9/11 Experiments: The Force Behind the Motion

a reply to: residentofearth

Thank you for bringing up such a relevant point, comparing and contrasting the damage done in 2 different locations, WTC and Pentagon, by essentially the same airplane.

One makes a huge hole, the other a hole 10 feet wide. It is laughable, as is the whole story.

Thanks again

a reply to: Salander

One makes a huge hole, the other a hole 10 feet wide

So where is the 10 foot hole...??

Holes (there were 2) in Pentagon were 96 ft (lower) created by wings/engines and 17 ft (upper) caused by fuselage

a reply to: firerescue

So where is the 10 foot hole...??

I think he/she is referring to the exit hole in the THIRD building section of the pentagon.
As if a missile is going to pass through three buildings first.
But alas such is the way of conspiracies.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: residentofearth

Thank you for bringing up such a relevant point, comparing and contrasting the damage done in 2 different locations, WTC and Pentagon, by essentially the same airplane.

One makes a huge hole, the other a hole 10 feet wide. It is laughable, as is the whole story.

Thanks again

And most importantly fails miserably to address the different constructor materials. But hey. It is laughable.

a reply to: Salander

If you pardon the expresion YOU are looking in the WRONG hole. There was a collapse of the facade of the pentagon and the hole truther sites show is NOT the initial damage to the building.

a reply to: Salander

double post.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Salander

If you pardon the expresion YOU are looking in the WRONG hole. There was a collapse of the facade of the pentagon and the hole truther sites show is NOT the initial damage to the building.

I have a great image of the facade hole but I do not know how to post it.

It shows no lateral damage where the wings or the supper heavy engines allegedly hit the building, not do they show an impact point for the tail section. There is no damage to the GLASS windows which are less than 7 ft from the hole itself.

EDIT

I managed to find the photo, it is the bottom photo which is a close up of the exterior damage. It barely looks like a bus hit the building, let alone a massive passenger jet.

911review.org...

The whole story stinks, from New York to DC.

a reply to: yesyesyes



So DO I not the tiny hole claimed by truther sites.



Now you posted a previous link of buildings on fire which were actually concrete YOU really need to start checking your sources.

Wow.

I never knew that there was a 9/11 conspiracy.

And is this guy in the video serious?

a reply to: yesyesyes

There is no damage to the GLASS windows which are less than 7 ft from the hole itself.

Reason no damage to windows is because the windows are BOMB PROOF !

Designed to resist a vehicle bomb, which was primary threat envisioned.

Certainly the threat of any kind of terrorist attack on the building was far from the thoughts of the original designers. As a result, the Pentagon was constructed with a thin limestone facade over a brick infill between reinforced concrete floors, structurally supported by a reinforced concrete beam and column frame. Enough to protect from the elements but not from the potential forces of significant blast events.

Eventually, all of the nearly 8,000 windows in the Pentagon will be replaced with fixed double-pane glass mirroring the original architecture but offering improved thermal and ultraviolet filtering properties. However, the new exterior outermost E-Ring windows facing the perimeter roadways and the innermost A-Ring windows (at the courtyard center of the complex), being the most vulnerable, will be blast resistant. The new windows are an insulated, laminated, fully-tempered assembly that is designed to absorb and resist the blast loads without shattering into small projectiles or leaving the frame as a single unit. This design meets the client criteria for translucency and energy efficiency, as well as for safety in a blast event.

If had done any REAL research as opposed to parroting "truther" sites would have known this ..........

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: yesyesyes



So DO I not the tiny hole claimed by truther sites.

Now you posted a previous link of buildings on fire which were actually concrete YOU really need to start checking your sources.

Are you claiming a plane entered the building through the area inside the red line you highlighted?

Who ever edited the photo with those lines did not highlight in green the row of window openings that are quite clearly seen through the smoke.

Is there a better photo? Who ever edited this one wants me to see what he/she wants to see, not what is clearly visible. Is there a less biased photo?

a reply to: MALBOSIA

That picture has been on the net for a while the red line was not done by me and what you see is damaged columns not windows. The real biased picture are the truther ones of the punched hole in one of the inner walls or showing the facade at a higher level through smoke & foam.

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
Just guess work and scientific ignorance. It's not a scalable model. It doesn't accurately reflect anything.

Yet again. If you are gonna claim conspiracy you need to solve it all. Can't just point at one little bit. Every singe tiny detail needs an explanation. This is where all conspiracies fall apart.

For the doubters, could anyone of you tell me how many people need to be involved to organise and carry out this utterly massive cover up? Once you've hypothesised a number, can you explain why it's managed to stay silent?

Black operations are planned and executed all over the globe regularily. Very few of any of the details come to light and when they do it almost never tells the whole story. Deals get made, gag orders get sent out and evidence gets sealed, regardless if the operation caused the lives of innocents to be lost.

With the newly established homeland security getting access to all agencies investigations, and a war on terror in full swing, it really would not be difficult to gag and seal any piece of testimony or evidence that came to light before it got any attention. The majority of innocent government employees would believe they are doing their job while handing the info to the appropriate department. Whats to blow the whistle on?

There are many corporations out there with 10's of thousands of employees, all playing a part in a single objective to sell a product. The one that sells it has no idea how it is made, the lawyers and lobbyists that protect it have no idea if it is stolen or safe. It called compartmentalizing.

Your argument is not original nor is it meant to raise any doubts to the believers in a cover up. It is simply meant to brag.

You have thousands of people all keeping a terrible terrible secret. Not a single one breaks or leaks or anything like that. You must surely realise the highly improbable nature of what you are suggesting?

Lloyde England.

I don't care how much people (who deny Lloyde England's statements are damning) claim that he was unfairly recorded.Lloyd England was caught lying and clearly indicated he was enlisted in a plan to pretend his cab was hit by a light pole by the Pentagon.

Until some other never-before-seen evidence comes to light -- I believe Lloyde England spilled enough beans to cast doubt on the official story.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: MALBOSIA

That picture has been on the net for a while the red line was not done by me and what you see is damaged columns not windows. The real biased picture are the truther ones of the punched hole in one of the inner walls or showing the facade at a higher level through smoke & foam.

This is a screen shot of what looks like the same image from the link in a post above.



The window openings or damaged columns, appear to be blown out of the building. But the plane went into the building. I am guessing that the spool looking things are supposed to be the wheels with no rubber. Did they blow out of the building or did they ever make it into the building?

a reply to: MALBOSIA

As I recall, the spools were wooden wire/cable spools that were already on the lawn prior to 9/11 from the renovations.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

I am guessing that the spool looking things are supposed to be the wheels with no rubber

You really need to go beyond conspiracy sites for your info on 911.

a reply to: samkent

I shouldnt take advice on where to get info on 9/11 from some guy on a conspiracy website?!?!?

... duly noted.

a reply to: vjr1113

What bothers me are people that deny the potential of it being a black operation because of the scale of the 'people that needed to be involved' that would never let it come to day.

Not everything and everyone has to be 'involved' to still be controlled or manipulated in a very easy manner.

You can't realistically prove the plane wasn't just flown into the building via-remote control, as much as you can prove it was highjacked. Easy.

You can't realistically prove Flight 93 even CRASHED.

You can't realistically prove that certain circumstances wouldn't have unfolded any differently.

A bunch of people cleaning # off the lawn doesn't mean they're 'conspirators', it means there is # on the lawn and today your job is to pick it up.

This operation could realistically have be done by 1-3 people. Claiming there isn't enormous amounts available information to prove it's a conspiracy is stupid. There isn't information because there obviously isn't 1,000 #ing people involved.

The information that IS available is widely interpretative and the science used in general to explain the events is extremely questionable. And that's just the clues in the science, not hours of television of New York city broadcasters claiming to hear explosions with 0 motive to lie.

a reply to: imjack

This operation could realistically have be done by 1-3 people.

Yea 3 hijackers per plane could have done it.

3 people on the ground could not have handled the execution of the passengers and hauled the parts onto the lawn.

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: residentofearth

Thank you for bringing up such a relevant point, comparing and contrasting the damage done in 2 different locations, WTC and Pentagon, by essentially the same airplane.

One makes a huge hole, the other a hole 10 feet wide. It is laughable, as is the whole story.

Thanks again

Only for the gullible and incurious is it laughable.

For the curious and those paying attention, it is yet another piece of evidence on the very high pile of evidence that contradicts the official story, that makes the story impossible.

The same plane makes fairly large hole in steel building, but in concrete Pentagon the hole is so small those first on the scene could barely see it.
And most importantly fails miserably to address the different constructor materials. But hey. It is laughable.