Cutting blasts cut WTC2 beams

[demodewd]

http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=1400&start=15

"Those beams were not cut by a missile because there is more than one of them, and they are glowing hot, my friends those beams were raised to an extremely high temperature and blasted out one millisecond, i.e. just as the wings were entering the external wall of WTC-#2. In another video, you can see the expansion of the cutting blasts right along the top of the wings of Flight-175 right as the wings enter the external wall. I had always wondered what that odd blast of vapor was, now I know.

These beams were blasted / cut one millisecond before the wings reached them, and in the exact place and geometric shape of the wings and plane body. That sudden banking movement that Flight-175 makes right before impact was no accident, it was made to acquire the exact spot that it was supposed to impact so that the wings and body would enter like a hot knife into butter. The cutting charges were set to detonate all together, creating an access hole for the wings. The missile projectile blasted a hole through the external wall, and any other obstacle in its path, allow for the access of the nose/cabin of the plane, however, I submit that there was no solid steel beam in the way of the nose of the plane, because it entered in an area of space between two such beams, however, even though there was no steel beam blocking the nose's path, the missile still was needed to open a hole to allow the nose to enter completely.

Remember, the entire plane had to enter the inside of the building. The tail would enter through the hole created by the nose and body of the plane. One millisecond after the entire plane had entered the inside of the building, an externally mounted explosive detonated the rupturing fuel cells

The missile also served to open an oxygen channel just ahead of the plane, to help in the creation of good mixture of fuel to air ratio for the proper combustion and explosion of the fuel mixture. In the slow-motion video, one can see the missile digging a path just inside the external wall of WTC-#2, opening it up like a can opener from the inside out, in order to allow the detonating fuel/air mixture to eject out into the outside world along this gash.

Further, there were secondary explosives rigged inside the plane, from the tail to the nose. If you look at the real time video of Flight-175, which shows it from a distance, that plane was hauling ass when it hit that relatively little corner of WTC-#2. They had to make sure that the no substantial part of the main plane body exited the building intact. Indeed, if not for the secondary explosives on-board, this would have occurred, as evidenced by the clear video of the intact nose, cabin, actually exiting and clearing the WTC-#2 structure. Then one clearly observes the on board explosives detonating, and the resulting explosions "catching" up with the exiting nose, cabin, etc, and explosions then consuming the exiting plane structure. The igniting jet fuel fireball is right behind and it then catches up with and consumes the exiting and exploding plane structure.

When observed in real time, the impact of Flight-175 appears to be one continuous event; it is actually a series of highly timed and coordinated events, all measured in milliseconds. Analogous to the old style cartoons, which when viewed at high speed appear as animated media, yet when slowed down enough, it becomes apparent that it is composed separately of many single frames or events. So it is with not only the Flight-175 impact on WTC#2, but with the entire 911 attack in general.

When one slows down the videos, slows down the events, and looking closely, one clearly observes a highly coordinated, extensively planned, and high tech military operation carried out with the assistance of split second computerized timing and synchronization. Like the "wizard" in the Wizard of Oz, when one pulls aside the curtain, one sees the true machinations behind the facade, and one also hears not one, but many voices saying "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

[wtmusic]

1. I saw the Virgin Mary on my shower door once

and they said I was crazy.

Sure. A perfect likeness of Mary randomly appears in my shower...WHAT ARE THE CHANCES? :D

[grytpype]

4. Waitaminnit! She was on my shower door too!

And I saw Jesus in a tortilla!

[Dr.Phool]

5. Don't forget

About the Mother Theresa muffin.

[Dr.Phool]

6. If I had an image of Cameron Diaz

It would give me something to do in the shower!:evilgrin:

[DS1]

2. No, they weren't cut with a missile.

There were no fucking missiles.

[Kokonoe]

3. How long is a millisecond? n/t

[LARED]

7. one thousandth of a second (n/t)

[Make7]

8. They must have the version filmed at high-speed.

"These beams were blasted / cut one millisecond before the wings reached them..."

A standard video frame is approximately 33 milliseconds. A field is half that. Unless they have film that was done at 1000 frames a second, I don't know how they can time anything to one millisecond of precision.

I must admit that I liked this one. Especially the part saying the "sudden banking movement that Flight-175 makes right before impact was no accident, it was made to acquire the exact spot that it was supposed to impact so that the wings and body would enter like a hot knife into butter."

My first thought was: There's one incredible pilot. It's a good thing he hit his mark or that plane might have bounced right off the building and fell into the street.

:) Make7

Edit for grammar

[LARED]

9. Silly

There was no pilot. It was done by remote control. You know just plug the coordinates to 20 significant digits into the GPS gizmo, and viola you can hit a dime with the nose of a 767.

[Abe Linkman]

10. That's bolo's theory! n/t

n/t

[Make7]

12. They must have forgot to push the "DO NOT ALLOW....

SUDDEN BANKING MOVEMENTS" button on the GPS gizmo. Does it have such a button? Or does an entirely different version need to be ordered to disable maneuvers that will cause discomfort to the passengers?

:) Make7

[markses]

14. Passengers? You really are naive.

First you think a commercial jet had pilots, now you think it had passengers?!? They're living high on the hog at Offutt AFB...for now.;-)

[markses]

13. LOL

Nicely done.

[Bolo Boffin]

11. Computerized timing and sychronization of cutting charges AND missiles?

In the exact geometric shape of the wings?

There is no man. There is no curtain. There is only Flight 175 crashing into the South Tower, the most documented event in human history.

I extend an invitation to you once again, demodewd, to come back into reality and abandon Oz. I do this, knowing that you will refuse to do so. Happily, for the sake of truth, you've wandered so far afield that any reasonable person will reject your nonsense prima facie.

You pursue the path you're walking at the expense of your own credibility, demodewd.

[Abe Linkman]

15. bolo: Remember when you sarcastically talked about GPS?

Remember your arrogant put-downs of anyone who wasn't smart enough to grasp what you promoted as a very simple matter? It was as though you wanted us to think that even an idiot could have carried out the 9-11 attacks if they had a GPS system. You even dug up some "actual" newspaper accounts of the Patsies going to electronic stores in Florida and buying GPS systems.

What happened? Do you still promote that theory? If not, what (or WHO) caused you to abandon it?

[Bolo Boffin]

16. Abe: remember when you stuck to the point of a thread?

Oh, that would have been never. Sorry about that.

I still maintain that the hijackers could have used a GPS machine to get some exact coordinates, feed those into the plane's autopilot, and flown the plane wherever they needed it. It's a layman's guess, and if Lared wants to use it to mock the idea of precisely guiding an airplane to enter the exact spot where the shape of an airplane is being blasted into a building by cutting charges, that's fine by me.

I can be wrong, and have been wrong on several occasions here. When I see that I'm wrong, I immediately admit it and go on with the discussion.

You should try it sometime.

[Abe Linkman]

17. Uh, uh bolo --- Admission you were wrong? Wherdy go?

Did you type it with invisible keys?

Just out of curiousity, and to hep out your little buddy, do YOU have a photo of a 757 with a small jet engine like the one found at the Pentagon?

[MercutioATC]

18. Pure subterfuge, Abe.

Don't drag an issue into a new (and unrelated) thread when I've answered the questions on another thread.

I know you have a lot of posts to keep track of. Need a reminder? Try:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=10611&mesg_id=15120

[Abe Linkman]

19. Is your name "little buddy"?

I was asking bolobop if maybe he could provide a photograph of a 757 with little engines like the small one that was found at the Pentagon.
bolo seems to have quick access to unlimited resources, and I thought he would surely want to set the record straight if in fact, he could.

Do you realize the implications of NO 757 crashing into the Pentagon?
That raises a question about whether ANY part of the Official Conspiracy Theory is truthful. I have my doubts. What about you?

[MercutioATC]

20. Is that so? Why not just ask Bolo in the "A-E" thread??

That's the thread in which the post originated and the one that's subject-appropriate.

You're also insisting upon using the "little engines" challenge that I've already explained to you repeatedly in the appropriate thread.

That adds up to subterfuge.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[MercutioATC]

24. I'll worry about my "character", just respond to the question.

Are you saying that the parts pictured are not similar in size to the high-pressure stage of a Rolls Royce 757 engine (not the ENTIRE engine, but the high-pressure stage).

[demodewd]

26. What's nder the tarp,Merc?

What's under the tarp,Merc? and tell us why it needs to be hidden.

[MercutioATC]

28. How the hell should I know? Are you going to answer the question?

"Some observers have claimed that these engine parts are too small to have come from a 757. The confusion is because the RB-211 engine configuration is dominated by the large turbofan at the front of the engine, which is what people expect a 757 engine should look like. However, because the RB-211 is a "high bypass" engine, the high-pressure compressor, combustion chamber and turbine are all much smaller than the turbofan, as shown in the small overview figure at the top left of the drawing. It is perfectly reasonable to ask what happened to the turbofan -- but the compressor disk and the combustor case do look like 757 parts."

http://www.911-strike.com/engines.htm

What say you?

[demodewd]

34. don't know

I have no idea. I plead ignorance on engines and engine parts.The plane could have been a 757 or a 737 or a Global Hawk or even Flight 77 if it had surreptitiously been tampered with and taken over by remote. I am convinced that there was a explosive blast at the onset plus other reasons including the "hole", eyewitness accounts, and the fire itself.

[MercutioATC]

35. My mistake. That post was meant for another poster (guess who).

Although I have issues with your "similar-sized aircraft" scenario (like the actual disposition of the "real" AAL77), it's got more merit than the F-16 theory.

Again, my apologies.

[Abe Linkman]

31. I'm saying you KNOW a 757 didn't crash at the Pentagon. So, why are you

trying to pretend one did? Or, am I mistaken about that? Has the time come when you are ready to admit you've been wrong about that, and all this stuff about trying to find an airplane part that COULD have come from more than one kind of aircraft is just something you're doing for fun...sort of like a puzzle. Is THAT it?

If you're ready to acknowledge the truth, we can all get on to other important lies we've been told by the Gov't, about 9-11.

What do you say? Will you join us?

[MercutioATC]

32. I know no such thing. I believe AAL77 did crash at the Pentagon.

...and I believe the majority of the evidence supports that position.

That's why I have no problem actually answering your specific questions instead of making nonsensical comments.

[Abe Linkman]

36. Was it a miniature 757?

What do you say about the critical evidence of the only jet engine found at the Pentagon that is way too small to have come from a 757? What do you say about the fact that 757's have engines three times the size of the one found at the Pentagon, and that there are NO photographs of ANY 757 with engines that small, because they aren't made for 757's and certainly aren't used on them?

To say you believe a 757 crashed at the Pentagon calls for the response given by Poppy bush to Ronald Reagan: "That's Voodoo Conspiracy Theory".

[objection]

37. Facts?

:crazy:

Substantiated by who and what?

[MercutioATC]

38. No, full sized. You keep avoiding THIS issue:

"Some observers have claimed that these engine parts are too small to have come from a 757. The confusion is because the RB-211 engine configuration is dominated by the large turbofan at the front of the engine, which is what people expect a 757 engine should look like. However, because the RB-211 is a "high bypass" engine, the high-pressure compressor, combustion chamber and turbine are all much smaller than the turbofan, as shown in the small overview figure at the top left of the drawing. It is perfectly reasonable to ask what happened to the turbofan -- but the compressor disk and the combustor case do look like 757 parts."

http://www.911-strike.com/engines.htm


Why do you insist on pretending that I'm talking about an entire engine when I'm speaking of the high-pressure rotor and housing?

As far as pieces of only one engine found? There was only one gear found, too. No wings. That doesn't mean a 1-geared plane crashed there. If it was an F-16, where are the three F-16 gear? The one found at the crash site is way too big for an F-16.

And you accuse OTHERS of ignoring facts and "spinning"???

[LARED]

39. Pics

A picture of a RB-211




A F-16






If you take away the outer cover on tht RB-200 the turbines are about the same size. At the least they are close enough in size to say you can't tell if one is too small.

[Abe Linkman]

40. FULL sized? NOT a miniature 757? LOL. This gets funnier & funnier.

If it was a full sized 757 that crashed at the Pentagon, then the engine found there would be three times as big as it is...and there would be TWO big engines.

You should have gone with the miniature 757 idea. If you're still promoting a full sized 757, then you are promoting a total fairy tale.
You know that, don't you?

You're providing some needed comic relief, but I hate to see you do it by way of promoting an obvious false claim.

[MercutioATC]

41. Areyou suffering from an inability or an unwillingness to read my replies?

If English is difficult for you, I could try to run it through a translation site...

"Some observers have claimed that these engine parts are too small to have come from a 757. The confusion is because the RB-211 engine configuration is dominated by the large turbofan at the front of the engine, which is what people expect a 757 engine should look like. However, because the RB-211 is a "high bypass" engine, the high-pressure compressor, combustion chamber and turbine are all much smaller than the turbofan, as shown in the small overview figure at the top left of the drawing. It is perfectly reasonable to ask what happened to the turbofan -- but the compressor disk and the combustor case do look like 757 parts."

http://www.911-strike.com/engines.htm

[Abe Linkman]

42. You avoid the issue. If it's not a miniature 757, then FL 77 didn't crash

merc: You're busted, man. You've been SERVED!

[MercutioATC]

43. Just let me know when you're ready to respond like an adult.

If you won't respond to my answer, I don't see how we can carry on a dialog.

[Abe Linkman]

44. Your question was always minor & now is totally irrelevant.

Your question is irrelevant since it's now known that a 757 didn't crash at the Pentagon.

You claimed that the small jet engine found at the Pentagon "could" be from a 757, and you have been asked many times to provide a photo of a 757 with two (or even just one) like it. You have failed to do so. The reason is because engines on 757s are three times the size of the one found at the Pentagon.

The only possible conclusion from the above is that you are intentionally misstating one or more MATERIAL facts. If you know that a 757 doesn't have small engines like that, but you continue to claim otherwise, you are knowingly misstating a MATERIAL fact. If you DON'T know that a 757 doesn't have small engines like the one found at the Pentagon, that raises a question about your claim that you work in air traffic control.

[MercutioATC]

45. I'm happy to let others who read the posts judge for themselves.

You've intentionally misstated my position and refused to reply to the real issue. I did not state that the pictures showed the entire 757 engine. I stated that they showed the high-pressure rotor and housing from a 757 engine, which is similar in size and shape to the parts pictured. Of course the entire 757 engine would be much bigger.

I'll let the people who read the posts decide who's addressing the real issue and who's blowing smoke.

[objection]

46. The mystery

is not who's addressing the real issue.

It is why anybody at this stage should be bothered to respond to Linkman's delirium at all.

[Abe Linkman]

47. The REAL issue is why you CONTINUE to deny the truth about FL 77

The REAL issue is why you won't admit that FL 77 couldn't possibly have crashed at the Pentagon. You know that it couldn't have crashed there, because the only jet engine found at the Pentagon is way too small to have come from a 757 (FL 77 airplane). If that weren't enough, you also know (and have seen) the video images that show a small jet crashing into the Pentagon.

Why won't you admit the truth and abandon your silly effort to change the subject? Don't you realize that if you don't admit you were wrong, pretty soon, no one will trust ANYTHING you say.

[objection]

48. The real issue

is not in the slightest whether anybody would trust what I say.

The real issue is why not person anywhere near to the event to see for themselves and best fit to tell has the slightest doubt about it. Flight 77 really did hit the Pentagon. Hundreds of real witnesses saw the event. The autopsy identified real passengers. The black box really was found. Remains from both engines were of course found. The damage pattern really was consistent. Five lamp poles really were felled. A thirty ton electricity generator really was hit by one of the engines, shifting it towards the building. Specially reinforced 40mm thick windows really did give way. The smell of the aviation fuel really was in the air for many days afterwards.

So against that then what do you have? A handful of poor quality Internet images and a cackle of distorted hearsay? No affidavit. No witness. No forensic evidence. No case.

[Abe Linkman]

22. Why not just admit the truth? 757 has bigger engines than the 1@ pentagon

You know that, and yet you deny it. You know that a 757 didn't crash at the Pentagon. The only engine found there is way too small to be from a 757. A 757 engine is about three times the size of the jet engine found at the Pentagon. THAT means you are intentionally trying to mislead people, or else you are unable to distinguish truth from fantasy.

[LARED]

23. You're pretty sure about your theories

I asked you before and I'll ask again -- have you ever even looked at a F-16 engine?

[MercutioATC]

25. Again, you're avoiding the question. The parts pictured are NOT too small.

Why do you insist on misstating the issue? I'm not speaking of the entire engine, I'm speaking of the high-pressure rotor. The pictured parts are similar in size to that 757 part.


"Some observers have claimed that these engine parts are too small to have come from a 757. The confusion is because the RB-211 engine configuration is dominated by the large turbofan at the front of the engine, which is what people expect a 757 engine should look like. However, because the RB-211 is a "high bypass" engine, the high-pressure compressor, combustion chamber and turbine are all much smaller than the turbofan, as shown in the small overview figure at the top left of the drawing. It is perfectly reasonable to ask what happened to the turbofan -- but the compressor disk and the combustor case do look like 757 parts."

http://www.911-strike.com/engines.htm

This, from a CT site, even...

[Abe Linkman]

30. You know it isn't a 757 under the tarp, merc. Guess again.

Think it's Osama & Hani?

[MercutioATC]

33. No, it's not. It's not an F-16, a Global Hawk or a pink elephant, either.

What does that have to do with anything?

Do you want to answer my question yet?

[Bolo Boffin]

27. Dearest Abraham - are you quite certain that...

...I've never admitted I was wrong about an issue?

That actually eases my mind - no longer do I have this image of you poring over every single post in this forum, because who but the clinically insane have time for that?

I know of two issues in the past three months or so that I've admitted I was wrong. One was the picture of the woman peering out of the hole that Flight 11 smashed into the North Tower. I disputed whether it was actually a person. I was shown to be wrong, and I admitted it. The second was a detail in the collapse of WTC 7. On the basis of one drawing, I was saying that the last part of the progressive collapse went away from the initial collapse. I was shown that it actually collapsed toward the initial collapse. I was wrong and admitted it.

I don't have any problem admitting I was wrong when the evidence shows me to be wrong.

You, however, have managed to turn this thread (talking about WTC 2 and cutting charges) into another one of your wild goose chases about the engine parts found at the Pentagon.

Which one of us is supposed to be the disinfo agent (unpaid or not) and who the truthseeker?

[Abe Linkman]

29. I'm happy to let others decide the answer to that very pertinent question.

"Which one of us is supposed to be the disinfo agent (unpaid or not) and who the truthseeker?"

I wouldn't have included the "supposed to be" part, but that's nitpicking.

[vincent_vega_lives]

49. Rockets? Missiles?

Where are the smoke trails? I suppose you would agree that the missiles would have to have been the AGM-65 Maverick? Or do you think they were somthing bigger like a AGM-84 Harpoon?