Sept. 11 Conspiracy Theorist Offers $100,000 Prize (Reuters)

[AZCat]

This article was posted in LBN but I felt that it deserved to be here also. Mods, feel free to lock/delete if you disagree.

Sept. 11 Conspiracy Theorist Offers $100,000 Prize

Wed Dec 15, 5:44 PM ET

By Larry Fine

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Jimmy Walter has spent more than $3 million promoting a conspiracy theory the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States were "an inside job" and he is offering more cash to anyone who proves him wrong.

The millionaire activist is so convinced of a government cover-up he is offering a $100,000 reward to any engineering student who can prove the World Trade Center buildings crashed the way the government says.

"Of course, we expect no winners," Walter, 57, heir to an $11 million fortune from his father's home-building business, said in a telephone interview from California on Wednesday. He accuses figures in government, the military and business of involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks.

Walter said a panel of expert engineers would judge submissions from the students.
</snip>

I would be interested in hearing everyone's opinions about this. Please discuss.

[HawkerHurricane]

1. No one will win.

Dr. Hovind made a similar offer, but the subject was Evolution: you had to prove it happened. No one will ever collect, because you have to convince him, and he refuses to admit any evidence that contradicts his worldview.

[AZCat]

5. Ugh.

So then the contest can be used as "proof" that Dr. Hovind is right?

Or in the case at hand, that the government was really involved?

[HawkerHurricane]

6. Basically.

"No one has provided proof that evolution happened/the government told the truth, therefore evolution didn't happen/the government lied."

Any proof will be discounted. Any loophole exploited.

[LARED]

2. Well, seeing as the government has yet to state

in a definitive way how the towers collapsed, it seems premature to review the work, let alone prove anything at this point.

Also assuming the government provides a definitive answer in the future, proving it is factual is not exactly something an engineering student is going to have the resources to accomplish.

I would suggest to Mr. Fine if he is really interested in this he should offer his millions to a reputable engineering firm that specializes in this work to review the government analysis.

If I had a million to spare, I'd ask him to prove how the government was involved.

[pretzel4gore]

3. they were doing a 'hijacked jet attacking wtc and pentagon' exercise on...

you guessed it, september 11th/01.... just 9 months after bushinc in effect staged a planned coup and took over the US government....also, 8 of the 19 alleged hijackers are either still alive today or died long before 911...also barb olsen couldn't have called her goofball hubby on that tuesday morning; that's pretty well been admitted by everyone considered it seriously, and the entire identification of arabs as the culprits hinges on olsen's call

[Abe Linkman]

12. re: Pentagon eyewitnesses. The most surprising thing about them is...

NOT that people reported seeing a large aiplane in the vicinity of the Pentagon. After all, there were at least THREE that we know of:

* One performing "acrobatics" (for distraction)

* A C-130 (guide plane for the attack jet? who knows?)

* B757(?) which overflew the Pentagon (landed at Reagan?)

With that many large planes in the air, who could fail to have seen "a large plane"? What IS surprising are the eyewitnesses who saw a small jet, heard sounds like a missile etc.

It's the small plane that people saw and heard that isn't accounted for in the Official Conspiracy Stories.

[MercutioATC]

16. One or two reported a smaller jet. One heard a "sound like a missile".

Many more reported a large commercial aircraft...some specified it as an American plane.


...and AAL77 didn't land at Reagan.

Why is it that the dozens of eyewitnesses who reported a large commercial plane can't be trusted, but you cite the two who claim to have seen a smaller plane? What makes them reliable witnesses when the majority of others aren't?

[MrSammo1]

35. Because

>>>Why is it that the dozens of eyewitnesses who reported a large commercial plane can't be trusted<<<

The physical evidence doesn't bare them out.

[Abe Linkman]

66. Merc: TED OLSON lied to the world about 9/11 & you aren't skeptical of...

the Official Conspiracy Story? It seems to me that since Ted's lies contained false claims about the most basic aspects of the alleged hijackers and at least FL 77 (assuming there even WAS a real FL 77), it is only reasonable and prudent to be suspicious of the Official Conspiracy Story. After all, a cop that would lie about ONE crime, may well be suspected of lying about ANY other crime. How is the U.S. Gov't ANY different?

Do YOU still believe that the Solicitor General of The United States was telling the truth? If not, how do you reconcile your view of Ted's lies, with swallowing everything else we've been told about 9/11?

Isn't being rigorously consistent important to even an ATC?

[LARED]

67. A question for you Abe

Have you every supplied anything that actually proves Olsen lied?

Not that I'm defending Olsen, but you have a habit of making definitive statements without actual evidence to substantiate the claims.

[Abe Linkman]

68. Spoken Like a True Believer .

Take some time from your engineering profession and read some of the many articles which make Ted's lies obvious to anyone...even Drexel graduates.

Have you ever supplied anything that actually proves that OBL and his "boys" had ANYTHING to do with 9/11? (evidence that he's a CIA asset doesn't count. THAT isn't in dispute.)

[LARED]

69. Abe, will you ever answer a question? Ever?

[Abe Linkman]

70. Question for you, "lared"

Have you ever supplied anything that actually proves that OBL and his Cave "boys" had ANYTHING to do with 9/11?

(evidence that he's a CIA asset doesn't count. THAT isn't in dispute.)

[LARED]

71. Why do you refuse to answer a simple question?

After all you base a lot of your theories on the fact that Olsen lied. One would think it's a simple matter to tell me how you know that. I'm not saying he didn't lie, as I have no way to know, but you seem to be very sure.

BTW, Merry Christmas.

[Sweet Pea]

76. Its been my experience

in this forum that when someone refuses to answer questions or turns a question to them into a rebuttal question back, the fact is they either a) have no idea what they are talking about, b) lack the power of their conviction to back up their claims or to answer the question put to them in the first place or c) are on some power high where they feel they don't need to answer the silly questions of the plebian class.

Its not a sin to say "I don't know why such and such happened, but its what I believe".

[Sweet Pea]

75. Could you please....

just out of curiosity, let us know definitively what it was that Olson lied about? I know this has been hashed and rehashed over and over again over the last few years, but I'd like to just get up to speed on what it was Olson lied about.

[Abe Linkman]

77. Wow. You really are slow. No wonder your posts seem so odd. Try this.

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68c.html

[LARED]

80. Speaking of odd posts

Your link said nothing about Ted.

[AZCat]

4. That's one of the odd things about this...

Why open it up to students only? Why can't professionals compete?

[LARED]

7. Why can't professionals compete?

A million dollars is a lot of money to give away.

[AZCat]

15. Ah-hah.

It's sad how long it took me to figure out what you were saying.

Yeah, it would be. I wonder who his panel of expert engineers is, and how much they expect. After all, I'm still "technically" a student... :)

[LARED]

18. His experts would be the same ones that create all this crapploa

Anonymous experts from the internet. I yet to see a so called engineering analysis showing some sort of CT by anyone that is qualified.

[AZCat]

19. That is what raises a red flag for me

With past engineering-related coverups, I have seen credentialed, professional engineers raise quite a stink. Here in Arizona, the C.A.P. in the 80's is a good example (two professors at the U. of Arizona were loudly against it, along with others), as is the Missile Defense Shield today. There were (and are, in the case of missile defense) loud denounciations from professors, professionals, and organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists, who has prepared technical analyses of the testing program to illustrate what it does—and does not—show about the capabilities of the systems being developed. I have seen nothing similar (yet) regarding either the Pentagon or the WTC failures. Maybe no-one has done it yet, or maybe I haven't just haven't seen those that have been done, but I will probably remain unconvinced of any alternate theories of collapse until this happens.

[stickdog]

42. Yes, our experts did a great job exposing

Agent Orange, depleted uranium, asbestos and tobacco dangers the second one shred of evidence supported them.

And who could forget the way that all those brave scientists and engineers who had moral qualms about unleashing nuclear destruction exposed the Manhattan Project to the public before anything terrible could happened to innocent civilians!

[AZCat]

44. I thought they had

We appear to have different opinions here about how scientists and engineers have responded to various atrocities perpetrated either by our government or by corporations. Yes, both Nagasaki and Hiroshima were bombed before anyone expressed their doubts to the public, but I have two points about this. First, after the war, there were a lot of scientists (Oppenheimer especially) who were worried about creating an arms race over atomic weapons, and when he was appointed Chairman of the General Advisory Committee to the newly created Atomic Energy Commission, he lobbied hard for international arms control and against development of the hydrogen bomb. He did later change his opinion, but only because the Teller-Ulam developments proved (to him) that it was inevitable that the Russians would develop the hydrogen bomb. Secondly, while not all the scientists, engineers, and technicians who spied for the Russians on the Manhattan Project did it for altruistic reasons, some did say when investigated that their purpose was to prevent the United States from having the only atomic weapons because they believed we would abuse them if there was no check to our power.

Regarding Agent Orange, asbestos, DU, or tobacco, I don't know enough about the topics to tell you much, but wasn't the movie "The Insider" based on a true story of a whistleblower from one of the tobacco companies?

Yes, sometimes it takes a while for someone to come out from inside a company or for someone on the outside to voice dissent, but I think in the long run these things are outed.

[LARED]

46. Beat me by three minutes.

And stated the thought far better.

[AZCat]

47. Thanks

I feel strongly about this (as you might have guessed). I remember one of my professors spending a week lecturing about the "proper" way to be a whistleblower. The penalties for doing it are heavy - the guy who blew the whistle on Morton-Thiokol (spelling?) after the Challenger failure will never work again as an engineer, but sometimes it is more important that the truth be told.

[stickdog]

49. WR Grace knew asbestos was killing thousands in 1940s.

But thousands of tons of asbestos are still going into common householdsand construction products to this day.

Tobacco execs, scientists and lawyers knew smoking was killing millions by the 1950s.

Who blew the whistle on depleted uranium? Who managed to get the word out that the air around Ground Zero was a carcinogenic toxic wasteland?

I mean, do you know NOTHING of the history of torts or labor rights? Do you think corporations just woke up one morning and DECIDED that it would be more MORAL to have a 40 hour work week and workers compensation insurance? Because the upright scientists and engineers they hired forced them to, right?

[AZCat]

51. I think we're just going to have to disagree

I didn't claim that every engineer or scientist acts ethically, nor do I believe that corporations act a certain way because of "upright scientists and engineers", but I do think that whistleblowers play a part in the exposure of misbehavior and in the creation of standards that prohibit unethical behavior.

Don't agree? Fine. I said I didn't know that much about the topics you listed (Agent Orange, depleted uranium, asbestos and tobacco) but for you to claim that engineers and scientists haven't exposed scandals is bullshit.

[stickdog]

54. Look, certainly some people fight against the odds for years often

risking their own livelihoods in their righteous quests to expose their inside knowledge of corruption and malfeasance at the highest levels. And with a little help, a little luck and a painful enough popular outcry or court remedy, severe governmental or corporate abuses are sometimes significantly curtailed.

However, your believability test for 9/11 skepticism is demonstrably full of shit. Apply the same test to asbestos or tobacco in the 1960s and you'd be promoting murderers while pissing on their victims.

Scientists and engineers simply aren't paid to saddle their employers with huge liabilities. They are paid to use their skills to maximize profits and to be "good team players." Under our current system of powerful economic incentives and disincentives, whistle-blowers will always be the exception rather than the rule.

One or two lone voices of dissent -- no matter how "expert" -- are easily silenced or marginalized. Unless the typically minute percentage of courageous insider altruists reaches some sort of critical mass, even the most righteous/respected insider will find publicizing his or her claims a nearly impossible task. And the lion's share of known/suspected malfeasance will continue apace and/or remain "top secret" without any hint of public consciousness for ever or at least for decades.

That's just Post-Industrial History 101. So if your "Jimmy Scientist Goes to Washington" illusions truly comfort you, I'd suggest you continue avoiding the course material.

[AZCat]

55. I think our points are more alike than I had realized

Thank you for clarifying your position. Perhaps I have been remiss in not explicitly stating that I think it will take a while for any sort of significant professional doubts to be raised about the official September 11th story, if it does in fact differ from the truth. But I believe that in the long run if our government has lied to us about the collapse of the WTC towers and the attack on the Pentagon there will be those voices of dissent - from experts and laypersons alike - and the truth (or a closer version) will arise.

I have said before that I do not trust engineers or scientists merely because of their profession (not in this thread). I am too aware of the atrocities committed under the watch of others with expertise. Knowledge does not grant wisdom, unfortunately. But this does not mean that all engineers or scientists stand by (or actively participate) while evil deeds are done, and I am angry that anyone would accuse me or any other member of my profession of supporting the actions of terrorists (the BFEE, if MIHOP is true) just because others have failed to live up to their code of ethics.

I think there is a world of difference between taking someone's word as gospel, and rejecting that word because of a rejection of a profession. I believe it is possible to take the ASCE report for what it is - a hastily produced report that tries to do the best with what evidence and time it had, but that certainly isn't the final word on the incident. Do I trust the ASCE to tell me the truth? No, but I don't automatically reject what they have to say either.

I have tried to be a reasonable sceptic regarding the September 11th story, but it is difficult when the rhetoric so pollutes the dialogue. I think this particular discussion we are having is important because it seems to be part of the schism between the two sides in this forum, and I would like to continue discussing it free of rhetoric.

[LARED]

45. Don't you see how your own post works against you?

Agent Orange, depleted uranium, asbestos and tobacco dangers the second one shred of evidence supported them.

The dangers of these materials were brought to light by engineers and scientists.

[stickdog]

50. Well, what are the names of all of these heroes, then?

Surely our society rewards these brave individuals for exposing the indefensibly immoral actions of their corporate masters.

Luckily, because of the way these people are treated, everybody in the know is always CLAMORING to expose the mendacity of those with infinitely greater power than themselves. I mean, just imagine the type of nation we'd have if whistleblowers were treated like rape victims.

[MrSammo1]

34. I think

he can prove scientifically that the Towers had to be brought down with explosives.

The speed of the collapses and the lack of structural resistance is the key.

If you also consider that there was much more potential energy below the impact points than there was kinetic energy above, the collapse of all three buildings becomes absurd.

[WoodrowFan]

8. didn't the Holocaust deniers do this in the past

but never paid out until they were sued because they discount all the evidence.

[Abe Linkman]

9. Truth suppression and 9/11

"they discount all the evidence"...that conflicts with the Official Conspiracy Theory.

[LARED]

10. Abe, very interesting post

Are you trying to make an analogy that Holocaust deniers are also exposing an OCT?

[Abe Linkman]

11. "lared" - MY message referred to 9/11 -- but, speaking of YOUR interest ..

in Holocaust deniers, I noticed that you seem to have shifted into a better limited-modified9/11-hangout mode. Is that to provide you with maximum deniability whenever faced with evidence about the awful truth that the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, and not as the result of a conspiracy hatched by one of the CIA's oldest, most loyal assets (Osama binonboardforyears). Are YOU now denying the Official Story about what happened, too? Are you trying to say that the
U.S. Gov't doesn't deny that a controlled demolition is what happened?

Larry had to give the "pull it" order because it would have been a little too suspicious to try & hit WTC7 from the air. Is that the kind of thing you believe the Gov't has to fuzz over and not take a definitive stand on?

[LARED]

13. deniability?

Darn it Abe, you figured it out. You are one smart cookie.

Abe, you're an amusing chap, don't change.

[Abe Linkman]

14. Good to see you're finally coming around to the truth about the WTC.

You're a little late, but if I understand you, you're hinting that you are ready to accept that the WTC buildings came down because of controlled demolitions and not from fires or alleged plane crashes.

Here I was thinking you're some kind of amateur whatever or a plant of some kind but the truth is you're no fool...you know what happened. You know the Gov't doesn't want us to know the truth about 9/11. The Gov't won't take a specific position on the WTC OR the Pentagon...because if the public learns the truth, the Gov't needs to be able to deny having lied to the world.

Glad to know you've changed your tune. Not bad for a Drexel guy.

[LARED]

17. What makes you think I am finally coming around?

The funny part of this is as I was typing post 13 I was wondering if you would attempt your lame "coming around" speech thing again.

Abe, that's one thing I do like about you, you never disappoint.

[Abe Linkman]

20. Oh, so you're sticking with the "Cave People Did It" story.

I was really hopeful there for a while. Okay, for a few nanoseconds, but then I realized you have too much ego invested in the Official "Cave People Did It" Conspiracy Theory to ever acknowledge that it makes no sense, in light of what we've learned almost from the time of the very events themselves.

I assume it's just ego. Surely, you wouldn't do this for money. Who'd pay you?

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[Abe Linkman]

22. Back to the WTC , Larry "Pull it" S. and how the walls came tumbling down

In the proof that you and yours have managed to avoid providing, is there a line item for "how to sell the never in history before idea that four steel buildings collapsed in the manner of the WTC"?

Imagine: a DREXEL engineer implying the scientifically impossible.

[LARED]

28. scientifically impossible.???

Tell me Abe, how would you know that?

[Abe Linkman]

29. History. n/t

n/t

[LARED]

30. Abe, it's time for science not history

While history is a wonderful topic that I'm sure you and I enjoy, the subject you raised is science.

You stated something was scientifically impossible. Now I'm sure in making a statement like that you must have some reason other than "history." You speak with much authority on the subject of 9/11 so I'm surprised at the lack of an articulate reponse regarding your issue. You must be basing that statement on something. It's not even clear what you mean by history.

So I'll ask again why is it scientifically impossible?

[Abe Linkman]

31. Fires like those in the WTC don't cause bldgs. to collapse.

If they did, we would never have heard about Larry's famous "Pull it" statement, because it wouldn't have been necessary.

WTC7 had too much explosive material in it, if you know what I mean.

You know or should know that, so you must have some reason other than to
be a distraction. Some people prefer not wasting their time trying to convince people of something they feel strongly about and continue to reinforce thru research and discussion...and yes, the distractions of a few "Cave Men Did It All" Conspiracy Theorists.

Wouldn't an issues rotation program relieve some of the boredom?

[Sweet Pea]

62. You know....

I'd warm up a bit more to this "controlled demolition" theory if there were other examples of "controlled demolitions" for the proposed purposes of what the WTC were destroyed for. As soon as someone shows me pre-placed demolition charges in the Sears Tower or the Empire State Bldg or the Chrysler Building or the Transamerica building or some other major landmark building that contains a) important gov't papers/financial records or some other government or private cache of information or b) provides a gargantuan insurance windfall for the BFEE or c) some other reason for a controlled demolition. Until that happens, the WTC collape was nothing more than an engineering failure due to the impact of airliners.

If the WTC were indeed brought down by "controlled demolitions", said demolitions were in place before the impacts. I have yet to see any evidence of the significant effort needed to pre-position enough explosive demolition charges to bring down those buildings. Simply sayign there was a power outage the week before or that Neil Bush (or whichever brother) was involved in the security or the renewed insurance policies shortly before the attacks doesn't hack the program. The floors where the supposed "demolition charges" were placed were occupied with hundreds if not thousands of people daily and unless I have missed something I haven't seen/read/heard anyone from those floors or the companies that occupied those floors mention anything untoward or out of the ordinary.

Wishing it so is *not* an evidence set. So-called "squibs" that are called so based on nothing more than they "look" like squibs is *not* evidence. The pancaking of floors with an end result of the buildings falling into their footprint is *not* evidence of a controlled demolition. Non-engineers, latter-day Google Rangers, laymen in the field of conspiracy saying there is no *way* this could have happened because no steel-core-based building has ever fallen before because of fire should show me another steel-based-core building that was hit by an airline full of jet fuel and *did not fall* before they enter into the world of absolutes.

Show me the money - hard, cold evidence - and I'll move.

[The Gigmeister]

23. Prove to me that Santa Claus does NOT exist...

...And I'll give you 100,000.00.

[MercutioATC]

24. Exactly.

[Abe Linkman]

25. The prize is NOT for proving a negative. Did you read the message?

It's for anyone who can prove that the Official Story IS true.

What you're saying is the equivalent of: "Prove to me that 9/11 WASN'T an inside job, and I'll give you $100K". Mr. Walker is merely saying:
"If you believe the Mercutio/Gov't theory is true, prove it, and earn $100K".

[MercutioATC]

26. Hey! I got my own theory! I feel special!

Thanks, Abe.

:hug:

[Abe Linkman]

32. You and your "Magic" theories. Oh, boy.

You use more magic than David Copperfield or that young guy from NYC.
"MAGIC": what would an Official Conspiracy Theory be without it?

[MercutioATC]

33. For my next trick, I'll turn night into day!

(flips the light switch)


It's not magic, Abe...it's science.

[Abe Linkman]

36. Neither magic nor science

What you've been trying to sell is pure bunk. And, every OBJECTIVE student of 9/11 knows it, too.

[MercutioATC]

37. Then it should be easy to refute, no? Go for it.

You've claimed that you don't agree that the damage to the Pentagon could have been done the way the ASCE report concludes (an "avalanche" of small debris mixed with ket fuel moving at high velocity).

All I'm asking for is for you to explain why this isn't possible (including any credentials which assisted you in forming your explanation) or, failing that, for you to provide a report of equal weight that contradicts the ASCE report's conclusions.

If we're trying to be objective here, wouldn't providing opposing evidence of the same weight be a constructive thing?

[Abe Linkman]

38. NO Magic Flying Confetti Bomb could have done THAT, MercutioATC

Wouldn't explanations that didn't have to rely on magic be more impressive to those impressionable folks who don't know as much about what happned at the Pentagon?

Magic WINGS
Magic MUSH
Magic 757 ENGINES
Now MAGIC Confetti Bombs!

What'll Houdini-ATC think of next?

[MercutioATC]

39. Since you won't respond, I'll take it you can't...

When you're prepared to make a substansive response, get back to me Abe.


I'll be here...

[Abe Linkman]

40. CONFETTI created that hole? HOW?

When you're prepared to give a substantive explanation, get back to me Mercurious. But, enough of the "Magic Forces" and "Flying Confetti Bombs" BS.

[MercutioATC]

41. Abe, I'm sick of posting "how". Read the damn report.

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

If you still don't understand, get back to me.....but please at least try to read it first.

[Abe Linkman]

43. Is there ANYONE here who believes confetti can blast thru walls?

Anyone, besides bushco and OCT supporters/defenders?

[MercutioATC]

48. I really think you need to talk to somebody who understands physics.

What are you having difficulty with? Tons of mass moving at high velocity (regardless of how small the pieces are) can do damage. The greater the mass and the greater the velocity, the greater the damage.

[Abe Linkman]

52. I really think you know most DUers recognize Truth Suppression...

techniques. After constant, daily exposure for three years, it's easy to recognize.

According to you, "tons of mass" were moving at high veolocity thru the Pentagon building. Also, according to you, the alleged 757 disintegrated upon impact with the building, left no verifiable evidence it was ever there, defied the laws of Physics by not pivoting to the left whenever the right wing made the first contact of the plane with the exterior of the building, did not lose its two engines that were designed to fall off upon impact, DID somehow manage to have both of its engines vanish into thin air (yes, I know your story is that one of them just shrunk to the size of an engine off a small plane, like an F-16),
vaporized the humans aboard the aircraft (or discarded them while the plane was moving at high velocity (btw- what WAS the velocity?), balled itself up or didn't ball itself up, but moved as a unified "force" of some kind or other, did some minor damage on its way home, and ended the
excursion thru the building by crashing a big circular hole thru the last wall it decided to go thru...but evidence of its demise also vanished...just outside or inside that big exit hole.

"Magic" is the only explanation that fits your story better than Voodoo.

[MercutioATC]

56. Unfortunately some of them don't know diddly about physics...

If the right wing hit first, the plane would have pivoted right, not left.


The rest of the explanation isn't mine, it's the considered conclusion of a team of civil engineers who have a lot more knowledge of crash mechanics than you and I do. (well, at least than I do...you may be an expert yourself...you haven't said WHAT you do)

I'm sure modern science would look like "magic" to primitive man, but it's still science.

[Abe Linkman]

57. And, if the LEFT wing hit first, the plane would pivot LEFT, correct?

Now, which position do YOU subscribe to? Which wing hit first?
Tell us.

[MercutioATC]

58. Yes. So?

The right wing hit first, which would pivot the plane to the right.

[Abe Linkman]

59. Problems with your claims. Results are INconsistent with them.

If the right wing hit first, the plane would pivot to the right and the left wing would have hit the ground, thus NOT damaging the wall to the left of the entry hole. In addition, the left engine would have separated from the plane (as it's designed to do) and it would be visible in the photos taken immediately after the crash and would have been found outside of the building.

[MercutioATC]

60. Why would the left wing have hit the ground?

I'm claiming that the plane would have pivoted right along its horizontal axis. The left wing would have remained level, not gone up or down.

[Abe Linkman]

61. Physics.

n/t

[Abe Linkman]

63. Official Pentagon Conspiracy Theory in full collapse mode.

"In a bank - alleged by the ASCE Report - the right engine would still snag the construction area fence; which didn't happen. The primary damage would have been on at least the second floor. If the left engine had contacted the ground, it would have snapped off, per design. The impact would have left a prominent impression in the lawn, with some form of damage from its forward inertia."

And, on the inside of the Pentagon, that same ASCE Report refers to a section of the floor being raised. THAT could only have come about as the result of an explosion. Fire, alone - would have, at best collapsed the floor. The explosion that had to have caused the raised floor section is almost certainly part and parcel of the shaped explosions that worked their way thru the building and finally blasted that great big nine foot circular exit hole.

If you are claiming the "plane" came in level, then the right wing would have snagged the construction area fence and the primary damage would have been on at least the second floor.

[MercutioATC]

64. I see you're still posting two replies to my posts...ah, well.

I still think this would be easier if you'd consolidate, but since your first response was just the word "physics" (which made no sense), I 'll just reply to the second.

Why are you under the impression that the damage would have been to the second floor at the entry point? Since we're referencing the ASCE report, it clearly says:

"Impact of the fuselage was at column line 14, at or slightly below the second-floor slab, and the right wing crossed at a shallow angle from below the second-floor slab to above the second-floor slab."

Yes, there was damage above the second floor slab, but the majority of the impact (and the majority of the damage) was below the second floor slab.

As far as the "section of the floor being raised", are you speaking of the first or second floor slab? I didn't see any "raised floor" references in the ASCE report.

[Abe Linkman]

65. I see you are still unwilling or unable to explain your theory...

about what happened (nose up, nose down etc.), why no 757 engine was found outside the building (or anywhere else) where it would have been, and we're still waiting for your answers to the many other issues which challenge the storyline you are pedaling.

[MercutioATC]

82. Why are you under the assumption that the engine would have been

outside the building? What report have you read that the rest of us haven't?

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[The Gigmeister]

27. OK then...

Prove the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.

[Abe Linkman]

72. Photo proves FL77 Crash Story is physically impossible & absurd

If you BELIEVE the Official FL 77 "Crashed At The Pentagon" Conspiracy,
check out this photo (and read the article if you have time). And, even if you DON'T BELIEVE the Official Fairy Tale, it's worth a look see.

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68c.html

[AZCat]

73. Why don't you start a new thread, Abe?

This looks like something that hasn't cropped up before, why don't you start a new thread for it? Besides, threads that are 100+ posts are hard for me to browse - I'm still on dial-up. I would appreciate it.

[Abe Linkman]

74. Don't let your ego prevent you from responding to the substance...

of the message. It wasn't meant to draw attention away from your the fact that your name is at the TOP of the thread.

[AZCat]

78. This is a curious response

What do you mean by my ego? I don't particularly care whether or not my name is at the top of the thread, but I do care about how long it takes for me to look at threads. I was asking (nicely, I thought) but it seems you misinterpreted my post.

I try not to post responses when I either don't have anything substantive to say about the contents or haven't yet figured out how to respond. Would you rather I posted incoherently?

[vincent_vega_lives]

79. This guy has nothing to add

So the fact it is linked to by abe is nothing short of ordinary...

Next up is the photo to the right, which depicts ... uhhh, I have to be honest here -- I have no clue what it is supposed to be. Some kind of manifold or something. And it was discovered ... uhmm, somewhere in the Pentagon, I suppose, but that can't actually be determined from the photo. Obviously then it must be debris from Flight 77. To the left, jutting out prominently from a pile of indeterminate debris, and obviously better lit and in much sharper focus than other alleged interior shots of alleged aircraft debris, is what is claimed to be yet another component of a Boeing 757's apparently indestructible landing gear. Whatever.

[seatnineb]

81. Aren't you forgeting something.

"I was told by one witness, an Air Force enlisted - senior enlisted man, that he was outside when it occurred. He said that he saw a helicopter circle the building. He said it appeared to be a U.S. military helicopter, and that it disappeared behind the building where the helicopter landing zone is - excuse me - and he then saw fireball go into the sky."
CNN.

The above is corroborated by this.......

I heard a helicopter landing right outside our window and turned to watch it touchdown ...the helo pad is there and I wondered as I watched him land if this arrival had anything to do with the New York attack realizing it probably did not. I turned back to the computer and began reading the only breaking news report I had found about the attack. I was shocked in realizing what sort of hell must be taking place inside those towers.... Two hits and thousands of lives
snuffed out in seconds....

In that moment, I heard the most sensational noise.... a split second of high pitched whine followed by a booming echoing crash like nothing I have ever witnessed. The next few seconds seemed so much longer and are constantly replayed in my mind... I remember yelling out as I found myself on the floor and somehow being pushed against the wall.... glass and debris rained down on top of me as I came to the stark realization that it was happening to us as well...

http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/PentagonPersonalStory.html

So Vince........

The Penta-Helicopter........WERDITDGO?

[Abe Linkman]

83. Please do not call out names in your posts.

Thank you.