"A small plane equipped with 5 missiles" crashed into Tower 1?

[demodewd]

"A Boeing 767 did not crash into Tower 1. It was actually a small plane that was equipped with 5 missiles." Please check out slo-mo of the plane's entry. http://www.911uncovered.com/tower1.html 5 separate explosions are discernable.

[aquart]

1. Go away.

[wyethwire]

3. and leave the tinfoil

we recycle around here

[demodewd]

9. slo-mo

Did you check out the slo-mo video?

[DulceDecorum]

29. I strongly suggest you take your own advice.

Lead by example.

[Abe Linkman]

31. Take the sales reps selling "cavepeople did it" Conspiracy T. with you.

You've all done a marvelous service for your cause. Now, you are free to quietly slip away. Not to worry, though. bushco will surely cook-up another scam they'll need your help to sell. And, since we'll be here exposing the lies, you'll have plenty of opportunities to show off your skills in distracting, diverting, red herrings, and otherwise trying to undermine the truth.

Buhbye.

[JackRiddler]

49. Now HERE is an interesting photo

A photo so cool that I am going to cheat and stick it straight at the top of this thread - ha!



Oh, the diabolical genius of the master planners! They could have simply hit the WTC with a 767! But they were such a band of thrill-seekers, so determined to add insult to injury and win a bet, that they insead decided to hit the WTC with a set of five missiles designed and aimed perfectly to make a hole in the exact shape of a 767 impact!

The pic is from a great page addressing the new flood of disinformation coming from the pod people, who expend so much energy in their attempt to make the genuine 9/11 skeptics look ridiculous:
http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html

Dropping in to this forum for the first time in weeks, I am so happy I missed the intervening time.

The few surviving regulars seem to belong to one of two teams of disinfo agents, who may or may not be aware of each other as such.

Each week, Team A tries to outdo itself in making up up new total-bullshit scenarios, all ostensibly in support of MIHOP. What they devise seems intentionally to be so stupid and exotic as to make any rational person laugh and dismiss all unanwsered questions about 9/11.

Team B are the ostensibly rational guys. They claim to be engineers and pilots and air traffic controllers and experts up the wazoo, but for some reason they find nothing better to do than to stick around here forever with the wackos, for no discernible reason. They "debunk" each new idiocy invented by Team A, and act as though this debunking puts to rest all evidence of an inside job and supports the official conspiracy theory, amen.

Tinfoilers vs. Debunkers, and all that is lost in the battle is a semblance of the truth.

[demodewd]

50. http://media.portland.indymedia.org/images/2003/12/275928.gif

[LARED]

54. for no discernible reason.

The reason is quite clear. All us experts up the wazoo are paid disinfo agents that are the final line of defense for Bush Co whose sole pupose in life is to prevent the truth from getting out. :evilgrin:

This is an epic battle of good and evil. People power vs fascist manipulation. Truth vs falsehood. Plus it is fun and amusing.

Come-on get with the program. :) :)

The few surviving regulars seem to belong to one of two teams of disinfo agents,.............

Agent? I'm sure you mean something other than agent. Perhaps you meant to say opinionated individuals.

and act as though this debunking puts to rest all evidence of an inside job and supports the official conspiracy theory,

Not really. It just there is so little real evidence that it was a inside job it just seems that way. If you have evidence it was an inside job please tell all.

Team A is looking for new recruits all the time.

[still_one]

2. Yeah, right

I have some swamp land in Arizona I am trying to sell also.

Please tell me about the passengers abord the first plane that crashed in the WTC, what happened to them?

Tell me about the phone calls from the plane before it crashed?

[demodewd]

10. who knows..

Who knows exactly what happened to the passengers? did you check out the slo-mo video?

[codegreen]

4. was it being flown by giant lizard people?

from the hidden planet directly across the sun from us in the same orbit?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

5. Tin Foil

from the hidden planet directly across the sun from us in the same orbit?<<

Good one.... now where is that Osama Bin Forgotten???

[CoonDawg]

6. "No, I can't prove it..."

"But that's the problem with a good conspiracy. If you can prove it, they messed up somewhere." -- Jerry (played by Mel Gibson) in "Conspiracy Theory"

[soothsayer]

7. Well, the original report was a small plane hitting the tower

As I recall.

[MidwestTransplant]

8. It looked small from far away.

[markses]

181. Here's my original report

I saw a large passenger plane hit the North Tower from my position at Chambers and Broadway. Tell me again about the first reports. I saw the fucking thing hit with my own eyes. You people are fucking disgusting.

[demodewd]

182. Flash

Did you see the flash?

[Name removed]

184. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

187. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

190. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[demodewd]

191. "Bye"

Marses logic...there was a plane...a large commercial jet...it crashed into the WTC1...there was an explosion..therefore I know it was AA Flight 11 and the master mind was Osama bin Laden. Case closed. Those who take the time to investigate other possibilities have a serious "ethical deficiency".


"Bye"...demodewd.

[markses]

192. Uh, wrong, boyo

My claim here is very simple: A 767 crashed into 1 WTC. That's it. Where you extract the rest of the "therefores" is not clear, but it is certainly not from my posts here. But I suppose that is demodewd logic: Anyone who questions any aspect of even the most outrageous of your theories ( a small plane w/ five missiles being thoroughly stupid and implausible), therefore buys every aspect of the opposite theory, in this case being the official version. It is only through this bizarre logic that you could have written the post I am responding to here, since your "therefores" are not at all supported by my previous posts on this thread or others.

[demodewd]

193. Sorry..."boyo"

Well..sorry I misconstrued your vantage point. Apologies. I submitted the article..that's not to say I fully support it. I do believe there was at least one missile involvement as indicated by the flash that preceded the crash and the coloration of the explosion in contrast to WTC2.

[markses]

194. And I think both "reasons" you provide are ludicrous

So, here we are.

[demodewd]

195. re: "think"

Well..you can "think" all you want but the proof is in the puddin' so to speak.

[markses]

198. If there were any proof in the pudding

I would think otherwise. Your version of events just happens to be particularly unconvincing.

[demodewd]

196. 400 mph

How many commercial airliners have you seen flying at low altitude at 400 plus mph? One? A little different than seeing them landing and taking off at LaGuardia...nes't pas? Just an observation. Don't mean to be surly here. :hi:

[markses]

197. Yes, probably one

That doesn't mean that I don't know a 767 (or at the very least, a large commercial jet) when I see one, however. Nice tactic, though. It did take you quite awhile to formulate this one; I would have expected better.

[demodewd]

199. probably just one...eh?

It took me awhile to post it though it was about the first thing that crossed my mind when you first stated it. Now you qualify your witnessing as being a large commercial jet not necessarily a 767? How do you account for the "flash"?

[markses]

200. It was a 767

I am qualified, I think, to recognize the class "large commercial jet," and it's subcategories. The fact that I watched these planes fly over my head for 20 years simply means I am more qualified than most. Did I watch them at 400 mph at low altitude? No. And yet, that didn't seem to be a problem for me. (It's interesting that you dutifully accept the 400 mph number, a standard of the official version, yet reject other facts given out by the conspirators, BTW). I saw the plane and knew what it was when I saw it. That this perception was later confirmed by the other evidence and other witnesses and videotapes, etc. etc. was not surprising to me.

As for the so-called "flash," I believe that to be a figment of your interpretative imagination, second-hand and tres faulty. I saw a 767 fly directly into a building. You have a fuzzy snippet from Portland Indy media which you call a flash. I have no reason to account for it, since the actuality of this flash event has not been demonstrated with anything approaching rigor. Moreover, given my firm belief that my own eyes saw a 767 fly into the building, from a relatively short distance away from said distance, I don't see any plausible reason to entertain your cloudy and ephemeral flash theory. The plane smashing into the building seemed sufficient to account for the explosion and the initial damage. The explosion and damage did not cause me to say "How could that plane have done that?" It seemed perfectly plausible at the time that the plane flying into the building, just there, from my point on the street, would do just that. Am I a munitions expert? No. Have I seen plane crashes before? No. And yet the cumulative weight of my experience, and my common sense, was not offended or surprised by the result. I also saw the explosion itself from a different vantage point than you will ever see it. There are no other videotapes of the explosion. You only have the distant and grainy videotape of the Naudet's. In sum, you've never really seen the explosion that serves as a bedrock of your theory. I have. I saw it. And it seemed perfectly in line with what I would have expected, given the situation. You ask me to account for the flash, and yet you refuse to even accept that it was a 767, opting for a much smaller aircraft in your fantasy world. This seems to be the point of contention now.

[demodewd]

201. don't subscribe

I don't subscribe to the "small plane" theory.You can see that I put the initial post in quotes and ended it with a question mark? I'm more inclined to believe the plane to be considerably larger just from the Naudet clips. The flash is observable on all Naudet viewings prior to FBI confiscation. In that the WTC2 plane absolutely was retrofitted with a pod and an apparent fuse was ignited or missile launched just prior to entry leads me to be suspicious of the official line on WTC1. I see a flash on the original non FBI tampered video. I believe those who conspired would do everything to secure their intended outcome. Nothing would be left to chance. If a missile(s) would insure a complete entry of the craft and facilitate the quickened initiation of a fuel explosion it would be done.

[markses]

202. I don't believe the pod and I don't believe the missile

The planes seem sufficient to me.

[Name removed]

204. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[markses]

205. Nice try

I am in a conversation with demodewd about it. You don't like the fact that I was there and saw the whole thing with my own eyes? Too bad. I don't like the fact that I breathed in shit will probably kill me; I don't like the fact that I saw people streaming out of the upper stories the WTC (another thing you'll never see); I don't like the fact that I saw a woman get knocked down and run over in the seconds after the second plane hit, kicked in the face so hard she lost teeth; I don't like my nightmares; I don't like the fact that my wife is sick of hearing about 9/11 from me; I don't like the fact that I can't talk to anyone about it, cuz nobody seems to get it; I don't like the fact that I panicked when the first building collapsed, with everyone else on South Street; I don't like the fact that I was there, but that's the way it goes.

As for being "ignorant of the facts" that are outside the "official conspiracy theory," that's simply not true. I'm all too familiar with these accounts, although for some of them the term "facts" is a bit of a stretch. Now, clearly, I can do little more than tell you where I was, so here it is: When the first plane hit I was at Chambers St. and Broadway. When the second plane hit I was at Broadway and Wall Street, having just gotten off either the 4 or 5 train, and walking up the steps. When the first building collapsed I was at South Street and Old Slip. When the second building collapsed I was at the point of the on ramp to the Brooklyn Bridge where it turns east again on to the bridge. Finally, I don't think I'm being overly defensive at all. People are providing counter-arguments to my eyewitness account and I'm defending my position. This is what reasonable people do. Since you feel like making baseless charges, I'll make one of my own. You seem to be upset that an actual eyewitness to events has decided to post here. Maybe you're sad that all you have is second-hand videotapes, while other people were actually there. Tell me, dear, do you wish that you had actually been in that shit with us? Is that your sad problem?

[Abe Linkman]

203. Thanks for your valuable contribution to discovering the truth about 9-11.

If I understand correctly, what you've been trying to communicate in all of your posts is that you saw a plane crash into the WTC, and that your eyewitness account is reliable, because you've been an airplane spotter for 20 years.

Duly noted.

[markses]

206. So sad

No. However, the fact that I had seen planes come in low for 20 years is relevant if what is at issue is my ability to recognize an airplane. If I had lived in somewhere in Kansas where one rarely sees airplanes, my eyewitness account would be less credible, or more likely to be faulty. Since I am well familiar with the shapes and sizes of large commercial airplanes, having lived in an environment where they passed over one every few minutes for twenty years, my account of the plane I saw on that day holds more weight. Of course, you know this, but are apparently so irritated that you didn't get to live this event for yourself that you choose to belittle a rather obvious point of support. Don't you have some fuzzy photographs to deconstruct?

[Abe Linkman]

207. Chill, "markses".

You said that you eyewitnessed a plane hit the WTC. I thanked you for your contribution to 9-11 research.

The media may not be interested in your account, three years after the fact, and if you are upset that the only publicity you can get now is by way of an anonymous posted message on a DU forum, there's nothing I can do about that. But, your forceful declarations aren't likely to enhance your credibility on the matter. Maybe with other members of the "Evildoer Cavepeople Did It" fairy tale, but that's about all. So, go ahead and sing to your choir all you wish to. I'm sure they appreciate the attention.

[Name removed]

208. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Abe Linkman]

209. You're STILL here? Whatever for?

You only post under the one User Name, right?

Now that you've told us that you saw a plane hit the WTC, what is left for "markses"? You support the "Evildoer Cavepeople" Official Conspiracy Theory on a forum set up specifically for those of us who don't believe the BS you're selling, so are you one of "those" people who gets a perverse kick out of being an annoyance to serious-minded people? Is that it?

Now, is there any reason why ANYONE here should give even the least credence to your story of "post traumatic induced memory recovery"?

Like "lared", YOU got no street cred, "markese". Feel free to quietly slither away.

[LARED]

210. Theory on a forum set up specifically for those of us who don't believe th

Really? Where does it say that? Are you part of the management here - or do you just have an active imagination.

[Name removed]

212. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MercutioATC]

211. I was going to jump in here, but you seem to be doing a fine job, markses.

Was my description in the other thread accurate or what?...right down to the accusations of posting under multiple names.

Scary, isn't it?

[vincent_vega_lives]

213. Yes seen it

seen the video.

1. That Aint no small plane. Look at the width of it compared to the WTC.

2. Missile launches would leave a smoke trails behind the aircraft.

3. The FLASH you refer to is the nose of the aircraft striking the building.

4. 5 discernable impacts? 1: nose, 2,3: engines, 4,5: outer wings.

[demodewd]

11. Check this out..

Check this out boys and girls

[LARED]

13. Yes, Yes, Yes

If you stare at the center blur intensely and slowly move your head back and forth at some point you will see an image of Dick Cheney's nose.

Really try it. :)

[demodewd]

12. Here is how it all went down

Here is how it all went down:

1.A missile is fired. This is the bright flash that you see--I'll call it the "center point."
Now, the plane is halfway into the building.
2.A laser-guided missile is fired, at the top-left of the center point.
3.A laser-guided missile is fired, on the right side of the center point.
Now, the plane is almost all of the way into the building.
4.A laser-guided missile is fired, on the left side of the center point.
5.A laser-guided missile is fired, at the bottom of the center point (Note: This part is best seen in the Webfairy video).
6.4 distinct puff balls start to gush out, eventually forming into what looks like one impact cloud.

taken from http://www.911uncovered.com/tower1.html

[Robb]

14. It was giant suborbital helicopters with lasers

...And I have the anonymous email to prove it.

I wish I was kidding.

[demodewd]

18. Really Robb?

Really Robb? That's what flew into the building?

[demodewd]

15. "It had the fireball of a missile"

Features of the Tower 1 fireball:
Shows no yellow coloration.
Rapidly grew into spherical shape.


Jet fuel fireballs:
Go from yellow to orange to black.
Expand slowly compared to explosives.
Have shape determined by momentum -- not spherical.
credit: http://www.911uncovered.com/tower1.html

[demodewd]

16. Another interesting photo

credit:http://www.911uncovered.com/tower1.html

[demodewd]

17. Look familiar?

credit:http://www.911uncovered.com/tower1.html

[BattyDem]

19. I love a good conspiracy theory, but ...

At this point, I really don't care what hit the tower. 3000 people are dead, our country is plummeting into fascism and the towers are gone. I feel sorry for all those families who lost someone, I get sick when I think about what out country has become, and I get a sad, empty feeling every time I look at the skyline.

Those 3000 people aren't coming back, we're currently in the fight of our lives to save American Democracy, and four years from now I'm going to be looking at that hideous "Freedom Tower" everyday!

It was LIHOP/MIHOP. I want to prove that they did it! I don't need to prove how they did it.

[demodewd]

20. first things first

You have to prove that it was done before you can prove who did it.

[BattyDem]

21. I thought ...

the huge, empty space in the skyline was proof that it was done. But maybe that's just me. :crazy:

On edit: I went to Ground Zero. I saw the destruction. There was a thick, gray dust everywhere - on the ground, on the buildings, and when a wind came, it was in the air. It didn't bother me until I realized that there had to be human ashes mixed in. I saw a piece of the steel lattice from the towers - I used to think that steel lattice was the coolest thing ... there was no other building that looked like that. But at Ground Zero, that piece of lattice that once looked so strong and amazing was broken and twisted. It was done ... and it really doesn't matter if it was a big plane or a small plane or a bomb or a missle ... it was done. :-(

Sorry folks ... I don't mean to bring everybody down. :grouphug:

[demodewd]

22. Who?

It was done by who?

[BattyDem]

23. That's my point

It doesn't matter how ... all that matters is "who" :-)



On edit: I'm honestly not trying to give you a hard time, but it's been three years and I just think at this point, the "who" is more important than the "how" :-)

[demodewd]

24. My point

My point is that unless you convince a reasonably large voice of the American public that it was an inside job you will never get to the Who.

[BattyDem]

25. Oh, ok ...

now I get what you're saying. :-)

[DulceDecorum]

32. Name the people

who are dead.
And let us check them out.

You can start by removing at least seven hijackers from that list
(and a few of the orginal pilots and co-pilots.)

Next you can tell us how come
the FAA still lists BOTH United Airlines planes as having vaild registrations.

Then you can explain how come BOTH American Airlines flights
happened to have passengers on them
when NEITHER was scheduled to fly
and NEITHER actually took off on that day.

And that is before we even get onto the runway.

On my part,
I am very willing to show you
at least two football fields worth of graves in Falluja
filled with those who have died
as a direct result of the events of September 11, 2001.

Incidentally,
who exactly are you saving American Democracy from?
The Supreme Court?

For all the claims of sorrow and sympathy, there could not have been a more timely or fortuitous event for the Bush administration than the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. When George W. Bush awoke on September 11, he presided over an administration in deep crisis. Having come to power on the basis of fraud and the suppression of votes, his government was seen by millions both in the US and around the world as illegitimate.
The very narrow social base of support his administration had in the beginning was rapidly eroding in the face of a deepening economic slump in the US and around the world. Unable to advance any solution to the growth of unemployment and catastrophic losses on the stock market, facing criticism over the evaporation of the budget surplus and the reversal of its pledge not to spend Social Security funds, the administration was showing signs of internal dissension and disarray.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/sep2001/war-s14.shtml

[Woody Box]

26. "A small twin-engine plane had hit one tower of the World Trade Center"

The Washington Post supports the small-plane-theory:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A41095-2001Sep16

The first outside word that controllers received was that a small twin-engine plane had hit one tower of the World Trade Center. They thought it was a twin-engine Cessna that had taken off earlier from Poughkeepsie, N.Y., to fly south under "visual flight rules," meaning the plane was not under direct air traffic control.

[MercutioATC]

28. News flash! It's a matter of perceptive.

The plane looked small because the building was big. I looked at all of the videos on the page provided and I challenge you to tell me which one shows a "small" plane (not that you could tell with the abysmal resolution of those videos).

[demodewd]

30. I challenge..

I challenge you to tell me why when the plane begins its entry there are immediately 4 distinct white flashes characteristic of missile impacts. Also explain to me why the resultant explosion doesn't have the coloration characteristics of a jet fuel fire.

[MercutioATC]

33. Well, possibly because the plane isn't flat across the front...

different parts of the leading edges hit fractions of seconds apart, not all at the same time. YOU say the "flashes" are characteristic of missile impacts. I see impact debris clouds. I don't see anything that looks like a missile impact.

The "resultant explosion" in this crash may not have happened until the plane had already entered the building. The initial "puffs" were debris clouds, not explosions.

With the poor quality of this video, one wonders how you're determining WHAT caused the puffs.

(on edit)

I'm still waiting for the video of the "small plane". Which one is it?

[demodewd]

34. attn: junior high flunkie

Its a wonder you can be sure of your feeble explanations and yet most assuredly dismiss other viewpoints as purely speculative. Tell me what a missile impact looks like sherlock. It looks just like we see. A white flash.And...I'm talking of the explosion cloud not some leetle debris puffs and you well know it. The resultant cloud is not characteristic of a jet fueled explosion.

[MercutioATC]

35. I disagree. I see debris from a crash.

What leads you to believe that it's anything else?

Why is it that when I express a layperson's observation I'm a "junior high flunkie" and when you post one you're enlightening the masses?

I'm also curious...how do you know they were "laser-guided" missiles? Do the puffs of debris tell you that, too?

[gbwarming]

36. I think the puffs may be fuel clouds - as yet unburned

It's amazing the video is this good considering how small an area of the frame it filled in the original video. Unfortunately I can't find any sites showing the enlarged view up to the point that ignition occurs. In the original video you can see the puffs enlarge and a similar white streak extending on the exit side of the building. Then the fire. It's quite clear that there is yellow, orange and red flame and black smoke (if that actually indicates anything). I believe it is possible for fuel tanks to burst due to the fuel surging forward in a crash deceleration.

http://www.loftninjas.org/projects/20010911/videos/msn-rm-20010912/ms091201-3v.rm
better quality but big file (10M)
http://www.jetphotos.net/cgi-bin/countdown3/countdown.cgi?wtc.mpg

Boeing drawing showing the fuel tank locations across most of the wing span:
http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/aircompat/arff/arff767.pdf

About the cloud - I beleive any sufficiently large and fast fire OR explosion can create this type of cloud. I've seen 'nice' ones over California forest fires (too near my home). Here's the Concorde crash:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/galleryguide/0,6191,347655,00.html

[demodewd]

37. a flash like lightning

The "puffs" appear before the plane is fully enveloped in the building. I think this negates the idea of the initial phase of the fuel explosion. You can witness a distinct flash on the Fireman's video. Its extremely quick but it's there. It resembles more a flah of lightning..definitely not caused by fuel "puffs".

[seatnineb]

38. Now you see it. Now you dont.

And I've never seen a flash that you see in some "sources"
And not in others.

As released by the Gamma Press on 9/12/2001


As released on the DVD in 2002.


Hey.......

The F.B.I dont confiscate stuff for nuthin'

[gbwarming]

39. The video went out everywhere, DUers recorded it. So who has it?

And does it flash? Did the FBI come to your home and confiscate your tape? Just asking.

Both of the sequences in your post have been cropped and enlarged. Has enything else been done?

[demodewd]

40. gb

Check out the Fireman's video...its there plain as lightnin

[gbwarming]

41. Seen it. I think I see the nose hitting. Yes, it makes a lighter spot

But it isn't very bright except in the enhanced flash versions.

[demodewd]

42. enhanced flash

The Fireman's video is an enhanced flash version?

[demodewd]

43. timing of flash

After looking at the Fireman's Video circa 50 times the flash occurs just prior to the nose hitting the building.

[gbwarming]

44. I looked 51 times. It happens at the same time.

:)

[demodewd]

45. Sorry..

Sorry. The plane actually progresses a bit further after the flash before it hits WTC1

[demodewd]

46. ain't no

That ain't no big 767.

[seatnineb]

53. Flash(original) = gamma press. No Flash(altered) = F.B.I

Gbwarming asks.......
"Did the FBI come to your home and confiscate your tape? Just asking."

No!
They confiscated Jules and Gedeon Naudet's (master)tape!
"In the days right after Sept. 11, the Naudets declined to talk to a reporter about the images they had recorded. They had been interviewed by the FBI, which confiscated their tapes as part of the investigation"
http://www.jsonline.com/news/attack/mar02/24649.asp?format=print


The televised version is what existed on the tape BEFORE the F.B.I
confiscated the tape(as released by the gamma press).

The DVD is what exists on the tape AFTER the Naudets got THEIR tape back from back the F.B.I.

[LARED]

27. More interesting photos

[Bolo Boffin]

47. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

This latest theory is one of the loopiest things I've ever read here.

There's a slang term that emergency medical technicians use when they arrive on a scene and find a person far beyond medical hope. It's based on the term DOA (Dead On Arrival), which refers to someone whom they try to revive all the way to the hospital where a doctor can pronounce the person dead.

But when revival efforts would be a complete waste of energy, they term that person DRT - Dead Right There.

This can be applied to conspiracy theories, too. Some theories, like Flight 77 denial, should be termed WOA - Wacky on Analysis. You find yourself puzzled by the photographs, but once you give all the evidence a chance to be heard, you realize that Flight 77 denial is WOA.

But a small plane firing five, FIVE, laser-guided missiles into the North Tower?

That's WRT, baby.

[demodewd]

48. http://media.portland.indymedia.org/images/2003/12/275928.gif

Flash before impact...check it out.

[Zynx]

51. Uh, you did see the dimensions of the plane that hit that tower???

Find me a fighter jet that is anywhere near that size relative to the WTC and I might consider this tin foil hat junk to have some plausibility.

Do you have any idea how bloody huge the Twin Towers were? 63.4 METERS on a side.

[demodewd]

52. bigger?

I'll concede that it may not have been a fighter jet..probably something bigger. I agree.

[MercutioATC]

55. ...and if you look at the shape of the plane, it's consistent with a 767.

Look at the tail, engine placement and the underside of the fuselage. The plane in the video is consistent in shape with a 767.

[Zynx]

56. Ok, now what "bigger" plane has hardpoints for missiles?

Supposedly, this was firing missiles at the tower. And big missiles because an air-to-air missile isn't going to do *anything* to a building that size. Warhead about twenty pounds, including the shrapnel load.

So, you need a non-fighter with the size and shape close to a 757 with hardpoints for very big missiles. There are two aircraft in the US inventory that are about as big as a 757. The E-3 and the B-52. The aircraft in the pictures is clearly neither. It does not have the radar dome of the E-3 and does not have the distinctive engine structure of the B-52.

This idea does not work.

[demodewd]

57. I start with...

I start with the fact that a missile was fired. As there is a "pod" on the plane that hit WTC2. I'm not an expert on planes capable of bearing missiles. I start with what I see. I don't presuppose its not there because the plane that I suppose I see isn't normally a missile bearing aircraft.

[MercutioATC]

58. Actually, you start with....

a flash and an explosion. This is not proof positive of a missile. I believe the point that's being made is that some people are taking "facts" for granted that have yet to be proven.

Go back to the flash and the explosion. Those are the only real facts. Everything else (until we get more data) is a conclusion. Conclusions may be erroneous. It's very easy to form a completely incorrect theory when you begin with a conclusion rather than a fact.

[demodewd]

59. speak for yourself.

Speak for yourself.What evidence do you have to continually cling to the official version? The flash occurs prior to the plane's entry into WTC1. There is a missile pod on the plane the crashes into WTC2.There is a white/light yellow initial coloration of the Pentagon explosion. There is immediate pulverization of the initial collapse of the lower floors of WTC2 when the upper floors are not crashing into it.From these facts we draw conclusions. And I conclude that the official story is a hoax.

[MercutioATC]

60. Again, you're not beginning with facts, but conclusions.

Facts:

1) Flash

2) Explosion

3) Flame colors

4) Bulge on plane

(mind you, I'm not saying that I see things the same way, but these are the physical "facts" that you see)

Conclusions:

1) Missile

2) "Missile Pod" on plane

If you take the "missile pod" as a fact, the only conclusion is that it was used to fire a missile. In FACT, all we really see is a dark shape on the plane which some have attributed to a physical bulge. Calling it a "missile pod" is a conclusion, not a fact.

I'm not taking issue with your conclusions here, I'm simply stating that you're trying to use conclusions as facts.

[demodewd]

61. re:conclusions

My conclusions are drawn from facts. If you want not to call the bulbous anamoly a missile pod go ahead. But the object should not be there and it most definitely is...thus conclusion...the plane is not Flight 175.

[MercutioATC]

65. Whatever...

Again, I'm simply pointing out that using the "missile pod" as a "fact" when none of us really know what it is (or if it exists at all) limits your theory to what YOU want it to be...not necessarily what's really true.

[demodewd]

67. nononononononono

It doesn't limit my perspective at all. A missile shoots into the building just prior to the entry of the plane as photographically evidenced. I assume that the missile was camouflaged by the retrofited pod that is easily discernable on all "175" photos except the one submitted by bolo. The undercarraige of the NIST photo is obscured by shadow. It makes one wonder why NIST chose that one to show the plane enter the building. hmmmm??

[MercutioATC]

69. But, you don't SEE a missile...you're CONCLUDING that it was a missile.

You see a dark spot on a plane and a flash that you can't explain. You CONCLUDE that it adds up to a missile pod and a missile firing, but you see no missile.

I hate to ask this again, but WHY would a missile be necessary? If it WAS necessary, why mount an external pod when you had an entire empty fuselage to work with? It just makes no sense.

[demodewd]

76. It makes total sense

It makes sense.The missile would create an immediate inferno thus insuring that the fuel laden plane would explode in a determined amount of time. That is why the pod is there. You don't want to see it so that's you. You're determined not to accept this visual info...There is no place for any unpredictabilities. Everything was planned to go off just so. Everything was planned for maximum effect. No unpredictabilities like human hijackers or the unpredictabilities of the passengers or crew response.

[objection]

77. No unpredictabilities?

No unpredictabilities, like somebody noticing that a huge out of place pod was slung under the aircraft, something never seen before in the history of aviation? As if it could be guaranteed that there would be no more accurate photographic record of it?

If you think that makes sense, get help.

This is too silly to be bothered with.

At that height it would be seen clearly. No witness, and there were many, saw pod.

[reorg]

78. if this is so silly

so why do you bother at all?

As for eyewitnesses: I have a video, shot from Brooklyn, of the second impact, with sound on. The guy is watching this live, and he thinks "a rocket or something" hit the tower. Okay, this is from a certain distance, but at least he had the chance to see the object for almost a second or so.

Have you ever seen an object travelling at 500 mph or so right over your head?

What do you think an "eyewitness" in those gorges between scyscrapers in Manhattan may have seen, other than a fast moving shadow, for a very brief split second?

If there was an object mounted below one of those bulges between the wings, it was probably not the first thing somebody would notice when looking up to this totally unexpected event!

[objection]

82. why bother at all?

Good question.

Bye bye. Have fun.

Have I ever seen an object travelling at 500 mph or so right over my head?

Yes.

What do I think an "eyewitness" in those gorges between scyscrapers in Manhattan may have seen, other than a fast moving shadow, for a very brief split second?

Who cares? It was seen from all sorts of distances from all sorts of angles by by all sorts of people.

"Probably not" is beside the point, i.e. "No unpredictabilities".

[reorg]

83. it was seen by all sorts of people

sure, and many thought it must have been "a rocket or something" ...

When you saw this object flying at 500 mph right over your head, did you recognize any details?

What kind of "unpredictabilities" could possibly result from eyewitness testimony - which usually is unreliable anyway, and particularly under these circumstances?

Sorry, I don't see your point.

[demodewd]

79. re: too silly to be bothered with

Do you think the pod was attached to Flight 175 when it left the airport? The pod was retrofitted onto a plane(probably a 767 or something akin to it) and substituted for #175. #175 was landed probably by remote.At the breakneck speed it was going,no one is going to discern it. Only by taking the plane as it is just about to enter the building frame by frame is it picked up.

[objection]

80. Which would be substantiated by what?

What evidence of the capability of witnesses do you have?

What experience do you have?

How many planes do you see on a day to day basis?

[demodewd]

81. the pod

[objection]

84. You wrote

"At the breakneck speed it was going,no one is going to discern it."

Are you now trying to say that you discern it?

So you're no one, right?

Not only do you not make sense, you're not even consistent.

[MercutioATC]

85. You seriously think a missile was necessary?

A 767 loaded with fuel travelling at 400+ knots wasn't enough by itself? Believe me, that plane was going into that building and exploding with or without a missile. If everything was so well planned, why complicate the matter with something as unnecessary as a missile?

[demodewd]

86. But when?

But when would it explode? There's no room for a split second miscalculation. The nose/fuselage must disintegrate . Leave no chance for anyone to realize that it wasn't 175.

[MercutioATC]

87. Whaaaaaat?

There is video of it before the impact. If they really wanted to make it look like AAL175, they'd have left the damn "missile pod" off and just used an identical-looking plane.

Aside from the people who see the video, who would "realize that it wasn't 175" and live to talk about it? Regardless of whether it was the real AAL175, a fake AAL175 with a pod or a fake 175 without a pod, nobody except those who saw the video are going to be talking about the true identity of the plane...they're dead.

If you're talking about wreckage left behind, I think it's a safe bet that the fuselage would have been destroyed by the crash with or without a missile.

If I'm misreading something here, please enlighten me. As I read it, it makes no sense.

[Abe Linkman]

89. If the fuselage was destroyed, then how was that hole in the Pent. made?

Missile? It's the only thing that makes sense...in spite of whatever "magic trick" you're gonna say might have, could have, theoretically is possible to have, we don't really know that it WASN'T the fuselage, could have been a giant bowling ball that was in the luggage compartment, or maybe it was "lared" and "bolo" playing Superman.

So, what's the insider's spin on this one, mercoude?

[MercutioATC]

90. We're talking about WTC2, Abe...

...try to keep up.

[demodewd]

92. re: bowling ball

I think it was lared playing Spidergirl.

[objection]

100. Ask Newton.

Matter contains kinetic energy whether or not it is "destroyed". It is perfectly possible for a liquid to punch a hole in a solid.

[demodewd]

91. absolutely

We're not talking about bets here we're talking about absolutes. Leave nothing to chance. No 100 to 1 shots.

[MercutioATC]

93. That actually strengthens my statement.

"They" stood more of a risk by using a missile than just flying a completely identical plane into WTC 2.

If leaving no evidence was a priority, the missile makes no sense.

[demodewd]

94. huuummmmm

The missile insured the plane's total disintegration. Say that over 5 times and then hum it tonight just before you go to sleep.

[MercutioATC]

95. That's preposterous.

Two issues with that:

1) How would a missile fired into a building ahead of a plane "insure the plane's total disintegration"?

2) It's generally accepted that a plane full of fuel that crashes into a very big building and explodes will be totally disintegrated without any help from a missile.

...We're not talking about a nuke, here. We're talking about a conventional warhead. It would be completely unnecessary to insure the destruction of the plane.

(As supporting evidence, I offer the plane that crashed into WTC 1. No missile - complete destruction.)

[demodewd]

96. thems plenty hot

Who knows, maybe the missile(s) had depleted uranium warheads?

[MercutioATC]

97. Then why no missile at WTC 1?

They didn't care about evidence being found there?

[demodewd]

105. There was

There was a missile(s) at WTC1.

[MercutioATC]

108. Then why were no explosives components found at either site?

http://www.nrdc.org/air/pollution/wtc/wtcinx.asp

[Abe Linkman]

110. Maybe the destroyed airplane destroyed them. n/t

n/t

[MercutioATC]

113. Sorry, I meant the chemical compounds of explosives weren't found.

Not fabricated components. I should have been more specific.

[Abe Linkman]

101. A completely destroyed plane created a nine foot hole in the Pentagon?

"a plane full of fuel that crashes into a very big building and explodes will be totally disintegrated without any help from a missile."

Then, how did that exit hole in the Pentagon happen?

{ Maybe you should ask Osama why he used missiles. You know how al Queda always goes all out in whatever they do. They're just so careful to do everything in a way that removes any potential risk of failure. }

Now, tell me how that exit hole in the Pentagon got there. Then, you can go back to YOUR distractions.

[MercutioATC]

102. Don't listen to ME. Here's what engineers have to say:

http://bridge.ecn.purdue.edu/~ce676/downloads/Pentagonreport.pdf

(I've posted this before, Abe. It'll explain things much better that I ever could.)

[Abe Linkman]

103. That's the Official BS. Takes too long to download, anyhow. YOU tell me.

Explain why you believe that even though FL 77 was completely destroyed when it struck the Pentagon, it was still able to penetrate three or four rings and then leave an almost perfectly round nine foot exit hole.

This ought to be good.

[MercutioATC]

104. Too much work for you? Try this link instead:

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

Here's a list of the members of the study team that did this report:

Study Team
The BPS team included specialists in structural, fire, and forensic engineering. The following six individuals constituted the core group and are the authors of this report:

Paul F. Mlakar, Ph.D., P.E., Lead
Technical Director
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Vicksburg, Mississippi
Specialty: blast-resistant design; investigator, Murrah Federal Office Building study

Donald O. Dusenberry, P.E.
Principal
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc.
Arlington, Massachusetts
Specialty: blast effects and structural design

James R. Harris, Ph.D., P.E.
Principal
J.R. Harris & Company
Denver, Colorado
Specialty: structural engineering

Gerald Haynes, P.E.
Fire Protection Engineer
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
Washington, D.C.
Specialty: fire protection

Long T. Phan, Ph.D., P.E.
Research Structural Engineer
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Gaithersburg, Maryland
Specialty: concrete structural and fire engineering

Mete A. Sozen, Ph.D., S.E.
Kettelhut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering
Purdue University
Lafayette, Indiana
Specialty: behavior of reinforced-concrete structures

[Abe Linkman]

106. Merc is ducking the question, because he fears being laughed at!

Merc: PLEASE -- tell us how a completely destroyed plane can penetrate three rings of the Pentagon building and leave a nine foot round exit hole.

I would ask my fellow DUers not to laugh or even snicker at your answer.

[MercutioATC]

107. Abe, I've provided you with the answer. Why won't you READ it?

The link I posted:

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

provides the technical explanation you asked for.

I'm not a civil engineer. I don't claim to have the expertise to explain crash physics. These people do, and they explain it very nicely.

[Abe Linkman]

109. Merc: Why do you believe a destroyed plane could create a 9 ft. hole?

Be a sport. Tell us why you believe something like that. Do your co-workers also believe that? Do they know that YOU believe that?

That Osama sure knows a thing or two about magic, don't he!

Prety please. This has GOT to be good. Talk to us. Stop ducking and dodging the question. It's a simple one. Just like your claim is a simple one (no, I DO mean that).

[MercutioATC]

112. Did you read the report I posted, Abe? It explains the physics

of the crash. What about the report do you take issue with?

[Abe Linkman]

115. Merc: Why won't you tell us why you believe a destroyed plane could...

penetrate three rings of a reinforced building and then create a nine foot exit hole? Why do you believe something as fantastical as that?

[MercutioATC]

120. Because I don't find it "fantastical" at all. It's simple physics.

The plane did not cease to exert force when it disintegrated. Even the unburned fuel exerted force and caused damage as it penetrated the building, to say nothing of the various pieces of the aircraft, small though they were.

That's why I believe that a "destroyed plane could penetrate three rings of a reinforced building and then create a nine foot exit hole".

Physics.

[Abe Linkman]

122. So, a bunch of small pieces all hit the wall & created a circular hole?

This just gets more fantastical with every iteration you post! What's next? Hani Hanjour had a big head & THAT'S what created that big nine foot hole?

A destroyed plane that was disintegrated continued flying and even penetratred three more rings of the Pentagon...and still wasn't done.
It then went on to create a nine foot circular hole as it exited the premises. But, as magical as all that, it STILL wasn't finished with it's work. It had to also reduce itself into tee ninee tiny pieces scattered outside the BIG HOLE.

Talk about the need to get out a tin-foil hat!

[MercutioATC]

124. What do you know that civil engineers don't?

Civil engineers specializing in concrete structures and blast effects made those conclusions. Your incomplete understanding of the subject matter doesn't change that fact.

Perhaps your special ability of "identifying people who pretend to be more than one person on Internet forums" doubles as an advanced engineering degree?

[Abe Linkman]

126. I think most civil engineers would agree your claim is absurd to the max.

Saying that AA FL 77 crashed into the Pentagon, was destroyed (disintegrated), yet continued to penetrate through three-to five more walls, and finally exited by creating a circular nine foot hole ... is the craziest thing I've heard since Arlen Spector's "Magic Bullet Theory".

I guess you HAVE to believe that and maybe to you it isn't any more crazy than the idea of Hani Hanjour doing flying acrobatics in his first flight as a pilot of a B757.

I can't wait to hear some of the other theories you'll have to come up with to support and defend the 9-11 Fairy Tales.

[MercutioATC]

129. You "think"? Fine, find a civil engineer that specializes in explosive or

crash damage to reinforced concrete structures and show me his analysis. Until then, we're just two laypersons debating a field we don't understand fully.

[hang a left]

142. I am reading these posts , all of them and trying to have a open mind.

But I come up with a question. If there is an exit hole in the Pentagon, how come no exit holes in the WTC? As a qualifier, I don't believe one word of the official story.

[MercutioATC]

143. Actually, there were (at least in one case). Didn't you see the debris

coming out of the other side of the building about a second after the plane hit? The Pentagon and the WTC towers were very different buildings, however. The towers were commercial office towers and the Pentagon was a reinforced military structure.

That is most likely one of the reasons the Pentagon sustained less damage that the WTC towers did.

[Abe Linkman]

147. As a REINFORCED building, it's all the more UNlikely that a disintegrated

plane could have traveled thru the Pentagon and eventually punch out a perfectly round nine foot exit hole. A disintegrated airplane sure couldn't have accomplished that. EVEN with "Amazin' Hani" at the controls. Unless he was also a magician.

[MercutioATC]

151. Do you need a link to the report (that you refuse to read) again, Abe?

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

It's amazing how we learn things when we read...

[gbwarming]

144. Lib - check out this photo for exiting stuff

One of those smoking trails may be from the engine parts that landed on Murray St a couple of blocks from the tower.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/?010917on_onlineonly02
"The smoke was almost lovely, white turning to charcoal. From where I was, on Church Street, it had no particular smell. I edged closer. I stood and watched as plates of glass the size of storefronts and strips of metal wider than trucks flew off the buildings and plunged to the ground. On the corner, not far from Murray Street, as thousands of frightened and crying people fled, I saw a giant corkscrew of singed metal sitting in front of an abandoned bagel cart. It took me a minute or so to realize that it was the engine of a jet plane."



Edit: In this view the North tower (wtc1 already burning) is blocking wtc2. more photos at http://hem.passagen.se/wtc-images/catalog/index.htm and a pretty high quality cropped video (big ~3.5Mbyte) http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/WTC767images/2ndhitCNNcropped.mov


Edit again: I don't know why the photo isn't showing. The photo I intended to show was wtc9 from this page. http://hem.passagen.se/wtc-images/catalog/

[demodewd]

145. exit holes

The plane(phantom 175) exited WTC2. The plane that crashed into WTC 1 met up with the steel core columns in the middle of the building. The nose and the front end of the fuselage exited in WTC2,right? before the hole plane ignited into that massive fury of flame. But the WTC2 plane of course met very little resistance as it essentially "cornered" the building. Welcome aboard...we need more non-believers.

[hang a left]

154. I just don't remember that?

All the timelines I have read have never discussed the exit wounds to the building. I have seen the pictures of the pentagon and the official story is highly circumspect.

[Bolo Boffin]

114. That's in the report, Abe.

Why do you think a missile would cause a nine foot round hole after traveling through a building constructed like the Pentagon? Hmmm?

I know, I know. You don't answer questions, you're here just to ask them and ignore the answers. Add that question to the ever-growing list of questions that you refuse to answer....

[Abe Linkman]

116. bolo: Tell us why YOU believe a destroyed 757 could penetrate...

three rings of the Pentagon and then create a nine foot circular exit hole.

Thanks.

[demodewd]

117. How...

How can a 757 explode upon impact leaving so little trace of its fuselage and still create a 9 foot hole? The fire was centered at the very fore of the E ring. Some have theorized that the A-E Drive hole was created by the jet stream from shaped charges. Considering the white/light yellow coloration of the intial explosion which intimates a bomb/missile it seems reasonable that the 1. the fuselage/nose was obliterated upon impact 2. that the 9 foot hole was caused by shaped charges. How can a 757 achieved the low lying trajectory/entry point into the building and still clip off the light poles at their tops? Do you realize how much space and time it would take to make that elevation adjustment. This can't be done with a large commercial airline...it can't be done.

[Abe Linkman]

119. demodewd: They have a theory for that, too. It's the "magic 757 theory".

It's plausible to cite shaped charges as the source for a jet stream-created exit hole. Claiming that a destroyed 757 could do that makes no sense at all...except to maybe Arlen Spector.

[Bolo Boffin]

111. Takes too long to download? One second is too long?

I'll try to use small words for you, AL...

How Flight 77 was completely destroyed when it struck the Pentagon, yet was still able to penetrate three or four rings and then leave an almost perfectly round nine foot exit hole.

By boloboffin for his little friend, AbeLinkman

Once upon a time, there was an airplane.

Airplanes are complicated! Airplanes have wheels and wings and seats and wires and walls. When all the parts are together, you have an airplane. Then you can fly! Vrrrrrrooooooom!

Some bad men took an airplane one day and crashed into the Pentagon. The wall was tough, and it tore the airplane apart. The wheels and the walls and the seats and the wires weren't connected to each other anymore. The airplane was completely destroyed.

But all the parts that you use to build an airplane are still there. Even though they weren't an airplane anymore, they still had mass and weight. A whole lotta weight. That means that they had what scientists call inertia, if that's not too big a word for you. Inertia means that the big mass of parts still kept going the direction they were going.

So even though the plane is completely destroyed, many of the parts of the plane still had enough inertia to keep traveling through the building. Some of the parts even made a little hole on the other side of the building! That's how much inertia they had.

Those bad men.

The End

If you're not happy with that answer, Abe, download the performance report already. It's got pictures 'n' ever'thin'.

[Abe Linkman]

118. Watch out for flying airplane parts! Look--- there's one. Bolo: Tell us

which flying piece of the destroyed plane created the nine foot circular hole. And, while you're at it, where is that piece?

Did you ever hear of Arlen Spector? He was also an apologist for an impossible Official Story version of an event that was covered-up by the Government. Spector created a theory to explain how a single bullet could travel down, then up, then out of President Kennedy's body and into Governor Connally's body, then exit, only to be found on a stretcher in Parkland Hospital...without a blemish on it. It became widely known as the "magic bullet theory."

You and merc (don't know about the others) want us to believe in YOUR version of a "magic 757 theory".

Actor? Screenwriter? Magician?

[MercutioATC]

121. Abe, you DO understand that it didn't have to be a single piece that

created the "9-foot hole", don't you?

Buckshot fired from a shotgun is a poor example, but it's simple to understand. The shot itself is small but when enough of them are propelled at a high enough speed, they can make a pretty good-sized hole.

So the answer to your question is "Lots of little pieces made the hole.".

[Abe Linkman]

123. Were they itty bitty pieces? Like BB size?

What happened to all those "lots of little pieces" after they carved out
that nine foot circular hole? And, were they all flying in a formation?


Honestly, I gotta tell you: This is just about as loony tunes as anything I've ever read here.

[MercutioATC]

125. From the report, I gather that much of the destruction was caused by

the force of the impact, not pieces of the plane. I don't represent myself a civil engineer, but I'm definitely willing to believe that specialists may have explanations that, do to my lack of training, I don't completely understand.

[Abe Linkman]

127. Are you trying to crawdad away from that nine foot circular hole story?

"The force of the impact". What in the world are you talking about NOW?
What does THAT have to do with a plane that you claim was destroyed, but continued to penetrate three to five more walls, and after all that, still had enough magic powder left to create a circular nine foot hole through which it went and then ____? What? Rested? Self-destructed?

You realize how silly your story sounds?

[MercutioATC]

131. It's not MY story. It's a report by specialists who actually examined

the site. Go ahead, find a conflicting report by equally-qualified experts.

I've admitted that I don't fully understand the physics here. Are you claiming that you do?

[Abe Linkman]

135. You say you don't "fully understand the physics". Which part?

So, you still believe the story --- you're just a little confused by the physics involved. That it? You realize you're still saying you believe in something so outrageous that only a believer in fairy tales would agree to?

Time to do a little more crawdadin', merc. Can't you hear the snickering?

[MercutioATC]

136. Abe, are your views really that simplistic?

I believe the Cassini-Huygens spacecraft used gravity-assist flybys to achieve it's Saturn orbit, but I have no comprehension of the intricacies of the physics involved. That doesn't make it a fairy tale, it just means that I don't have the requisite instruction. It happened and it worked, despite the fact that I don't understand it.

Obviously, people who are quite competent in the field agree that the damage sustained by the Pentagon could very well have been caused by a 757. I don't need to understand the physics to trust their conclusion.

[Abe Linkman]

137. "merc" -- It's understandable that you want to change the subject

After all, who in their right mind would believe such a fairy tale as the one you're promoting about how a completely destroyed plane was still able to create a nine foot circular hole in a building?

Tell me, merc: was it some magic powder in Hani's pocket, maybe? No?
Oh boy, this one isn't going to go away anytime soon, merc - so maybe you'll want to refine your story even more. Trying to change the subject of YOUR fairy tale claim won't cut it.

Have you always believed that craziness or did you just recently come to realize that you HAVE to, in order to not look even more silly?

[MercutioATC]

139. I'm not changing the subject. Frankly, I'm happy to let this one run.

You're voluntarily providing yet another example of how some of the more "out there" CTists need to throw out expert evaluations (based on first-hand facts and scientific principles) to keep their theories afloat. You keep billing this as MY theory when, in fact, it's the conclusion of a team of trained professionals, none of whom you've even attempted to discredit. You just label their findings as a "fairy tale" without providing any informed rebuttal.

Change the subject? Hell, no. I'm enjoying this.

(for those of you who came in late, THIS is the report that Abe considers a "fairy tale"):


http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

[Abe Linkman]

140. THIS is what their very own atc says he believes happened at the Pentagon

Merc. (the atcer) says that AA FL 77, a B757, crashed into the Pentagon and disintegrated but it also continued "flying" (?) thru the building into and thru three more rings of the Pentagon, and then it burst thru that last ring where it created a nine foot circular hole. Most people have seen a photo of it.

Now, just to be clear -- what Merc. is saying is that he really believes that happened. He has changed some of the details of his claim (from disintegrated and destroyed, to destroyed, to "parts" of the plane continued thru the Pentagon (flying?), and here lately he's been given to saying that HE didn't come up with that particular storyline...some group of civil engineers did (how much did "they" have to pay to get THAT theory blessed by some engineers?) -- I haven't read the report that Merc. cites (he has also taken to trying to duck the question about why he believes the fairy tale claim, by referring questioners to the "report"). As I say, I haven't read the report, but I have a strong suspicion that the report doesn't say what Merc. claimed. His latest iteration is that he is referring to the report's conclusion about "the Plane" damaging the Pentagon (note the sly attempt to turn us away from the issue of the nine foot hole).

So, Merc., will you NOW tell us WHY you believe that a destroyed plane could somehow create a circular nine foot hole in the side of a building. Oh, and if you're going to use your fallback line of saying that "parts" of the airplane created that near-perfect circular nine foot hole...tell us which parts did it...and WHERDY go.

"lared" --- go put your popcorn in the microwave & get ready for Glory.

[MercutioATC]

141. You haven't even read the report? Read it and get back to me.

Need the link again?

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

You DO realize that you're arguing against a report that you haven't even read, don't you?

I was wrong, you don't dismiss the findings of professionals without rebutting them, you dismiss them without even READING them.

:eyes:

[Abe Linkman]

146. All I know is what YOU reported, and that was horse pucky.

I've been hoping that maybe you'd just want to fess up and admit the absurdity of saying that a disintegrated plane magically continuing flying until it eventually crashed thru a building wall, creating a nine foot circular hole, but like supporters of the "Magic Bullet Theory" --
you have too much ego (or job) tied-up in maintaining your little fairy tale.

So, rather than subject you to any further embarassment over this one, I'm going to stop bugging you about it. But, be prepared the next time you try and promote a patently absurd notion like that. Someone is going to be sure and point it out. And, now that you have a verifiable track record on these things, it's going to be doubly hard for you to try and slip out of it.

(Sorry, merc, but you really take the cake sometimes!)

[LARED]

148. Abe, for the record

you have no clue whatsoever about the subject you are avoiding. But, hey, you avoid all subjects that require critical thought, so its no surprise

[Abe Linkman]

150. You mean YOU also believe that crappola?

Are you just being a good team player, or do you too actually believe that a disintegrated plane punched out that exit hole?

Are you wearing tin-foil?

[LARED]

155. Abe, being ignorant regarding the physical sciences

is nothing to be ashamed about. Really it's not a big deal. Me, I'm lousy at grammar.

[Abe Linkman]

163. "lared" -- So you believe that "crappola" too, about disintegrated planes?

As has been pointed out many times before, those wacky cavepeople figured out how to change the laws of physics -- otherwise, there's no plausible explanation for some of the "crappola" that you promote here.

Carry on. Or, fly on...thru buildings, walls, and your grandfather's moustache.

[MercutioATC]

149. No, Abe. I can take it. Live up to your promise...

"Oh boy, this one isn't going to go away anytime soon, merc "

Go ahead...read the report and discuss it intelligently with me. I realize I'm probably in for HUGE abuse, but I deserve it. I've been bad. Humiliate me.

Need the link again?

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

I know it's getting late, but I'm offering a "fairy tale"...appropriate bedtime fare. Read it and get back to me.

[Abe Linkman]

152. I'm not interested in your propaganda report. YOU said YOU believe that

a disintegrated plane punched out a great big nine foot circular exit hole AFTER the plane had been "destroyed". THAT'S what I find so amazing. What "lared" would have called "crappola" if it had come from someone who isn't an apologist for the Official Conspiracy Theory.

[MercutioATC]

157. So,you're refusing to even look at expert opinion of what REALLY happened?

If it's such a "fairy tale", why not read it and show me how it's "crappola"?

Since I "spin" so much, this should be a slam-dunk for you, Abe. Why not put me in my place?

[demodewd]

153. re: Civil Engineering Magazine

Just a few notes on the Civil Engineering Magazine article..it states that

"By the time the full Pentagon BPS team visited the site, all debris from the aircraft and structural collapse had been removed and shoring was in place wherever there was severe structural damage" So am I to assume it was days if not weeks before this team got a look see?

And then further states..."A study of the locations of fatalities also yields insight into the breakup of the aircraft and, therefore its influence on the structure. The remains of most of the passengers on the aircraft were found near the end of the travel of the aircraft debris. The front landing gear (a relatively solid and heavy object) and the flight data recorder (which had been located near the rear of the aircraft) were also found nearly 300 ft into the structure. By contrast, the remains of a few individuals (the hijacking suspects), who most likely were near the front of the aircraft, were found relatively close to the aircraft’s point of impact with the building. These data suggest that the front of the aircraft disintegrated essentially upon impact but, in the process, opened up a hole allowing the trailing portions of the fuselage to pass into the building."

Let me just say here that I sincerely doubt that there would be any "remains" located at the front or near the front of the building.You have seen pictures of that oval shaped ball of inferno? I'll grab them off ericbart's site and paste them up. The heat was absolutely intense(many firefighters commented on the extreme intensity of the heat) and contributed to the relatively long length of time to fully extinguish the fire.If the front of the aircraft "disintegrated essentially upon impact" what blew out that large hole? And better yet,why do we see a lack of smoke stain and fuel on the C wall near the A-E drive hole? Your article refers to the "power of the impacting fuel" to the columns et al but no black fuel caused stains in the North section of the impact zone near the C wall?

[demodewd]

156. "Huge heat"

http://eric-bart.net/iwpb/inv3.html

Huge heat

High explosives and shaped charges generate huge amounts of heat.

"The firemen were appreciative, as the heat inside the building was, in their words, "unbelievable." It was reported that at least three of the fireman had to be given IV fluids due to the extreme heat" Terry Morin
"We're having a lot of trouble in there. It's about 3,000 degrees inside" Willis Roberts
"The ground was on fire. Trees were on fire. He was with the hospital corps in Vietnam when mortars and rocket shells dropped on the operating room near Da Nang -- but he had never witnessed anything of this devastating intensity" Alan Wallace
"the whole back of the fire truck had melted" William Yeingst
"The fire was so hot that firefighters could not approach the impact point itself until approximately 1 P.M." Patriotresource
"The fire was so intense it cracked concrete" USA Today
"The fire was so hot, Evey said, that it turned window glass to liquid and sent it spilling down walls into puddles on the ground" Walker Lee Evey
"that heat and fire, it could eat you alive in three seconds" Washingtonpost
"It was still burning 18 hr. later" CBS New

[MercutioATC]

158. Nevertheless, these people were there. You weren't.

DNA samples can be recovered from bone, which is very resistant to heat. In addition, the rest of their observations are consistent with a 757 crashing into the Pentagon.

If you want to effectively refute the report, show us a report that concludes that an F-16 or a missile hit the Pentagon.

Your problem believing that DNA would survive where it was claimed to have been found does nothing to discredit the remainder of the report...which isn't about DNA, anyway, but the structural damage to the Pentagon. If NO DNA was claimed to have been found, it would make absolutely no difference to the conclusions of this report.

At least YOU read the report...

[demodewd]

159. the glaring fallacy

The report is based upon one glaring failing fallacy. It assumes that the information about Flight 77 and the passengers/crew is correct when the magazine's investigators have no tangible proof of its existence.Did they examine the "DNA"? Did they see the passengers' corpses? They're basing their investigation basically on official government statement(hearsay). So the basis of their report is the examination of the the damage of the columns and other structural elements of the destroyed section of the Pentagon under the ASSUMPTION that it was caused by a 757.This report does not consider the characteristics of the oval shaped fire or its extreme heat intensity or the video evidence of a white/light yellow coloration of the explosion upon initial impact. Two very important FACTS to consider.

[MercutioATC]

160. The DNA evidence has nothing to do with this report.

This is a report dealing with the damage to the Pentagon. The observations of the engineers involved are consistent with a 757 hitting the building.

[demodewd]

161. assumption

The report is based on the ASSUMPTION that a 757 slammed into the building. You're the one that brought up the DNA, NOT ME!!!! No other plane is considered .

[MercutioATC]

162. The damage is still consistent with a 757, not an F-16.

Yes, the engineers had been told that a 757 was involved, but that doesn't change the data or the conclusions.

[Abe Linkman]

164. The damage is consistent with a small plane, definitely not a 757.

The entry & exit holes alone prove that. Propaganda and disinformation
programs can't change reality. They might influence your perception of it, but that's all.

[MercutioATC]

166. Have you read the report yet, Abe?

Feel free to provide a report by qualified professionals that supports your claim that "The damage is consistent with a small plane, definitely not a 757" and I'll gladly read it.

Without that, you're just blowing smoke...

[Abe Linkman]

168. Use your eyes, silly goose. Do YOU see a hole big enough for a 757?

Do YOU see damage to the lawn in front of the Pentagon?
Do YOU see ANY airplane parts that could have come from a 757 (other than the obviously fake one that was planted out on the lawn -- that's such a poor fake it doesn't even have the right colors in the right place)?

If you were being objective or if you knew that people could identify who you are! -- there's NO way you'd claim FL 77 crashed at the Pentagon. There's NO way you'd claim it did that, then disintegrated but kept on going and for its Grand Finale, punched out a near-perfect nine foot circle before collapsing into billions and billions of little tiny bits & pieces of something or other. You wouldn't do that, and we both know it. It's just too crazy. Too bizarre for words.

Stick with what you know: ATC stuff.

[MercutioATC]

172. Use YOUR eyes, Abe. Read the report.

Why are you so resistant to reading the findings of experts (especially if you don't think the report says what I say it does)?

As far as identifying me, I've given more information than you. I'm an air traffic controller who works at Cleveland Center and I live in Westlake, OH. Need to pot a face to the handle? I'm in the DU Gallery. I don't care if people know who I am. That's more than I can say for you or some of the other CTists here.

Just read the report, Abe. Then get back to me.

[Abe Linkman]

176. Thanks for the Propaganda offer. I read an excerpt. That's enough.

What I read didn't say that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon, exploded, disintegrated, then continued on and punched out a near-perfect nine foot circular hole before finally collapsing into tiny pieces that can't even be identified.

And, you really believe all that happened? And, you believe it even though the ENTRY hole is too small for a 757, the lawn was untouched, and there's no credible evidence anywhere of a large B757.

Anyone who believes all that ought to be embarassed to say so. I'd expect someone like that to not admit it, but rather to try and change the subject.

[MercutioATC]

178. You read an EXCERPT? What, did your eyes expire before you could read

the whole thing? It's not THAT long...


Again, if you want to refute the report, it might be helpful to actually read it first. If you want to sell your pet theory, it might be helpful to find an expert who agrees with you and post a link to their report.

As things stand, you're presenting the opinion of a layperson with absolutely NO technical expertise or understanding of either civil engineering or blast damage to structures.

I'm presenting a report written by six specialists with advanced training who examined the site first-hand.

Their report is a "fairy tale"? Find a diddenting opinion and post a link to it. I promise to read it (the whole thing).

[carlvs]

167. Some advice, Mercutio...

I have been following these discussions on what happened on 9-11, and while I like with your efforts to bring some sanity to this debate, I suggest that you check out the following link:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/debating.html

and find some more productive activity, like pounding ones head into a wall; you will have more luck in this than in ever convincing these people that the laws of physics, as well as basic civil engineering priciples, back the conventional account of events. And no amount of staring into blurred, overprocessed images of the crashes, taking the statements of some of those who saw the events literally, or any other form of nonsense these people can come is going to change that.

The level of BS coming from these 9-11 conspiracy loons is almost as bad as the crap spewed out by fundies on the subject of evolution! :puke:

[Abe Linkman]

169. ANOTHER voice of moderation.

Welcome "carlvs". I say "welcome", because I'm assuming that YOU are new and that's not just a new User Name.

You don't sound very friendly. Are you one of those "bad first impression" people? You know, you're free to check out and leave anytime. You don't have to waste your valuable time on a site dedicated to finding out what really happened on 9-11. You must be a little uncertain yourself that a bunch of cavepeople could have pulled off the first "Pearl Harbor" of the 21st Century. I understand. And, you don't want to be thought of as one of those people who don't, won't, or CAN'T think for themselves, do you? No, of course you don't, sir.

[MercutioATC]

174. Yes, he's free to leave...or stay and contribute.

Just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they're not interested in the truth, Abe. Sounds to me like carlvs can think for himself just fine.

[demodewd]

170. See the pod?

Put that in your badastronomy and smoke it.

[gbwarming]

173. dd, Is that the crappiest, jpeggiest photo available?

It only looks unusual if the image is compressed.

[demodewd]

180. re: compressed

So what images are you showing me? Compressed images? All the images I've seen have it. The piping entending to the tail is most observable. It makes the circumference of the fuselage appear to be a third again its size.

[MercutioATC]

171. Thanks for the link, carlvs :)

Actually, I'm not trying to convince Abe and the rest. I would just hate to see a newbie check in and not be able to see another (more fact-based) side of the story.

I DO hear what you say about beating my head against the wall, though...

:eyes:

[Abe Linkman]

177. Your silly stories about a disintegrated 757 ARE fact-free

That could only appeal to a lover of Fairy Tales. To convince intelligent people who know how think and reason, you'll have to do a whole lot better than you've been doing.

< Exploded, disintegrated, and punch out a nine foot hole in the side of a building. Plausible story...or ridiculous Fairy Tale? Fairy Tale. >

[MercutioATC]

179. "Fact-free"? How do you know, Abe? You refuse to read the report.

"To convince intelligent people who know how think and reason, you'll have to do a whole lot better than you've been doing."

...like insisting on calling a report I won't read a "fairy tale"? Yes, Abe, that's SO much more compelling to intelligent people than providing them with expert analysis...

[Abe Linkman]

165. Did it change your mind about the absurd notion of a disintegtrated plane

flying thru walls and creating a circular nine foot hole, then collapsing into tiny bits of trash so small that you can't tell what they are?

Does the article explain why the disintegrated plane didn't keep on going AFTER supposedly creating a nine foot circular hole? Why did that last wall become its "Waterloo"? Why there? Why not before?

Regarding the remains of anyone near where the crash occurred: the apologists and spinners have tried to have it both ways. They've claimed all the victims were identified (via DNA), and they've also claimed that they were vaporized by the intense heat.

When you're promoting what "lared" calls crappola, I guess you have to have a lot of things both ways. Otherwise, your story sounds like what it actually is: BS.

[MercutioATC]

175. Geez...so just post a report that supports YOUR scenario, Abe.

It's really a very simple solution. You asked why I believed what I do and I posted the report. You're more than free to do the same.

[Bob Stanford]

132. Abe, you are lying, we explained that very often:

What does THAT have to do with a plane that you claim was destroyed, but continued to penetrate three to five more walls

Why are you lying? You know that the outer rings of the Pentagon are connected to each other in the first and second floor, there are no walls inbetween.

Bob

[demodewd]

128. I understand that you don't completely understand

You "don't completely understand". Boy...now that's an understatement!

[MercutioATC]

130. And you do? At least the experts and I have the same position.

What civil engineers support your contention that the damage couldn't have been caused by a 757?

[Abe Linkman]

133. You believe that a destroyed, disintegrated plane had one more trick.

merc: You stumped your toe. I bet that sucker hurts, too.

[MercutioATC]

134. No, I believe that these experts know what they're talking about.

If you can refute them, why not do so now? You obviously don't agree with their conclusions. Show how they're wrong.

[objection]

98. Why

should the plane's disintegration be insured? Identifiable plane parts were found. Identifiable body parts were found. What difference does it make what size the parts would be?

[objection]

99. Leave nothing to chance?

Like not taking the chance that a photo of a "pod" would appear?

Is that what you mean?

[gbwarming]

88. You have GOT to be kidding

Please, correct me if I've misunderstood - but you seem to imply that a 767 could in fact enter the building without a missile, and it would explode

HOWEVER

in order to hide the fact that something else (besides a 767, which could enter the building and would explode) was used, a missile was REQUIRED in order to eliminate evidence of the switcharoo.

[Abe Linkman]

62. YOU have a conclusion, but no facts. And that's a fact.

There isn't a shred of evidence to support the erroneous conclusion that
that a cave-dwelling man with failing kidneys somehow was able to mastermind the events of 9-11.

I'm not taking issue with your right to defend the lies told by the bush
Administration about 9-11. I'm simply stating that you're using lies to
reach a conclusion that has no factual basis.

Got evidence? Bring it on. Got a second personality...or did you leave it at the beach house?

[Robb]

63. No, YOU have a conclusion, but no facts!

:D

...Further, none of you are invited to my birthday party. :eyes:

I love these playground tactics. :evilgrin:

[Abe Linkman]

64. No wonder most people ignore your posts

Boring.

[Robb]

68. Keep pluggin', Abe.

:)

[MercutioATC]

66. Why do you persist with this "second personality" stuff?

I'll make a clear statement. This is the only username I use on this board (I realized that I've never directly made that claim because I thought your assertion was so ridiculous).

The problem with you claiming that there's no evidence to support the official version is that YOU have no proof either and we're still left with a bunch of collapsed buildings and dead people. There is not ONE shred of evidence for the majority of the CTs on this forum and that's a fact.

Care to address the missile or "fuel sprayer" issues that I've asked you about numerous times yet, Abe?

[Abe Linkman]

70. YOU are claiming to know what happened, so YOU nust prove YOUR case.

You say that the Official Conspiracy is true -- so YOU have the obligation to prove it. You haven't done that, because you and yours don't have any evidence, for the simple reason that none exists, for the even simpler reason that the Official Conspiracy is a bunch of horsepucky...and you know it. So does "oude". So do the other spinners here. Disinformation and distraction are proof only of a conspiracy to avoid the truth of what really happened.

[MercutioATC]

71. I claim no such thing.

I know I've said this before (quite a few times) but I don't say that the "official explanation" is true. There are too many unknown variables to decide whether it is or not.

I also have no issue with asking questions. That's a good thing. Asking why we haven't seen what the flight data and voice recorders contained is valid. Asking about the 3-minute gap in the crash times of UAL93 is valid. Jumping to conclusions and pushing a theory based on sketchy data and farfetched scenarios isn't. It distracts from the real issues: what problems existed that made this possible and how can we fix them?

Abe, why would a missile have been necessary? Why would a "fuel sprayer" have been necessary? Does it really make any SENSE??

[Abe Linkman]

72. So, you're back to taking the MIHOP leap?

Were you on bolo's Spinning Wheel when you posted that?

[MercutioATC]

73. ??? You're making less and less sense, Abe.

My stance hasn't changed since I first began posting here. I'm not "spinning" anything...and I answer the questions put to me. I wish others would do the same instead of ignoring valid questions and resorting to personal attacks.

[Abe Linkman]

74. Maybe so, but YOU aren't making ANY sense.

You and your shadow(s) are just spinning and spinning, in a desperate attempt to try and raise doubts in those of us who have studied the subject and concluded that the Official Conspiracy Theory charging a cave-dweller with masterminding 9-11 would be laughable if the Gov't
didn't employ a slew of disinformation agents, propaganda, and PR firms to sell the Big Fairy Tale.

[MercutioATC]

75. O.K., tell me if THIS makes sense:

Question:

Do you believe that a missile was deployed from AAL175 immediately before it crashed into WTC 2 and, if so, what was the purpose of that missile? I'd also ask your opinion of the "fuel sprayers" that some here claim to see in the video.

I've asked this of you numerous times and have yet to recieve an answer. It's a simple question.

[markses]

183. Tell me how it is that I saw a 767

from my position 4 blocks north of the north tower, at Chambers and broadway. Just as a bit of history, I grew up (which is to say, lived for 20+ years) in the landing path of Laguardia Airport, so I've been looking at low passenger jets my whole life. I saw it come in and hit. Show me a video analysis that tells me something different than my own fucking two eyes.

[demodewd]

185. Flash

Did you see the flash?

[markses]

186. You got a ridiculous video analysis

I have my own two eyes. I'll trust my own two eyes over your highly disputed exegesis, thanks.

[demodewd]

188. special eyes

Maybe it happened so fast that the naked eye could not have picked it up. But maybe your eyes are special.

[markses]

189. My eyes are not special

Like other nortmal eyes, they were able to easily see a low-flying, fast-flying 767 fly directly into a building. That was easy enough to see. You seem to suggest that that didn't happen - that event which my own eyes saw. Instead, you seem you posit a smaller plane (or some other flying vehicle) along with a series of missiles that are timed to fire a split secoind before the impact of the plane or other flying vehicle. Why would anyone choose this particular method of attack? It's unclear. As long as your version departs from the so-called "official version," it is valid, in your world. I'll stick with my own eyes, thanks.

[LARED]

138. It was a single jet entering throught the star gate

Proof positive that the WTC was brought down by a fighter jet crossing through the star gate.