quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Well whats the point?  you first need to refute me on the tail issue.  you used the example of the surfboard breaking off so i know that you understand the problem.  You gave me and yourself the answer there.  The problem i gave you simply cannot be both ways at the same time.   It either broke off or went through and into the building.  i did what i told you i would do and if you have another alternative to the only two i can come up with regarding the tail theory then lets go over it before going off in 50 other directions and getting nothing accomplished at all.

Show me proof that there are no remains of the vertical stabiliser at any location within the impact site.

I suspect the only way anyone can prove or disprove the presence of such a component is to have access to the scene mapping that should have been done by the NTSB, unless of course somebody else has forensically imaged and/or mapped the entire scene and made such data publicly available

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Come on sleazy....

If you are in the biz you say you are then you know that there is no way any one can "prove" nothing.  however as i said before that we can analyse what we know.  

quote:


1) We know that we have a 16 x 20 hole that we both agreed upon its size.

quote:


2) we know that the diameter of the fuselage is roughly 13 foot around and would fit through a 16 x 20 foot hole.

quote:


3) We know there is a 24 foot tall vertical stab above the fuselage.

quote:


4) we know that a 13 foot fuselage + a 24 foot high vertical stab cannot possibly fit through a 20 foot high hole.   

quote:


5) We know that the only way the vertical stab could be inside the building is if it went through the wall.

quote:


6) There is no hole above the fuselage hole therefore no vertical stab. could possibly be inside the building.

quote:


7) There is no vertical stab laying on the ground in front of the building.

quote:


8 There is not damage on the building above the 20 x 16 hole that indicates a vertical stab hit it.

quote:


9) Therefore there cannot be a vertical stab inside the building, there is no visible evidence of a vertical stab outside the building even within minutes of the crash and therefore a 757 nor any other comparable transport plane have hit the pentagon.

quote:



If that is not proof to everyone then i do not know what could possibly be proof, i mean if a person just does not want to believe the obvious there is no such thing as proof,      

quote:



That is my determination about the plane, however it is open for reasonable alternatives but i do not want to get caught up in a frivolous merry go round like so many like to do on these forums.  i am really only presenting what i feel is excellent evidence for everyone to consider and i am not going to try to beat this into someone who wont believe it even if god told him it was true.   i feel that i have presented very obvious simple and incriminating evidence without getting rediculously technical about it.

quote:




Ok i do have another really interesting peice about the pentagon crash that i will have to mark up for you as exhibit 3 LOL

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Ok are you familiar with thermite?

i can run through it if you like but the one word nutshell version is that it works in the same way as thermite only in a projectile.  nasty way to die.

Way wrong, go to the back of the class and re-take physics 101 and chemistry 101.

Thermite is a chemical reaction to produce heat, the slug in a modern anti-tank round uses friction to generate the heat required

quote:


i know you did not say evaporated, if you look back you will see that i said something to the effect of: "*if* you" are trying to say...<snip> emphasis on the "if".

Lead starts getting nice and warm above mach 4 and lead starts to melt at about 700 deg.

Physics 101 again, lead will not melt at mach 4 underwater, nor will it melt at mach 4 in a jupiter orbit*

quote:


Bradley's are hardened steel?  i didnt know that.

The vehicle hull is of aluminum construction, one of the points used by critics to deride the vehicle. Aluminium armor tends to vaporize in the face of HEAT warheads; this and the prodigious storage of ammunition in the vehicle initially raised questions about its combat survivability. Spaced laminate belts and high hardness steel skirts have been added to later versions to improve armor protection at the cost of overall weight increasing to 33 tons.

source wikipedia, verfied by a copy of Janes I have handy

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
Not proven. Given my knowledge of physics, aircraft structure and construction and the comissioning of strike hardened facilties I would expect any such damage as to be to all intents and purposes invisible in any images I have seen.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Come on sleazy....

If you are in the biz you say you are then you know that there is no way any one can "prove" nothing.  however as i said before that we can analyse what we know.  

Indeed we can analyse anything at all, but the presence of physical evidence for scenario x holds far more water than the lack of evidence for an unpresented scenario, and that my friend is the black art of analysis.

quote:


1) We know that we have a 16 x 20 hole that we both agreed upon its size.

Incorrect. A hole shaped like an inverted T of which two dimensions were 16 & 20 feet

quote:


2) we know that the diameter of the fuselage is roughly 13 foot around and would fit through a 16 x 20 foot hole.

Agreed

quote:


3) We know there is a 24 foot tall vertical stab above the fuselage.

Agreed

quote:


4) we know that a 13 foot fuselage + a 24 foot high vertical stab cannot possibly fit through a 20 foot high hole.   

Agreed subject to the assumption that the vertical stabiliser remained intact and attached to the hull

quote:


5) We know that the only way the vertical stab could be inside the building is if it went through the wall.

False.

quote:


6) There is no hole above the fuselage hole therefore no vertical stab. could possibly be inside the building.

False.

quote:


7) There is no vertical stab laying on the ground in front of the building.

Not proven, no evidence provided, pure assumption

quote:


8 There is not damage on the building above the 20 x 16 hole that indicates a vertical stab hit it.

Not proven. Given my knowledge of physics, aircraft structure and construction and the comissioning of strike hardened facilties I would expect any such damage as to be to all intents and purposes invisible in any images I have seen.

quote:


9) Therefore there cannot be a vertical stab inside the building, there is no visible evidence of a vertical stab outside the building even within minutes of the crash and therefore a 757 nor any other comparable transport plane have hit the pentagon.

Assumption that does not take into account any of the points I have labeled as false or not proven

quote:



If that is not proof to everyone then i do not know what could possibly be proof, i mean if a person just does not want to believe the obvious there is no such thing as proof,      

You make 9 points
1 does not accurately reflect what was agreed
2 I agree with
1 Is an assumption with a rather unlikely proviso
5 Are either false or you have provided no supporting evidence

Would you accept that as proof?

quote:



That is my determination about the plane, however it is open for reasonable alternatives but i do not want to get caught up in a frivolous merry go round like so many like to do on these forums.  i am really only presenting what i feel is excellent evidence for everyone to consider and i am not going to try to beat this into someone who wont believe it even if god told him it was true.   i feel that i have presented very obvious simple and incriminating evidence without getting rediculously technical about it.

No merry go round?????

Then why do you refuse steadfastly to answer questions that have been put you repeatedly?

quote:




Ok i do have another really interesting peice about the pentagon crash that i will have to mark up for you as exhibit 3 LOL

Go for it, but you would earn far more respect from me if you would answer questions that are put to you that do not fit in with your pet theory. I have played fair and answered all of yours despite my obvious doubts as to any theory you are trying to put forward.


PS, yes I have been cheating, I spent 20 minutes on the telephone with widebody jet pilot who pointed out a couple of facts so obvious I am surprised that I had not actually rationalised them but just took for granted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
i did not say lead melts at mach 4 i said it gets nice and warm and starts to melt at 700 degrees.

quote:



Ok so now its aluminum, i though someone said hardened steel?  

quote:


Yeh there ya go the wiki explains in mega detail...  The point i was trying to make on that was that thermite is metal melting metal, the hole starts big and gets smaller as it goes deeper etc etc

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
7) There is no vertical stab laying on the ground in front of the building.

quote:



ok elaborate on all your falses and maybes so i understand where you are coming from as to why its false then i will go down the list and debate them one by one if i disagree

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
7) There is no vertical stab laying on the ground in front of the building.

Not proven, no evidence provided, pure assumption

quote:



ok elaborate on all your falses and maybes so i understand where you are coming from as to why its false then i will go down the list and debate them one by one if i disagree

Real easy, no fancy physics regarding rotation and momentum, no need to research how much damage thin aluminium at speed does to a structural concrete beam, just prove there is no vertical stabilser close to the wall.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
i will call this one:  Another Magic Bullet, i mean airplane!
Here is the hole they claim that the supposed 757 went out of.
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/pentagonbackholeexit21nv.jpg
Now things will get a bit more complicated.
The yellow is a 90 degree easy reference line.
The dark green line is the supposed path of the supposed airplane and i have to say it looks like sleazy had that angle damn near perfect!

Then we have two possible paths the supposed airplane could have taken:

quote:



The pink is path one.

The very bright green is path two.

Since there is no damage in ring number two

quote:



WHAT????  NO DAMAGE IN RING NUMBER 2???  HOW CAN THAT BE???  PM Mag says 3 rings according to lucky and the other peer reviewed peers. Maybe they all missed it that the second ring was not damaged and we had a polite plane that used the hallway to get out of ring 3.  
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/pentagondamage9a-1.jpg

So the bright green line or the pink line are the only 2 alternative paths the supposed plane could have taken to get out of ring #3 from the impact point on the outside of ring number 1.

quote:



Hey it worked for the bullet in the jfk assassination so it should work for the plane too right?

Oh but its gets better!

Now ya see it now ya dont!  Must have been one of those delayed plane crash things where the supposed plane waits for the fires to be put out before exiting ring 3.

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/pentagondamage8a.jpg

The blue arrow is burned and at first i thought that may have been the exit wound.  But it wasnt!  It is perfectly square see that?

quote:



Now check out the white, where is the hole????  The round one where is it?

quote:



So we have:

1) the impact point that collapsed
2) Fire is long since put out
3) no damage in ring 2
4) no exit wound in
5) oops wait a sec!  Yes there it is the exit wound
6) polite crash that uses the hallway to exit ring 3

So there ya go, there is what corruption can pull off in spades.  PM magazine?  Um ya ok.  i guess they conveniently forgot to mention that magic plane and magic exit wound in their "peer reviewed" report!


Sorry but this is laughable it done so piss poorly!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
if there was no 757 tell me how parts got there

Interesting question, isn't it? You are quite right: they should have used a real 757. Then we would not have all these interesting questions. The conclusion that I come to is that they were penny-pinching - and stupid.

refer to my post to lucky!

Does the engine on the site look even remotely the same as the 757 rolls engine?
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=794350 

post 26 i think

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
Still people are missing the most obvious point, why not just use a 757?

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
Who knocked over lamp poles just seconds prior to the impact? How?
Who damaged the generator housing prior to impact? How?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
Still people are missing the most obvious point, why not just use a 757?

They are expensive.

quote:

 

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
Why did nobody notice trucks dumping bits of 757 on the lawn and in the carpark whilst firetrucks were still spraying foam on the burning building?

Because they were dumped before the firetrucks started spraying?

quote:

 

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
Who knocked over lamp poles just seconds prior to the impact? How?
Who damaged the generator housing prior to impact? How?

I suppose that whatever hit the Pentagon did. Why do you consider this evidence that a 757 did that damage? Were any paint scrapings from a 757 found on those lamp poles?
I will accept that this damage was caused by whatever hit the Pentagon. The fact that the damage occurred does not in itself constitute evidence that it was caused by a 757, now does it? You simply assume that it was caused by a 757 because you already believe that it was a 757 that hit the Pentagon based on other evidence.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
Why is structural damage consistent with impact from a few hundred tons at high speed and fire rather than any other alternative?

I have no issue with such a scenario. The cruise missile scenario was not my idea and I do not support it, nor any other alternative scenario. I simply lack the evidence. I do know, though, that it was not a 757 that hit the Pentagon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Isn't the REAL QUESTION:

How come the Pentagon's Air Defense wasn't activated? Why was any aircraft permitted to violate their airspace?

With all the money we've spent, does anyone believe they LACK an air-defense capability? So... WHY WASN'T IT USED?

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
i did not say lead melts at mach 4 i said it gets nice and warm and starts to melt at 700 degrees.

OK, fair point, so let me ask what temperature would you expect lead to be at given the criteria I mentioned

quote:



Ok so now its aluminum, i though someone said hardened steel?  

Aluminium hull with external hardened steel plates

quote:


Yeh there ya go the wiki explains in mega detail...  The point i was trying to make on that was that thermite is metal melting metal, the hole starts big and gets smaller as it goes deeper etc etc

There IS NO THERMITE in a solid shot anti-tank round (heat). Just a nice big slug of copper (or depleted uranium if playing real nasty but due to density and rarity that is usually reservered for smaller calibre rounds). The only explosive other than the initial propellant is a small shaped charge to compress and direct the flow of the slug.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Isn't the REAL QUESTION:

How come the Pentagon's Air Defense wasn't activated? Why was any aircraft permitted to violate their airspace?

With all the money we've spent, does anyone believe they LACK an air-defense capability? So... WHY WASN'T IT USED?

Well simply put, if you want to fall into the no757 camp the systems are not designed to take out a cruise missile, truck bomb, or whatever it wasnt.

quote:


Show me one single picture, pre-2001 that shows an air defence system within the metropolitan DC area. I will not accept treasury agents on roof tops with stingers as they are solely for the president and not there 24/7 and so do not constitute a system

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
If it was a cruise missile, why wasn't that shot down? Shit, what's a few R2D2's cost?

quote:

quote:


Show me one single picture, pre-2001 that shows an air defence system within the metropolitan DC area. I will not accept treasury agents on roof tops with stingers as they are solely for the president and not there 24/7 and so do not constitute a system

Who is naive enough to believe that the pentagon can't defend itself?
The real question is WHY DIDN'T THEY?