made of is denser than potatoe 59lbs/cf to 48lbs/cf. in addition polyethylene is far stronger so your just factually wrong. Also the demonstration points out that the straw can't go through the potatoe unless a finger closes off the opposite end trapping air which I turn supports the walls of the straw.

Your demonstration is not applicable.

Despite you ignoring the thickness of a straw, which makes it less dense than the potato

And stop with the full speed line. First of all jet aircraft cannot fly full speed at under 1000 foot elevation, the air is 3 time thicker than at 30,000 feet. The engines actually become brakes at low altitude. Pilots for 911 Truth estimates maximum speed would have been about 400mph. The importance of the wrong speed is only that it proves the image seen was a fake, 580mph is a physical impossibility.

But regardless, high speed wouldn't allow a plane to fly through the side of a steel building because Newtons Third Law is an immutable law, not a possibility. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, in a collision, both objects receive the same impact force. At that point it becomes a test of material strength. Steel and concrete beat aluminum and plastic every time!

Airplane wings are not steel cutting tools, no matter how fast they go. Airplanes are fragile craft, so thin and lightweight that there are places on the wings that are so weak they label them NO STEP. In other words, maintenance man, don't step here or you'll break something. Airplanes are built so light they can fly!

Yeah, and a potato is stronger than a straw. And yet...

Actually polyethylene which is what most straws are made of is denser than potatoe 59lbs/cf to 48lbs/cf. in addition polyethylene is far stronger so your just factually wrong. Also the demonstration points out that the straw can't go through the potatoe unless a finger closes off the opposite end trapping air which I turn supports the walls of the straw.

Your demonstration is not applicable.

Actually, a potato is stronger. You're discounting how thin a straw is. That's why closing off the straw to lock in air is needed for the straw to penetrate (as the video I posted demonstrates), as well as a quick stabbing motion. Otherwise, the straw bounces off the potato. As far as density, put a straw and a potato in fresh water and see which one sinks and which one floats.

Speed is a factor. Air is a factor. Without both of those, the straw loses every time.

 

[Faun]

Thank you for providing those pictures. I've traced them back to their site of origin, and I can see that they are from the Moussaoui trial. For those who don't know how to find their source, they are here:
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200047.jpg

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200042.jpg

The Moussaoui trial is something that I have gone over before, possibly with someone in this forum (Faun perhaps), or possibly in another forum I frequent. Essentially, my point was this: while the government provided this evidence, it doesn't specify -who- in the government provided it. This is a problem, as it has been mentioned before that the chain of custody regarding 9/11 evidence has frequently been non existent. What we have above looks to be the charred remains of -someone-, but we have only the government's word that it was photographed at the Pentagon, and who that someone was is unknown, blue and white shirt notwithstanding.

So how do you account for the bodies of civilians being in the Pentagon? Did your shadowy ninja-conspirators re-dress the bodies before planting them????

From CIT's FAQ:
Frequently Asked Questions » Didn't rescue workers see dead bodies inside the Pentagon? How do you explain that?

So the Moussaoui defense was able to get all of the DNA evidence thrown out then, right?

I don't know, but I highly doubt it.

After all, according to your continued denials, there's no proof any of it matched any of the passengers from flight #77.

These points are all old hat. CIT has another FAQ page for the question of Flight 77's DNA evidence:
**
Frequently Asked Questions » Didn't the government match DNA found in the Pentagon to the passengers of Flight 77? Why isn't this valid evidence proving that it hit the building?
These "DNA reports" are not valid evidence proving that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon because they were supplied by the same entity implicated by the independent, verifiable north side approach evidence and the independent, verifiable flyover/flyaway evidence. There is no independent chain of custody of these alleged DNA samples, which means that the scientists who allegedly analyzed the DNA and turned up matches -- if that did happen -- have no way of knowing whether or not it actually came from the Pentagon. Unverifiable, government-alleged evidence such as this cannot be accepted on pure faith as valid in light of the fact that it is contradicted by conclusive, independent, verifiable evidence indicating that the plane did not hit the building.**

Source: Does the government's "DNA evidence" prove Flight 77 impact? | 9/11 Pentagon

More nonsense based on the north side approach which, whether you accept it or not, was impossible.

 

[candycorn]

Again with the "Twoofers" -.-. Not sure if you're referring to when the facade caved in about 20 minutes after the initial explosion at the Pentagon? Most of us weren't at the Pentagon itself, let alone with measuring tape to measure the size of the hole in the first 20 minutes, but there are pictures that have people in it along with the initial damage to the Pentagon that give an idea as to size of the hole. Below is one, complete with a caption:
***

Look at the red image, it is scaled to size, (ACTUALLY EVEN SMALLER) and shows where the impact patterns SHOULD be, yet, there is no damage except a single hole that goes through 3 sections of the pentagon.

This wall collapsed or was brought down by explosives minutes after this picture, which clearly shows inconsistent damage for a Boeing 757.
***

Source: Missile Damage to Pentagon - Unseen Pentagon Fraud Footage? - The 9-11 Events...

The source of this particular photo believes it was caused by a missile, something I'm highly skeptical of, but he certainly agrees with me that it couldn't have been caused by a 757.

Draw that with your own crayon?

I didn't draw it, I found it online. I imagine it took a little more work then the yellow circle you have in the picture below...

Yeah, accuracy takes more time than cartoonish renderings of losers like you.

A much more accurate picture (that fits in with the physical evidence)

Your picture has the same elements as mine, firetruck, firemen, a lawn unmarked by any noticeable plane parts.

Here you see where the two engines hit:

No evidence that engines made the damage. Also, no evidence of the engines themselves...

First on the right you see the generator knocked off it’s moorings. CIT and our new [insult removed] Phoenix [insult removed] would have you believe that it was set on fire separately. Notice the gash in the upper left hand corner generator that perfectly coincides with the outside of the starboard engine of a 757 (also known as AA77).

"Perfectly coincides"? Where do you get this stuff? I see someone drew a yellow circle on a picture of the Pentagon shortly after the attack. That's about all.

The yellow circle shows where the bottom of the port engine clipped the concrete surrounding what looked to be a Helipad outside of the Pentagon.

I must admit, you've got some imagination. But hey, if you want to believe that this picture has a "gash in the upper left hand corner" of the generator that "perfectly coincides with the outside of the starboard engine of a 757", be my guest. People are free to theorize whatever they like, regardless of how far into conjecture their theories go...

Yeah fuck face, it's more physical evidence that buries your "theory" even further. Can you account for the giant gash in the generator? No.
Can you account for the gash in the concrete? No.

That they happen to line up pretty well with where the engines of a 757 would be relative to one another? Coincidence.

The fire that's involving the Generator? No.

Just happy to put more nails in your coffin there loser.

 

[Faun]

Twoofers reject reality...

And there you are, starting up with the ad hominem attacks again, sigh -.-. Why do I even bother with essay length ideas on how to further a progressive discussion when all I get in response is this -.-? If your goal is to kill the conversation, keep it up with those ad hominems -.-...

I tried engaging you in reasonable debate.

For a time, yes...

You refuse to post any actual proof whatsoever of anything you claim.

And, you, ofcourse, have posted lots of it, right ? When have I ever claimed I could prove anything to you? I focus on the evidence and what is most plausible.

So where else is there to go with this debate when I have evidence on my side whereas you have nothing but abject denial on yours?

Look, you want to believe that, you go right ahead. No one's forcing you to discuss things with me, or anyone else in this sub forum. I am fond of an old line: "Never argue with someone who knows they're right". It's a waste of time. Sometimes, the key to learning is to accept the possibility that your beliefs may not be correct. Or as Mark Twain once put it: "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

What else is there to believe? I'm showing physical evidence supporting the reality that a plane was flown into the Pentagon, just as many eyewitnesses described.... The downed poles, the 75+ foot wide swath of damage, the direction of the debris field, plane parts found among the debris, DNA from passengers of flight #77, documents linked to passengers known to be on that flight, video evidence a plane flew into the building....

All you have offered in response can be summed up as -- Nuh-uh!

You have absolutely zero physical evidence supporting anything you've claimed. You yourself have expressed doubt about what you think happened and you even lied to promote your idiocy. Everything you've offered is based on denial of the actual evidence and the purported eyewitness accounts by some who were never even interviewed until as late as 2008; and who described an event which was physically impossible given the direction of the debris field compared to the direction they claim the plane flew.

 

[candycorn]

There's no evidence any plane exploded over the Pentagon.

You may well be right about that. Given the evidence, this leaves only one possibility- that it flew over it. But enough of what I and many others who disagree with the official story believe. What version of the -official- story do -you- believe? Did the aircraft fly according to the NTSB data, the 9/11 Commission data, or actual physical damage path? You can only choose one, as none of these versions concord with each other...

Now you're lying again... flying over the Pentagon is not actually the only remaining possibility.

Do you really think I’m trying to deceive you?

Yes.

I see. What would my motive be?

Obviously, you've got mental issues. I'm sure at some point, someone in authority told you that you were a few tacos short of a combo meal and you've resented it ever since. I imagine that whomever your guardian was couldn't afford the sessions or the medication or both so you've grown up to be a dysfunctional loser.

As for your motive, to get the attention on the Internet that you can't garner in real life. if I had to guess Your all alone right? Right! And I don't say this because you disagree with physical evidence or disagree with my conclusions drawn from the unimpeachable evidence, or that you rely on a couple of other angry losers with a "napoleon complex" who have been shown the door by other twoofers...it's because your stories violate the basic tennants of logic.

Look you think the bodies were buried; making 15 things the perps had to do instead of "merely" crashing the plane into the building. I'll fast forward a bit to the phone calls. How do you account for them? Phone calls that Ms. Binhgam (Mark Bingham was on flight 93; not 77) said was him. Phone calls from kids to their parents. Phone calls that even had the combination to a safe in the closet so that their loved ones could find vital documents.

There is zero doubt by anyone who has been watching that you'll say they were faked. Which boradens the conspiracy even further.

The logical fallacy is why...why have phone calls to start with? Why open up the whole operation to some sound engineer who may "spill the beans"? Why have any phone calls at all?

I'm sure, if you muster enough man-hood to answer, you'll come up with some link to some back water website instead of writing it out.... Another sign of progressive inmaturity; avoidance of responsibility at all costs.

 

[Faun]

I have no desire to bring forward any witnesses. We've, or I, have moved beyond trying to prove anything to you since you're clearly only going to deny anything and everything which doesn't fit into your imagination of what happened. Evidence of this lies in my belief I have absolutely zero doubt that someone who has spent as much time researching this as you say you have, has already seen the witnesses who have stated they saw the plane fly into the Pentagon. So why on Earth would you ask me to show you what you have already seen except to set you up with yet more denials?

Yes, some people -believe- they saw the plane fly into the Pentagon. It certainly flew very close to the Pentagon, but if you were to actually closely examine the testimony from the credible witnesses who've made this allegation as CIT has, you'd see that they placed the plane on a flight path that simply couldn't have caused the damage that the Pentagon sustained. As Sherlock Holmes once said: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".

Huh? Which CIT witness said they saw a commercial plane fly over the Pentagon?

None put it quite like that, but these are the witnesses that CIT lists as flyover/away witnesses:
**Flyover/away witnesses and connections:
1. Officer Roosevelt Roberts
2. Dewitt Roseborough (person of interest)
3. Co-workers of Erik Dihle at ANC who said that "a bomb hit and a jet kept going"
4. Potentially witnesses interviewed by Dave Statter on 9/11. Witness(es) said "pilot tried to avert the building" and the plane "went to the side of the building not directly in"
5. Maria De La Cerda reports to the Center for Military History on Feb 6, 2002 that she thought it crashed on "the other side" and confirmed to us in 2008 that she did not think it was a side impact but rather that it was "on top".**

Source: http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82&st=0

None of those people claim they saw any plane over the Pentagon. Roberts said he saw another plane (after the explosion) heading SW (opposite direction of AA77) over the south parking lot. Roseborough did not say he saw any plane over the Pentagon. Dihle did not say he saw a plane period as he was inside the Pentagon when the plane hit. De La Cerda did not say it flew over the Pentagon, she said it flew to the Pentagon.

Some folks did say they saw a second plane. Some of whom described it as a 4 engine propeller plane and at least one said it veered off after a commercial jet hit the Pentagon. But given there was an airport about a mile away and lots of aair traffic in the vicinity that morning, it's neither surprising nor a conspiracy that some people saw another plane.

 

[phoenyx]

The Moussaoui trial is something that I have gone over before, possibly with someone in this forum (Faun perhaps), or possibly in another forum I frequent. Essentially, my point was this: while the government provided this evidence, it doesn't specify -who- in the government provided it. This is a problem, as it has been mentioned before that the chain of custody regarding 9/11 evidence has frequently been non existent. What we have above looks to be the charred remains of -someone-, but we have only the government's word that it was photographed at the Pentagon, and who that someone was is unknown, blue and white shirt notwithstanding.

Actually [insult removed], it’s 3 someones. A blue and white striped shirt proves it was not a member of the military.

I'm not denying that people in the Pentagon died- we're focused on the person who you believe was not in the military. There's a few issues here:
1- Who provided the photo? This is important because
2- How do we know that photo came from the Pentagon?
3- Are you suggesting that no one in the military enters the Pentagon?
4- Are you suggesting that no one in the military would wear a striped shirt in the Pentagon?

As for the other picture of what appears to be a youth…that speaks for itself.

That speaks for your belief that it was a youth. Besides, April Gallup, a Pentagon employee at the time, had her infant son in the Pentagon. Ever heard of her? She doesn't believe the official story either); it's certainly possible for youth to be in the building.

So how do you account for the bodies of civilians being in the Pentagon? Did your shadowy ninja-conspirators re-dress the bodies before planting them????

From CIT's FAQ:
Frequently Asked Questions » Didn't rescue workers see dead bodies inside the Pentagon? How do you explain that?

And of course, here we go again with me asking you a question and you answering it with posting a link to a FAQ. I’m growing weary of your antics [insult removed] so I’ll just assume you’re saying they were planted.

If you would actually stop to click and -read- the articles, you wouldn't have to assume anything -.-. Fine, I'll do it for you...

**Frequently Asked Questions » Didn't rescue workers see dead bodies inside the Pentagon? How do you explain that?
Yes, they did. There was a huge explosion which took place at the same time the plane flew over the Pentagon. This explosion killed 125 people who were inside the Pentagon at the time. Given this fact, the mere presence of dead bodies does not prove that the plane hit the building. Theunanimous placement of the plane on the north side flight path by every eyewitness who has been willing to go on record in an independent interview and who was in a position judge where the plane flew in relation to the Citgo gas station and Navy Annex proves that the plane did not hit the building or light poles, and thus did not cause the deadly explosion.

Numerous first responders and Pentagon workers have serious questions about the official story. Take a look at these powerful words of encouragement that we received from a still-enlisted Pentagon employee who heroically saved lives during the recovery efforts on 9/11.

The writer of the letter above is one of the people in this picture**

We’ll move on to the next pieces of physical evidence:

So far we have the following in your accounting for physical evidence:

1. Wreckage outside the pentagon: Planted

Likely, yes. There certainly wasn't much.

1. Wreckage inside the pentagon: Planted

Or pictures from somewhere other then the Pentagon were introduced as evidence for what was inside the Pentagon. Or evidence was 'planted' via photoshop.

1. Light Pole 1: Planted

Yes.

1. Lloyd England’s cab: Staged

Yes.

1. Why the Perps would have a cabbie on the payroll? Never explained

That would be Rule #14 in Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation:
"14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely"

1. Why the Perps would make him available for interviews? Never explained

You're assuming that the perps had an iron grip on everyone involved and that no one would make any decisions without consulting some master perp.

1. Light Pole 2: Planted
2. Light Pole 3: Planted
3. Light Pole 4: Planted
4. Light Pole 5: Planted

Yes.

1. Super Large generator with obvious 757 starboard engine gash out of the upper right side of it: Faked

Just because you imagine that the damage was caused by the 757 starboard engine doesn't mean that was the case.

1. Fire of Super Large generator with obvious 757 starboard engine gash out of the upper right side of it: Started after the explosion

I've never mentioned much about the generator- I imagine it happened at the initial explosion happened at the Pentagon, but I don't know for sure.

About at the 3rd bullet point, one gets the message that it would have been easier to simply hijack a plane and have it crash into the Pentagon.

If their goal had simply been to crash a plane into the Pentagon, I imagine they would have done that. Also, assuming the official story concerning Flight 77's flight path was true, the Pentagon could have been hit a lot faster if it had been hit somewhere other then the budget analyst's wing. Here's an article I imagine you won't click on, let alone read at length, but I'll post it anyway just in case the mood strikes...
Pentagon Missing Trillions - CBS Reports Pentagon Missing $2.3 Trillion

Lets talk Phone calls.

Renee May called her mother who, in turn, called American Airlines to tell them that AA77 was hijacked. This too is an exhibit in the Mousaui Trial:

U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Virginia

Care to explain that?

I can certainly give you some interesting information on the 9/11 calls in general, and even some specific information on the call Renee May's parents apparently received. What is below is excerpted from a much longer article. You may want to look at the entire linked article, but somehow I doubt you will...

**Where might the calls have come from?

Three people in the Solicitor General’s office and two AT&T operators reported having had contact with the Olson calls from Flight 77. [27]

Renee May’s parents also reported receiving a phone call from their daughter. [28]

How is it possible to reconcile these reports with the lack of substantiating telephone records?

Perhaps we need to look outside the box. The fact that people received these calls does not necessarily mean that the calls were made from Flight 77.

Just as it has come to light in a recent study that over a dozen aircraft were unwittingly transmitting the hijack code (7500) on the morning of 9/11 [29], it has also come to light that in 2001, “it was theoretically possible to route an [AT&T] call from one location, through a ground site, to an aircraft and then back down to another ground site.” [30]

If this was possible, then the voice morphing [31] of two calls from Barbara Olson and one call from Renee May, and routing them from the ground through Flight 77 and back, would not have been out of the question.

It would certainly explain why the billing records were not available.**

Source: 9/11: What the Telephone Records Reveal about Calls from AA Flight 77: Did Barbara Olson Attempt Any Calls at All?

Here's an excerpt from Renee May's profile at History Commons. A lot of conflicting information in the media concerning exactly what happened...

**
(9:12 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Flight 77 Attendant Calls Parents and Confirms Hijacking, but Accounts Are Contradictory

Renee May. [Source: Family photo]Renee May, a flight attendant on Flight 77, calls her parents in Las Vegas and reports her plane has been hijacked. [9/11 COMMISSION, 7/24/2004, PP. 9; US DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, ALEXANDRIA DIVISION, 7/31/2006] According to author Tom Murphy, May previously tried calling the American Airlines flight services office at Washington’s Reagan National Airport, but all the lines there were busy.[MURPHY, 2006, PP. 56-57] However, a summary of the phone calls made from the four hijacked planes that is presented at the 2006 Zacarias Moussaoui trial will make no mention of this earlier call. May’s first attempt at calling her parents, at 9:11 a.m., had not connected, but her second attempt a minute later is successful, and the call lasts for two-and-a-half minutes. [9/11 COMMISSION, 8/26/2004, PP. 31; US DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, ALEXANDRIA DIVISION, 7/31/2006]According to reports shortly after 9/11 in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, May makes her call using a cell phone. [LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL, 9/13/2001; LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL, 9/15/2001] But at the Moussaoui trial it will be claimed she uses an Airfone. [US DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, ALEXANDRIA DIVISION, 7/31/2006, PP. 7 ] According to most accounts, including that of the 9/11 Commission, she speaks to her mother, Nancy May. [LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL, 9/13/2001; 9/11 COMMISSION, 7/24/2004, PP. 9; US DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, ALEXANDRIA DIVISION, 7/31/2006, PP. 7 ] But according to Murphy, she speaks with her father, Ronald May. [MURPHY, 2006, PP. 57] Renee reports that her plane is being hijacked. [9/11 COMMISSION, 8/26/2004, PP. 31] Although it will be officially claimed that there are five hijackers on Flight 77, she says six individuals have taken over the plane (see Between 9:12 a.m. and 9:15 a.m. September 11, 2001). [FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 9/27/2001; 9/11 COMMISSION, 7/24/2004, PP. 2-3 AND 9] Renee says the hijackers have moved people to the rear of the aircraft, though it is unclear whether she is referring to all of the passengers or just the flight’s crew. She tells her parent (either her mother or father, depending on the account) to call American Airlines and inform it of the hijacking. She gives three numbers in Northern Virginia to call. Before the time Flight 77 crashes, Renee May’s mother (or her father, according to Murphy) is able to contact an American Airlines employee at Reagan National Airport and pass on what their daughter has reported (see (Between 9:15 a.m. and 9:37 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [9/11 COMMISSION, 8/26/2004, PP. 31; MURPHY, 2006, PP. 57]

Entity Tags: Ronald May, Nancy May, Renee May

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline
**

Source: Profile: Renee May | History Commons

 

[phoenyx]

Or a single piece of evidence that those passengers were killed somewhere else...

I've given quite a bit of evidence on that front, actually. Namely, the tons of evidence that a 757 didn't crash into the Pentagon. I know you don't accept it at the moment though, so we can continue to go over it if you wish. I snipped out the rest of your message, it was mainly insults anyway.

You've presented no evidence other than a handful of witnesses who claim something that a hundred other witnesses did not claim

The witnesses that CIT has presented are the witnesses who were closest to the alleged impact. In other words, they're the most credible witnesses. As to these alleged "hundred other witnesses", CIT has already dealt with that yarn...
Witnesses List Broken Down, No such thing as 104 "impact" witnesses

There's also the NTSB flight path data and the 9/11 Commission flight path data, neither of which concords with the physical damage path, but you seem to constantly ignore this.

Oh, and by the way.... denials are not evidence.

Exactly. If only you would apply this bit of wisdom to your own denials...

And denials are all you have. Some are quite delusional, like the two photos of the same Pentagon wall you think are different because the lighting is different.

So if someone disagrees with you, they're delusional -.-? -Prove- to me that those 2 walls were one and the same, or let this go.

And you didn't deal with the witnesses I offered earlier.... you denied they saw what they said they saw.

The world according to Faun -.-. From what I have seen, CIT has already dealt with all the witnesses I know of that have a first and a last name. Witnesses can certainly confuse what they were told happened with what actually happened, especially if they weren't in a good vantage point to truly discern the truth.

As far as your claim that I gave you no reasons for why I dismissed the CIT witnesses... You're lying again.

Whatever -.-

Why do you keep lying if truth and reality were actually on your side?

In fact, I gave you multiple reasons.... most importantly, the field of debris rejects any notion that the plane flew straight into the Pentagon; and that is their claim.

You reject what I believe is far more likely- that the plane never hit the Pentagon at all.

Secondly, Many of them never gave public interviews prior to CIT recording them, which they did many years after 9.11.

Some did, but you pay no attention to them either.

Thirdly, their claims contradict all of the other witnesses who said they saw the plane flying up either Columbia Pike or 395.

Again, they are the witnesses who were closest to the Pentagon from what I can tell, and they are very consistent in where they place the plane. You can go on about "witnesses", but unless you give them names, they will simply remain anonymous, hardly compelling evidence.