RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible

RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (Full Version)

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

Message

Real0ne -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 11:43:03 PM)
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 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. 1) We know that we have a 16 x 20 hole that we both agreed upon its size. 2) we know that the diameter of the fuselage is roughly 13 foot around and would fit through a 16 x 20 foot hole. 3) We know there is a 24 foot tall vertical stab above the fuselage. 4) we know that a 13 foot fuselage + a 24 foot high vertical stab cannot possibly fit through a 20 foot high hole. 5) We know that the only way the vertical stab could be inside the building is if it went through the wall. 6) There is no hole above the fuselage hole therefore no vertical stab. could possibly be inside the building. 7) There is no vertical stab laying on the ground in front of the building. 8 There is not damage on the building above the 20 x 16 hole that indicates a vertical stab hit it. 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. 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, 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. 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

sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 11:45:18 PM)
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.

Real0ne -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 11:45:29 PM)
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 heat is heat whether produced by friction or flame its heat the melting action is the same. i did not say lead melts at mach 4 i said it gets nice and warm and starts to melt at 700 degrees. Ok so now its aluminum, i though someone said hardened steel? 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

Real0ne -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 11:51:55 PM)
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. if that were tru then the supposed wings would have not done any damage either please verify why believe certina things to be false, elaborate please

Real0ne -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 11:58:27 PM)
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: The pink is path one. The very bright green is path two. Since there is no damage in ring number two 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. 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? Now check out the white, where is the hole???? The round one where is it? 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!

Real0ne -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/29/2007 12:06:45 AM)
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. 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

sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/29/2007 12:07:30 AM)
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.

sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/29/2007 12:11:53 AM)
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.

Real0ne -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/29/2007 12:38:08 AM)
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. hey i am otta here for the evening man, will catch uip later, later.... checkout that plane path post i made with those links you will love it LOL thats post 105

sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/29/2007 12:45:12 AM)
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: No. We have one possible path, the dark green line that follows the original trajectory although as you will see later you are a little off with your estimate, the correct exit point is 4 & 5 windows from the footbridge. Momentum does not allow debris to make right angle turns quote: The pink is path one. The very bright green is path two. Since there is no damage in ring number two Please state your source for no damage to ring 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. False**** 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? Yup, there is vehicular access within the rings, that square hole is perfect for driving a golf cart in and out of from AE Drive quote: Now check out the white, where is the hole???? The round one where is it? Wanna ask a harder one next time? The 5th & 6th windows to the left of your estimate of the exit hole, jeez you damn near drew over it with your white line! EDIT> Justification for placing the wound in my location, the hole is round as per the main pic and is shows evidence of scorching, you have labeled no obvious hole, just a pile of debris much larger than in the "on scene" image of the exit hole. The vehicles parked on the lawn imply this pic was taken well into the cleanup operation so I believe it reasonable to assume your debris pile was created by workers long after the strike 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! You are right, I was expecting much better than this performance from you, it barely rates as piss poor I grade it as follows Observation skills F Deductive reasoning F Wild fantasising regardless of facts A+ **** Want to keep counting windows? Well remember how we aggreed that impact damage was limited to floors 1 & 2 at the point of impact? Count the number of windows veritcally on any image of the impact point. Did you get 5? making the pentagon building 5 floors high? Ok for your next counting session, using your own pic http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/pentagondamage9a-1.jpg count the number of windows vertically below your red question mark, Now I got three. Now we have 5-3, that leaves us with a discrepancy of two floors agree? Oddly enough, if you care to look into it at all you will find that the outer three rings of the pentagon were not seperate at all on the first two floors, that means that there would not be any visible damage in the form of entry/exit holes on ring two as debris only entered at the impact point and exited in ring 3, it never actually left the building! EDIT> Never actually left the building until the inner wall of ring 3! A link I believe I posted earlier http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1 app 2/3 down the page shows structural damage, note the supporting columns in what you claim to be open space. Note how such areas are clearly labeled "two-story section" Seriously real? Is that the best you can offer, something that is disproved by mathematics as simple as 2+3=5 ? EDITS for clarity

Rule -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/29/2007 8:20:33 AM)
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 I have seen the difference, but I am no expert on airplane engine parts. I see, but do not know what I see. I need an expert to clearly state that the engine part is not from a 757, but from a specific other type of engine. So I take note of this engine part, but not being able to judge its relevance, it does not function in my considerations. Anyway, I do not care whether it is 757 or not. I know that it was not a 757 that hit the Pentagon. Any 757 parts found at the Pentagon site therefore must have been planted before or immediately after the fact and (probably at a later time) non 757-parts removed. So, yes, I expect that engine part to be from a 757 turbine and will assume so until an expert tells me otherwise. Edited to add: I agree with sleazy on his analysis of the impact damage at the Pentagon. The path of the impact object also correlates with the dark splotches on the roofs of outer rings two and three.

sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/29/2007 8:53:30 AM)
Rather than fill up with peole picking one aircraft piece at a time Combustion cans and rotor discs http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml Wheels http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0290.shtml And for anyone techincal enough and likely to bring up the point - large jets and ground effect at high speed http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml Still people are missing the most obvious point, why not just use a 757? 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? Who knocked over lamp poles just seconds prior to the impact? How? Who damaged the generator housing prior to impact? How? Why is structural damage consistent with impact from a few hundred tons at high speed and fire rather than any other alternative? I guess occams razor really is too simple and logical for some folks

Rule -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/29/2007 9:32:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Still people are missing the most obvious point, why not just use a 757? They are expensive. 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: 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: 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.

farglebargle -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/29/2007 9:42:40 AM)
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?

sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/29/2007 9:59:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Still people are missing the most obvious point, why not just use a 757? They are expensive. So hold on. Lets try approach this logically once more.......... Repair costs to pentagon 700(a) to 925(b) Million dollars first 2 links on google that actually contained figures within the summary Compensation to victims ? Buying 100+ witnesses to see a large jet impact ? Cost of brand new off the shelf 757 when in production 82 million(c) In 2006 Dart Group purchased 3x757 and 1x737 for under 50 million(d) Buying silence of evidence planters ? Given the unlimited resources of a government, why not use a 757 rather than risk leaks? 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? Time of impact? Time of arrival of first fire truck? Difference in minutes between the two? Bet the difference is barely enough to drive a dump truck from concealment into the middle of the lawn and start tipping, let alone produce a realistic scatter pattern for pieces, and lets not forget there is a lot of traffic on a nearby highway now stopped to look what is going on 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. Look I hate to get pissy, you have stated you will not publicly offer an alternative, so unless you are willing to put up a viable intelligent theory that meets least hypothesis(x) quit making me repeat the same time and time again 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. Ooops circular argument! You do not believe it was a 757 You do not believe it was something else asyou do not support any alternatives Simple fact, it was a 757, or it was something else, pick one! (a) http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/PentagonRepairCost.html (b) http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&sid=cp107MkEXs&refer=&r_n=hr298.107&db_id=107&item=&sel=TOC_1154438& (c) http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2003/07/24-boeing-757.htm (d) http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2003/07/24-boeing-757.htm (x) An impossible task

sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/29/2007 10:04:59 AM)
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. 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

Real0ne -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/29/2007 10:32:07 AM)
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. i was not talking about the construction of it i was talking about the manner in which it melts or punches through the steel plating in reference to sinergy's question

farglebargle -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/29/2007 10:46:09 AM)
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. If it was a cruise missile, why wasn't that shot down? Shit, what's a few R2D2's cost? 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?

Rule -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/29/2007 10:48:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Repair costs to pentagon 700(a) to 925(b) Million dollars first 2 links on google that actually contained figures within the summary Paid for by the taxpayer or insurance companies. So at no cost to the conspirators. quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Compensation to victims ? Provided for by the government (i.e. taxpayers). So at no cost to the conspirators. quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Buying 100+ witnesses to see a large jet impact ? Easy. Piece of cake. (But if you can refer me to a list of those 100+ witnesses I will appreciate it.) quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Cost of brand new off the shelf 757 when in production 82 million(c) In 2006 Dart Group purchased 3x757 and 1x737 for under 50 million(d) Yes, so? I suppose that they may have used two grave yard 737's for flights 93 and 175. I do not know what was used on the Pentagon or for flight 11. quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Buying silence of evidence planters? Easy. quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Given the unlimited resources of a government, why not use a 757 rather than risk leaks? Indeed, why not? If only they had used a 757, then they would not have left some trails. quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Time of impact? Time of arrival of first fire truck? Difference in minutes between the two? Bet the difference is barely enough to drive a dump truck from concealment into the middle of the lawn and start tipping, let alone produce a realistic scatter pattern for pieces, and lets not forget there is a lot of traffic on a nearby highway now stopped to look what is going on Another mystery! Interesting, isn't it? quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Look I hate to get pissy, you have stated you will not publicly offer an alternative, so unless you are willing to put up a viable intelligent theory that meets least hypothesis(x) quit making me repeat the same time and time again You are least hypothesis obsessed. I am evidence obsessed. quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy You do not believe it was something else as you do not support any alternatives Simple fact, it was a 757, or it was something else, pick one! It was something else. I just lack any clue as to what that something else was.

sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/29/2007 11:05:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle If it was a cruise missile, why wasn't that shot down? Shit, what's a few R2D2's cost? I take it by that you mean CIWS. There are two immediate reasons why such a system is not practicable 1. Range, given the approach path (that even Realone appears to agree with) the resulting detonation would have occured somewhere near the highway. 2. CIWS requires either a primary search radar to give it a clue where to look (standard ATC radar is not sufficient, it does not have the communications required) or it must be always "hot" and trained out, this of course requires multiplying the number of weapons stations exponentially as given the approach speed of modern weaponry it would have to be locked in one direction rather than operating in a scan and search mode Take a USN aircraft carrier, a common home for CIWS. We have the unit radars, the ships main radars (if not operating under EmCon, an unlikely situation if CIWS is "hot") and probably a minimum of one, normally at least two airborne radars. To accurately plot and predict the course of an incoming threat all three of these systems must talk to each other and reach some sort of consensus as to when and where to open fire on the inbound threat. 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? Q1, Not naive, just realistic, how would the residents of the area feel if 10, 20 years ago the nations buildings were all equipped to deal with every concievable threat? Imagine the outcry at the cost, imagine how all the anti-government tyoes would have a field day complaining about mitilitary hardware scattered around the nations cities? Q2, They did, it may have slipped your memory that the area hit was in the midst of a strike hardening program against what was deemed most likely threat scenario, namley a ground delivered explosive such as a truck bomb. Any bets that people complained about the costs of that particular project and how in this day and age it was unecessary?

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875