quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
If it wasnt a 757 what was it?

ok even shorter....  we really do not need to know at this point.  The reason being is that it proves the whole government position is wrong, flat out lies and therefore a conspiracy on some level.

Grammatical correction. YOU do not need to know. I need alternative evidence to discount a 757

If it walk like a duck, quacks like a duck and is painted in AA colours it sure as hell aint very likely to be an elephant

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. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

Coulda sure fooled me, I have asked that self same question many times, in different ways and am yet to recieve any form of answer other than he appears to prefer the idea of being lied to above logical thought

That is why I gave up trying to have a rational conversation with him pages or threads ago.

Simply repeating sound bite information from conspiracy theorist web sites, and being unable to cognitively explain what they mean, is something I find tedious.

I spend most of my time when I think something is true going "dude, what if Im wrong?"

But that is just me and I could be wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
If it walk like a duck, quacks like a duck and is painted in AA colours it sure as hell aint very likely to be an elephant

If looks like a 757 to eye witnesses, leaves bits of 757 scattered around.......... go on you must be smart enough to follow the logic there

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. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

you know sinergy you have not brought up one single point in here other than your generating energy theory which
franly is backwards.   If your point was and i say again that the plane evaporated at mach ,5 i am sorry but that is simply not possible.  Not even close. 

Fair enough, RealOne.

I understand that everything I have said is backwards and incorrect.

So please enlighten me as to how a copper RPG can penetrate hardened steel tank armor. 

Sinergy

p.s. I never said evaporated.  Popular Mechanics stated that the metal from the force of impact was in more of a liquid form than a solid form.  Evaporated means it is a "vapor" or gas.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
If it walk like a duck, quacks like a duck and is painted in AA colours it sure as hell aint very likely to be an elephant

If looks like a 757 to eye witnesses, leaves bits of 757 scattered around.......... go on you must be smart enough to follow the logic there

well if you playing forensic expert and someone told you the man was shot with a 454mag and all you can find is a .22 hole you have th eobligation to note they are incorrect.  All i did was to demonstrate that they claim the deed was done with a 454 when in fact it was done with a 22. same thing nothing illogical there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

Coulda sure fooled me, I have asked that self same question many times, in different ways and am yet to recieve any form of answer other than he appears to prefer the idea of being lied to above logical thought

That is why I gave up trying to have a rational conversation with him pages or threads ago.

Simply repeating sound bite information from conspiracy theorist web sites, and being unable to cognitively explain what they mean, is something I find tedious.

I spend most of my time when I think something is true going "dude, what if Im wrong?"

But that is just me and I could be wrong.

Ok is what you asked here on a sound byte?  Dont ask me questions that have been hashed out on some sound byte  i will run with this if you like, but then do not accuse me of a sound byte if you get answers you do not want to hear.  

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
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: Rule

quote:

What you are admitting here, is that you agree that there is no such thing at any location outside the Pentagon. Now please offer evidence that it ended up inside the Pentagon and please tell us how it got there.

I recall no such admission. He has stated that no 757 impacted the pentagon, I have asked for intelligent logical proof that meets least hypothesis

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
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: sleazy
If looks like a 757 to eye witnesses, leaves bits of 757 scattered around.......... go on you must be smart enough to follow the logic there

What bits of 757? Do you have access to the scene mapping that should have been done by the NTSB? Can you prove that those bits of 757 were part of whatever hit the Pentagon?

Engine components, landing gear components, again I ask for proof that such items were not part of what impacted the pentagon that meets the requirements of occams razor

quote:


I do know that no 757 hit the Pentagon. So if there were any bits of a 757 lying about, how did they get there?

Good question, if there was no 757 tell me how parts got there with a method that meets occams razor

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

What you are admitting here, is that you agree that there is no such thing at any location outside the Pentagon. Now please offer evidence that it ended up inside the Pentagon and please tell us how it got there.

I recall no such admission. He has stated that no 757 impacted the pentagon, I have asked for intelligent logical proof that meets least hypothesis

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
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: sleazy
If looks like a 757 to eye witnesses, leaves bits of 757 scattered around.......... go on you must be smart enough to follow the logic there

What bits of 757? Do you have access to the scene mapping that should have been done by the NTSB? Can you prove that those bits of 757 were part of whatever hit the Pentagon?

Engine components, landing gear components, again I ask for proof that such items were not part of what impacted the pentagon that meets the requirements of occams razor

quote:


I do know that no 757 hit the Pentagon. So if there were any bits of a 757 lying about, how did they get there?

Good question, if there was no 757 tell me how parts got there with a method that meets occams razor

I simply asked for a cogent rational permitting molten copper to melt hardened tank armor.

Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

you know sinergy you have not brought up one single point in here other than your generating energy theory which
franly is backwards.   If your point was and i say again that the plane evaporated at mach ,5 i am sorry but that is simply not possible.  Not even close.

Fair enough, RealOne.

I understand that everything I have said is backwards and incorrect.

So please enlighten me as to how a copper RPG can penetrate hardened steel tank armor.

Sinergy

p.s. I never said evaporated.  Popular Mechanics stated that the metal from the force of impact was in more of a liquid form than a solid form.  Evaporated means it is a "vapor" or gas.



I could ask the question in Dutch if it would help.

How exactly does molten copper penetrate hardened steel tank armor.

Sinergy

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.

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.

quote:


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

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: 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.