RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


Reflectivesoul -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/2/2007 5:47:10 PM)

Rule,
 
This is the complete account told by Donald "Tim"  Timmerman the Navy Pilot. I got this off of the cnn website.
FRANKEN: You are a pilot. Tell us what you saw. TIMMERMAN: I was looking out the window; I live on the 16th floor, overlooking the Pentagon, in a corner apartment, so I have quite a panorama. And being next to National Airport, I hear jets all the time, but this jet engine was way too loud. I looked out to the southwest, and it came right down 395, right over Colombia Pike, and as is went by the Sheraton Hotel, the pilot added power to the engines. I heard it pull up a little bit more, and then I lost it behind a building.

And then it came out, and I saw it hit right in front of -- it didn't appear to crash into the building; most of the energy was dissipated in hitting the ground, but I saw the nose break up, I saw the wings fly forward, and then the conflagration engulfed everything in flames. It was horrible.

FRANKEN: What can you tell us about the plane itself?

TIMMERMAN: It was a Boeing 757, American Airlines, no question.

FRANKEN: You say that it was a Boeing, and you say it was a 757 or 767?

TIMMERMAN: 7-5-7.

FRANKEN: 757, which, of course...

TIMMERMAN: American Airlines.

FRANKEN: American Airlines, one of the new generation of jets.

TIMMERMAN: Right. It was so close to me it was like looking out my window and looking at a helicopter. It was just right there.

FRANKEN: We were told that it was flying so low that it clipped off a couple of light poles as it was coming in.

TIMMERMAN: That might have happened behind the apartments that occluded my view.

And when it reappeared, it was right before impact, and like I said, it was right before impact, and I saw the airplane just disintegrate and blow up into a huge ball of flames.

FRANKEN: So there was a fireball that you saw?

TIMMERMAN: Absolutely. And the building shook, and it was quite a tremendous explosion.

FRANKEN: What did you see after that?

TIMMERMAN: Nothing but the flames. I sat here, and I took a few pictures out of my window, and I noticed the fire trucks and the responses was just wonderful. Fire trucks were there quickly. I saw the area; the building didn't look very damaged initially, but I do see now, looking out my window, there's quite a chunk in it. But I think the blessing here might have been that the airplane hit before it hit the building, it hit the ground, and a lot of energy might have gone that way. That's what it appeared like.

FRANKEN: There is, of course -- we heard some discussion about the fact that it could have been worse had it actually gone a little bit higher and gone into what is the called the ring, the center ring...

(CROSSTALK)

FRANKEN: This is a five-sided building.

TIMMERMAN: As you know, the rings are A, B, C, D, E. It is just across the E ring on the outside, and that's why I felt it didn't look as damaged as it could be. It looked like on the helipad, which is on that side.

FRANKEN: Did you see any people being removed, any injured being removed, that type of thing?

TIMMERMAN: No, sir. I am up about a quarter a mile -- it may be a little bit closer -- and at that point, I saw nothing like that.

<edited to include his full name and because as I find where the rest of muh witness accounts got put I'll be adding those names as well... it sucks that they arent all on one nice pretty page by name, age etc like how I first found them, so now when I do find some lists I have to pick through to find the ones that I remembered to write their names down... ugh lol that'll teach me to not go to bed with part of the info wrote down and not all of it and to not save the stuff somewhere besides bookmarks... >




Real0ne -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/2/2007 5:52:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
a 737 would at least explain the to small rotor, boeing used those same tires on those too

Engines are the most significant and massive single, identifiable objects on a plane and most likely to survive in part the crash, so actually I would expect that the engines of this 737 would have been replaced by those from a 757.


huh?




sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/2/2007 5:53:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
Quite. I suspect that it happened too fast for some of them to actually witness the event


quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
And thus "I thought I saw a 737" from one individual suddenly becomes gospel.

The witness was an aviator. If Tweety says that he THOUGHT that he saw a pussycat, I will wager any time that he in fact did see a pussycat. This witness is an expert witness and I do not doubt his testimony.

So you do not doubt testimony, even thought the person giving it openly admits to doubts, I admire your fatih in humanity.
quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
Dozens of folks claim something like "large passenger jet"

So? The expert witness testified that he saw a Boeing 737. What is that? A small cargo plane?

In your words the witness thought.
quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
and lets face it the polished skin of AA is pretty distinctive (not to mention the big word american painted in nice bold letters along the hull)

Well, if you want an American Air lines Boeing 757 as well, then go to a paint shop and buy a brush and some paint and some polish and polish your bicycle and paint the word american in big nice bold letters on one of the pedals. Call me when you take off for a transatlantic flight with your American Airlines Boeing 757 bicycle for I want to take a picture of it and you pedalling when it is in the air.

Ok, its late friday (actually early saturday), I have had about 8 hours sleep since Monday, so please forgive me not getting your point here at all
quote:


Thus far I have not seen any evidence - a photograph - of the alleged markings, nor have I found a credible witness that says the plane had such markings. Nor did the credible expert witness that saw the plane and that identified it as a 737, make any mention of American Airlines markings.

Identified as possibly a 737, and lets face it, no need to state something that x other people have stated, especially with bits of polished aluminium with the right paint job scattered around and an AA flight missing from the sky it should have been pushing through
quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
and just one says maybe a 737

Not maybe. That is your interpretation. Instead it was Tweety who definitely saw a pussycat.

My interpretation yes, based on YOUR words. You posted that observer THOUGHT he saw a 757, forgive me for interpreting your words in exactly the form you wrote them.
quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
and on that you base an entire theory

I have plenty more, but that piece is out in the open, so I am willing to discuss that, but I am not willing to discuss what is known to me but what is not out in the open.

Scared of the feds knocking on the door and dissapearing you? Too late they already know you think you know something so best get the info out in the public domain whilst you still can. Or perhaps you do not have enough faith in your own analysis to subject it to review
quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
despite several tons of hard evidence to the contrary?

You are least hypothesis obsessed. I am evidence obsessed. You are unable to discern the validity of evidence. Least hypothesis obessessed people have for centuries been satisfied with the hypothesis that the holes in the Moon are evidence that the Moon is made from Swiss cheese and that the holes were eaten away by Moon mice.

Well show me some new evidence to build a new hypothesis on then! I have not seen any intelligent analysis or evidence that meets even the criteria for a good giggle, let alone what could technically be a criminal investigation.
 
As already stated, least hypothesis is always built on the foundation of available evidence and has been the basis of every scientific and criminal investigation since the dawn of time. Newtons laws of motion, Einstein's relativity theoroms, the jailing of capone - all come from least hypothesis, you want to change the hypothesis you need to alter the evidence it is based on.
quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
Eyewitnesses are human and fallible,

Or liars.

Or plain gullible
quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
or their testimony is irrefutable

You are mistaken and simplistic. Testimony may be weighed and tasted and tested. There may be evidence that invalidates it and it may be a gut feeling that is sufficient to invalidate it.

Query, an expert witness is called to testify in a court case, lets say a fingerprint analyst in a theft trial, and that witness doubts his own evidence, should he really be called for the prosecution as you are doing?
quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
you cant have it both ways folks.

Yes, I can. It just requires being not lazy and indulging in assuming least hypothesis, because that is the easy way out, but instead taking a hard look at all the evidence and all the aspects of the evidence.


Looked at all the evidence supplied to me (net quota zero!) and found by myself over the last few years and stand by the hypothesis, show me new data or evidence.




Reflectivesoul -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/2/2007 5:53:47 PM)

I think he's meaning that if indeed it was a 737 not a 757 that the engines from a 757 would have been planted inside the pentagon and the engines from the 737 removed...
 
sleazy, they said that the AA planes use green primer, it is noted in more than one picture that yellow was also a primer color found, where'd the yellow come from? ( and please dont ask for pics at the moment I'm still working on my links and pics and such, when I find em again I'll hand em over, but for the sake of argument just go with me on this one cause I do have the pics I just canna find em at the moment bleh)




sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/2/2007 5:58:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
a 737 would at least explain the to small rotor, boeing used those same tires on those too

Engines are the most significant and massive single, identifiable objects on a plane and most likely to survive in part the crash, so actually I would expect that the engines of this 737 would have been replaced by those from a 757.


Hey boys, got this 737, need y'all to totally rebuild the the wings, and possibly the landing gear too so it can take engines that it was never designed for.


Please tell me you were being humouros!




Rule -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/2/2007 6:03:45 PM)

Yes, RS, I believe I have read his testimony before. I consider him to be a liar. As such he is a character of eminent interest. I have not investigated him before, but I investigated a handful of similar characters and in each case I hit paydirt. So I decided not to bother to investigate Timmerman and the others, for I knew the outcome in advance. But perhaps i will at some future time. One problem in his case is that he has a very common Dutch name. It will be difficult to learn anything pertinent about him. In fact, him being a navy pilot, it would not surprise me if he was part of the C130 cargo plane that was associated with the 737.




Real0ne -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/2/2007 6:06:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reflectivesoul

I think he's meaning that if indeed it was a 737 not a 757 that the engines from a 757 would have been planted inside the pentagon and the engines from the 737 removed...
 
sleazy, they said that the AA planes use green primer, it is noted in more than one picture that yellow was also a primer color found, where'd the yellow come from? ( and please dont ask for pics at the moment I'm still working on my links and pics and such, when I find em again I'll hand em over, but for the sake of argument just go with me on this one cause I do have the pics I just canna find em at the moment bleh)


what i meant was that the rotor in the pent photo was to small to be a 40,000 lb thrust rotor, but just about right to be a 22000 pound thrust rotor that woudl be found on a 737 and a host of other planes and devices large and small

oh and green primer was the color i have seen used on both civilian and military planes produced by LM and boeing.




Rule -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/2/2007 6:17:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reflectivesoul
I think he's meaning that if indeed it was a 737 not a 757 that the engines from a 757 would have been planted inside the pentagon and the engines from the 737 removed...

No, I mean you take a graveyard 737 without engines and attach some discarded 757 engines from say 1983 to that plane. Then you fly it into the Pentagon.




Real0ne -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/2/2007 6:19:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
Identified as possibly a 737, and lets face it, no need to state something that x other people have stated, especially with bits of polished aluminium with the right paint job scattered around and an AA flight missing from the sky it should have been pushing through

pics? Links with pics? anything at all that verifies your point?
quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
Well show me some new evidence to build a new hypothesis on then! I have not seen any intelligent analysis or evidence that meets even the criteria for a good giggle, let alone what could technically be a criminal investigation.

i did show you evidence with the asce damage map and you did a wonderful job spinning it to something i do not even have words to describe!
From that display its pretty hard for me to think that you woudl recognize "new evidence" if it hit you in the ____!   Why not offer straight answers to the evidence at hand instead of all the disingenuous eqivocation and diversions you have been dishing out when ever pressed for "real" answers to your theories or better said lack of them?
quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
Looked at all the evidence supplied to me (net quota zero!) and found by myself over the last few years and stand by the hypothesis, show me new data or evidence.

Have to understand the old data first!




Rule -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/2/2007 6:27:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
what i meant was that the rotor in the pent photo was to small to be a 40,000 lb thrust rotor, but just about right to be a 22000 pound thrust rotor that woudl be found on a 737 and a host of other planes and devices large and small

Well, if that can be proven to be the case, then either they were stupid or sleazy was right and it is not possible to attach a 757 engine to a 737 plane.
 
But whatever the engine, I rely on Tweety. If anyone shows me a 737 engine component, I wll accept that as evidence. If anyone shows me a 757 engine component, I will not accept it as evidence, but consider it a trail that requires to be further investigated. Where did it come from, how did it get there, who was involved?
 
And, RS, did you notice that Timmerman testified that he was nearly a quarter mile up? Up? Like for example in a C130 cargo plane?




Real0ne -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/2/2007 6:38:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
what i meant was that the rotor in the pent photo was to small to be a 40,000 lb thrust rotor, but just about right to be a 22000 pound thrust rotor that woudl be found on a 737 and a host of other planes and devices large and small

Well, if that can be proven to be the case, then either they were stupid or sleazy was right and it is not possible to attach a 757 engine to a 737 plane.
 
But whatever the engine, I rely on Tweety. If anyone shows me a 737 engine component, I wll accept that as evidence. If anyone shows me a 757 engine component, I will not accept it as evidence, but consider it a trail that requires to be further investigated. Where did it come from, how did it get there, who was involved?
 
And, RS, did you notice that Timmerman testified that he was nearly a quarter mile up? Up? Like for example in a C130 cargo plane?


i seen a live news report on tv that showed that c130 cargo plane matter of fact.   standard issue engines for 737 is a 22,000 pound thrust engine, take that for what its worth just go to boings site




Sinergy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/2/2007 6:39:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reflectivesoul
I think he's meaning that if indeed it was a 737 not a 757 that the engines from a 757 would have been planted inside the pentagon and the engines from the 737 removed...

No, I mean you take a graveyard 737 without engines and attach some discarded 757 engines from say 1983 to that plane. Then you fly it into the Pentagon.


Could just use a trebuchet and lob it over the apartment building next door to the Pentagon?

I used to build model rockets and model airplanes to fly, engines for a particular type of plane are designed so that the plane can fly correctly.  Fail to get the balance just right and the plane craters at the end of the runway.

Why not use a A-380 engine you smuggled in from France?

An old Cessna engine?

Estes (tm) size D rocket boosters?

JADO rocket?

This thread is starting to remind me of the movie The Great Race with Tony Curtis, Peter Falk, and Jack Lemmon.

Although I suppose Twue Tewwowists can alter physics and aerodynamics to suit their evil plots.

Sinergy




Real0ne -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/2/2007 7:13:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reflectivesoul

Rule,
 
This is the complete account told by Donald "Tim"  Timmerman the Navy Pilot. I got this off of the cnn website.
FRANKEN: You are a pilot. Tell us what you saw. TIMMERMAN: I was looking out the window; I live on the 16th floor, overlooking the Pentagon, in a corner apartment, so I have quite a panorama. And being next to National Airport, I hear jets all the time, but this jet engine was way too loud. I looked out to the southwest, and it came right down 395, right over Colombia Pike, and as is went by the Sheraton Hotel, the pilot added power to the engines. I heard it pull up a little bit more, and then I lost it behind a building.



i am not sure what to think about all this interview.   that would impress me that it was all a big show and something else happened inside the building.  puzzling interview to say the least




Rule -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/2/2007 8:12:37 PM)

FRANKEN: You are a pilot. Tell us what you saw.
Rule: Tell us what you saw - as a pilot.
 
TIMMERMAN: I was looking out the window;
Rule: The window? Not "my window"? Not the window of my 16th floor corner apartment?
 
TIMMERMAN: I live on the 16th floor, overlooking the Pentagon, in a corner apartment, so I have quite a panorama.
Rule: Notice that this information is totally disconnected from the looking out of the window statement. It is misdirection meant to implicate that the window he was looking out of was the window of his corner apartment. Why did he have that corner apartment? Presuming that he was part of the crew of that C130 cargo plane, it was to scout his target.
 
TIMMERMAN: And being next to National Airport, I hear jets all the time, but this jet engine was way too loud.
Rule: Again he is misdirecting. His apartment is next to National Airport and from his room he hears jet engines all the time. He is giving the impression that he was in his apartment when he was looking out the window, but he never testifies that he was actually in his apartment when he heard "this jet engine was way too loud". Notice that he avoids lying as much as possible. He is telling selective truths, but in such a way as to cause the inattentive listener to draw false conclusions.
 
TIMMERMAN: I looked out to the southwest, and it came right down 395, right over Colombia Pike, and as is went by the Sheraton Hotel, the pilot added power to the engines. I heard it pull up a little bit more, and then I lost it behind a building.
Rule: A building is blocking the view that Timmerman has of the plane and what does the pilot do: the plane is pulled up so as not to inadvertently have something go wrong when the plane is out of sight of Timmerman.


TIMMERMAN: And then it came out, and I saw it hit right in front of -- it didn't appear to crash into the building; most of the energy was dissipated in hitting the ground, but I saw the nose break up, I saw the wings fly forward, and then the conflagration engulfed everything in flames. It was horrible.
Rule: Horrible. Truly. He says it like he loves zombie movies. In any case he had a front row seat as much as he saw.

FRANKEN: What can you tell us about the plane itself?

TIMMERMAN: It was a Boeing 757, American Airlines, no question.

FRANKEN: You say that it was a Boeing, and you say it was a 757 or 767?

TIMMERMAN: 7-5-7.

FRANKEN: 757, which, of course...

TIMMERMAN: American Airlines.

FRANKEN: American Airlines, one of the new generation of jets.

TIMMERMAN: Right.
Rule: All outright lies.

TIMMERMAN: It was so close to me it was like looking out my window and looking at a helicopter. It was just right there.
Rule: Now again he is misdirecting. Suddenly it is not the window, but my window. He is suggesting that he was in his apartment. In the second sentence, however, no mention of being in his apartment and looking out his window is made at all. "It was just right there" - when looking out of the window, as he said earlier.

FRANKEN: We were told that it was flying so low that it clipped off a couple of light poles as it was coming in.

TIMMERMAN: That might have happened behind the apartments that occluded my view.
Rule: So now we know why the plane was pulled up when Timmerman could no longer see it. Now if there had been a pilot in that plane, the light poles would not have been clipped, as they would have been visible to the pilot, but there was no pilot in the plane and the pilot that flew the plane could not see the light poles because there were apartments between him and the plane, and he pulled up to avoid those light poles, that he had scouted before, but he pulled up a bit too little.

TIMMERMAN: And when it reappeared, it was right before impact, and like I said, it was right before impact, and I saw the airplane just disintegrate and blow up into a huge ball of flames.
Rule: What triumph.

FRANKEN: So there was a fireball that you saw?

TIMMERMAN: Absolutely. And the building shook, and it was quite a tremendous explosion.
Rule: He is telling it like he is reporting about a delicious ice cream that he ate.

FRANKEN: What did you see after that?

TIMMERMAN: Nothing but the flames. I sat here, and I took a few pictures out of my window,
Rule: Suddenly it is my window. The job was done and it was time to relax and take a few pictures. The job window changes into my sightseeing window.

TIMMERMAN: and I noticed the fire trucks and the responses was just wonderful.
Rule: Quite.

TIMMERMAN: Fire trucks were there quickly.
Rule: The order is a bit odd. He does not say that fire trucks arrived quickly, but first says that he noticed them.

TIMMERMAN: I saw the area; the building didn't look very damaged initially, but I do see now, looking out my window, there's quite a chunk in it.
Rule: He does not say the area in front of the building, nor the face of the building that was struck, but he makes an unlimited statement. He thus saw the whole area and the whole building - from a bird's eye view.

TIMMERMAN: But I think the blessing here might have been that the airplane hit before it hit the building, it hit the ground, and a lot of energy might have gone that way. That's what it appeared like.
Rule: Proud, isn't he?

TIMMERMAN: As you know, the rings are A, B, C, D, E. It is just across the E ring on the outside, and that's why I felt it didn't look as damaged as it could be. It looked like on the helipad, which is on that side.
Rule: Now he sounds disappointed.

FRANKEN: Did you see any people being removed, any injured being removed, that type of thing?

TIMMERMAN: No, sir. I am up about a quarter a mile -- it may be a little bit closer -- and at that point, I saw nothing like that.
Rule: Well, it is quite a distance, being up that high.




Reflectivesoul -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/2/2007 8:48:28 PM)

Rule,
 
I have no doubts that Timmerman was not telling the truth, there is no evidence to back his eyewitness account.. ie the lawn being unscathed. Which is why I kept a hold of his account of things on 9/11 seeing that his was an account that seriously lacked any truth. ( thus my comment earlier on doesnt anyone find it odd that the eyewitnesses cant even make up their mind on what actually happened, cept amazingly they all KNEW it was AA jet... )  




sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/2/2007 8:56:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
what i meant was that the rotor in the pent photo was to small to be a 40,000 lb thrust rotor, but just about right to be a 22000 pound thrust rotor that woudl be found on a 737 and a host of other planes and devices large and small

Well forgive me, but given your observation skills, civil engineering concepts, and interpretation skills, I think I would rather trust the opinion of aeronautical experts who actually have real world experience and certification on RB211 engines
quote:


oh and green primer was the color i have seen used on both civilian and military planes produced by LM and boeing.


Indeed, the pale green primer is almost universal in the aero industry as with most primers it has a chemical purpose rather than decorative.




Rule -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/2/2007 9:07:11 PM)

I do have a recollection of a pilot being interviewed who saw everything from the air. If that was Timmerman, then why is he deliberately suggesting that he saw it all from his 16th floor corner apartment?




Real0ne -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/2/2007 9:13:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
what i meant was that the rotor in the pent photo was to small to be a 40,000 lb thrust rotor, but just about right to be a 22000 pound thrust rotor that woudl be found on a 737 and a host of other planes and devices large and small

Well forgive me, but given your observation skills, civil engineering concepts, and interpretation skills, I think I would rather trust the opinion of aeronautical experts who actually have real world experience and certification on RB211 engines
quote:


oh and green primer was the color i have seen used on both civilian and military planes produced by LM and boeing.


Indeed, the pale green primer is almost universal in the aero industry as with most primers it has a chemical purpose rather than decorative.


yah thats what i did, i called rolls rather than trust your lack of expertise.  never did finish that fluid parts theory and paint up the asce damage map did ya LOL  So much for my attempts to get any kind of straight answer from you, it will never happen suffice to say




luckydog1 -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/2/2007 10:24:36 PM)

But Real you have already been caught as a direct liar about your "map".  You intentionally lie to say that areas clearly marked as damaged were not damaged.  Your entire argument is based on you telling lies.  you were caught in that lie, and it didn't even seem to phase you.  To any thinking person, that indicates you are wrong.  The question is is it intentional or not. 




sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/2/2007 10:35:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
what i meant was that the rotor in the pent photo was to small to be a 40,000 lb thrust rotor, but just about right to be a 22000 pound thrust rotor that woudl be found on a 737 and a host of other planes and devices large and small

Well forgive me, but given your observation skills, civil engineering concepts, and interpretation skills, I think I would rather trust the opinion of aeronautical experts who actually have real world experience and certification on RB211 engines
quote:


oh and green primer was the color i have seen used on both civilian and military planes produced by LM and boeing.

Indeed, the pale green primer is almost universal in the aero industry as with most primers it has a chemical purpose rather than decorative.

yah thats what i did, i called rolls rather than trust your lack of expertise.  never did finish that fluid parts theory and paint up the asce damage map did ya LOL  So much for my attempts to get any kind of straight answer from you, it will never happen suffice to say


Hope you didnt make the common mistake of calling Rolls in Indiana - that would have been a real downer for you!

While you are at it, call a construction engineer, ask him how much damage a steel reinforced concrete column of 21 inches square from a hardended building of say 60 years ago, and re-strengthened recently would have to take for it to be classed as significant i.e. a threat to structural integrity.

Still waiting for a pic that proves/disproves a vertical stabiliser. (PS I am sat here looking at a lovely picture of scarring on the facade..... at the 4th floor level!, oh and what do you know, I switch window and there is pic from the hole in the wall of ring 3 looking towards the initial impact point, and what do you know, you can see daylight, and that requires some seriously heavy shit to stop it going in a dead straight line I shall upload these once I move out of a secure area)



On the witness subject, anyone got a name for the aero expert that saw a 737? As I have two names here that claim 737, and one that claims a 747!




Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875