Reformed no-757 theorists weigh in here

To me it looks more like the outer wall was collapsed by something rather than something went through it. You can clearly see rubble right bellow the 'hole'. Looks more like the facade was knocked down and out by an explosion inside the building to me. There is rubble all over in front of the building, what people think is pieces of aluminum is probably brick or concrete.

I find it very hard to believe a 757 did that, no matter how many times you show those pics CL.

Well, Anok, in an anarchist/libertarian socialist society we all have our say, and I do agree the walls always looked a bit odd, mostly in tht they came off at nice square angles. But I'm guessing that's due to the contruction, which I"m still vague on. Here's an internal shot I don't have a source for that may help illustrate -



green lines represent the edges of that flawing left engine entry hole snapped by Morris - outer wall and the expansion joint, dividing the collapsed portion from the standing. Note the columns are bowen inward - perhaps consistent with wing root/ engine/fuselgae, something coming INTO the building - or tricky bombs, possibly.

And to illustrate how much else was destroyed, see this graphic from the PBPR: same kind of thing but decresing intensity through three rings



[edit on 21-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 21-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

but theres no way to tell how much jet fuel aeresolized inside the building and detonated vs how much was consumed in that fireball we all saw. so the fuel in the air exploding could account for some of the blast damage. plus, the fuel buringin in an enclosed space will retain more heat than burning in air. which could account for some of the plane "melting'.

this is pure speculation on my part and in no way constitutes fact or even strong conviction.

Originally posted by Damocles
but theres no way to tell how much jet fuel aeresolized inside the building and detonated vs how much was consumed in that fireball we all saw. so the fuel in the air exploding could account for some of the blast damage. plus, the fuel buringin in an enclosed space will retain more heat than burning in air. which could account for some of the plane "melting'.

this is pure speculation on my part and in no way constitutes fact or even strong conviction.

Not to mention the vortex effect of plane trajectory plus sudden empty space inside sucking in much of the fireball that might otherwise go in all directions, icluding back out oto the lawn. Ergo: burning hell inside, green grass outside.

Gottago: "That really bothers me, because I can accept much of the fuselage shredding on impact, the engines thrown deep inside the structure (tho how they managed to fit perfectly into those low floor slabs and miss those columns is a hell of a stretch). But you should have some good chunks of the tail of the plane lying around after; it wasn't loaded (at least officially) with anything flammable or explosive, and those structures are built to withstand enormous stresses."

At least you can see it in terms of a big plane - the engines would penetrate deep - it was their momentum driving the plane, and when they came loose with the explosio they'd shoot way in. The clumns? On the left none right awy. On the right, we do see in Ingersol's shots three columns:
Here's anther virew of them before firefighters got there:


I'm not sure at all these are columns - see my expl here - column 16 in particular is where the right engine should've gone in officially, its upper half. No way a columns should be intact, and this doesn't look like a column, even tho the PBPR, FEMA, and others say it is. I thinks its a piece of facade or second floor slab that fell after the column was destroyed by the engine...
Also notice the nick in the low wall, lower left: this is where the "plane hit the ground first." The left engine was about 0" aobe ground there, mangled that vent structure and might've scraped off the grass there?

As for the tailfin, true enough, no solid ID on my part, I'd expect bigger pieces, but I don't know everything. Darkblusky had some links on that earlier - or maybe another thread - supposed to explain that. I'll check on that.
[edit on 21-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 21-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 21-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

CL

Your last pic (new to me) with the columns and fire is very strange. Columns #s 15-17 are bowed out, or at least partly to the left and out, but certainly NOT in.

WTH is going on there? Am I seeing that right?

Please though, no one reply it was jet fuel!

Facade slump possibly, but even then they'd be bending in, not out.

[edit on 21-3-2007 by gottago]

This photo is by DoD photographer Jim Garamone:

Post-collapse unfortunately. Note the left side of collapse are, to the north of the expansion joint dividing line, is still standing open. That's a good span, room enough for a left wing root and engine.
High Res original:

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Seeing as we now have evidence that the flight path was not as illustrated in that diagram then it tells us nothing other than it could not have been the aircraft that did that. Just my opinion of course.

All depends if you want to believe witnesses that you can see on video explaining what they saw, or some stranger on a website you have no idea really exists or was lying. It's hard to ignore at least what the two cops said, and independently drawing almost the exact same flight path as each other.

But even without that the damage is not consistent with a 757 impact imo.

What about the engine that was found outside the Pentagon. The one that came off when it hit the generator trailer. How would the engines make holes al the way through the rings if at least 1 engine was tore off and on the outside of the building.

I am still waiting to hear how an aluminum airframe was strong enough to punch through all the rings, but then was so fragile it was almost completely destroyed by fire. If the fire was hot enough to destroy the plane it would have also destryed the bodies and DNA evidence.

Engine found outside Pentagon
i22.photobucket.com...

i22.photobucket.com...



[edit on 21-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

well there were 4 witnesses (2 cops among them unless im mistook, which is possible) that plotted a different flight path.

but how many were there that support the official flight path? why didnt cit find any of them?

i dunno, those witnesses do make me at least question the official flight path more than i did honestly. im trying to keep an open mind about it all.

lol and a really paranoid person could always claim that cit's "witnesses" were actors and i know that for myself i couldnt prove otherwise. (im not really insinuating anything by that, just raising a point)

and as to the bowed beams, no, i wont even go there with the jet fuel, (other than the blast of course) but if "somethign" did a lot of structural damage to that part of the building, isnt it possible that those beams suddenly found themselves carrying more load than they were designed for and started to buckle? cant say for sure on that, as a combat engineer i was more interested in blowing things up than making them stay up. (other than our bridges which were pretty neat pieces of engineering in and of themselves, but we really didnt have to worry about those staying up, the designers did that for us)

Originally posted by gottago
CL

Your last pic (new to me) with the columns and fire is very strange. Columns #s 15-17 are bowed out, or at least partly to the left and out, but certainly NOT in.

WTH is going on there? Am I seeing that right?

Nope! But you're not the first. Almost everyone but me thinks those are columns. 15 and 17 maybe, but shredded. 15 might even be part of a tree. But 16 as explained above is somethng else, i'm 90% sure actually. APBPR said they were all three displaced but still attached at the top, hanging loose as it were No way. Engine hit AT the top of 16. It's slab.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
What about the engine that was found outside the Pentagon. The one that came off when it hit the generator trailer. How would the engines make holes al the way through the rings if at least 1 engine was tore off and on the outside of the building.

I've seen that "engine" before. Still don't get it. It looks like some kind of orange tarp or fabric somewhat rolled up? Plus a bent beam and some other debris and a car? What's supposed to be engine? Maybe I'm just dense..

I am still waiting to hear how an aluminum airframe was strong enough to punch through all the rings, but then was so fragile it was almost completely destroyed by fire. If the fire was hot enough to destroy the plane it would have also destryed the bodies and DNA evide

Quick gueses: plane penetrated the ONE heavy wall and outer columns, then exploded, partly scattered, heavy parts kept piercing, the aluminum blown back outside was found whole, that inside burned/melted pretty well being thin and scattered, heavvier parts surviving as we've seen (if we've looked). Bodies not so much so cause they're 60% water. Some I've seen deeper inside were reduced to charcoal, some others on the edges that burned less looked almost survivable. Plane victims? Unsure, but some look seated, with seats partly intact, which is a clue. How burnt does a body have to be before DNA is useless? I dunno...

Originally posted by Damocles
well there were 4 witnesses (2 cops among them unless im mistook, which is possible) that plotted a different flight path.
but how many were there that support the official flight path? why didnt cit find any of them? [...] a really paranoid person could always claim that cit's "witnesses" were actors and i know that for myself i couldnt prove otherwise. (im not really insinuating anything by that, just raising a point)

I openly admit I've got a paranoid streak. How else to explain four accounts so wrong actually halfway lining up? Randomness?

and as to the bowed beams, no, i wont even go there with the jet fuel, (other than the blast of course) but if "somethign" did a lot of structural damage to that part of the building, isnt it possible that those beams suddenly found themselves carrying more load than they were designed for and started to buckle?

Possibly just buckling, and we only see two, but they both buckle inward. Others I've seen also seem to show the plane's trajectory as well...

[edit on 21-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

And finally, for the final time, Oreilly:
This is Garamone's photo + Ingersol's photo merged to represent the damaged area. The joining is a tad rough... the plane is to scale, roughly (exact angle distortion guessed a bit). So the math isn't exact, but close to within a few feet. I made that last line, measured it by the others, and lo and behold 99.9 feet.

Possibly a bit less, or a bit more - say... 90-110 feet? Or is it more like sixteen?
SO what part of 100 foot hole do you still not get? I am not a learning disability specialist, and so hopefully you can finally see what I mean here. Otherwise you are in the wrong class.

Obviously it's going to be hard finding a good photo to make your point. The pics I saw were on a site dedicated to debunking any and all photos of Pentagon on 911. Author must have spent hours at it. I spent about 2 hours reviewing his work, very interesting by the way. The pics I refered to earlier were ones he wasn't able to debunk. He claims they were taken and released by the first responders who were at an auto accident scene near Pentagon, heard explosion saw smoke and were there within 10 min. One of the crew took pics and were released later that same day. Ive probably spent 30 hrs reviewing all the threads including catherders, and yours, I've tried unsuccessfully to retrace my steps to this paticular site so you wouldn't have to do more groping around in the dark, my appologies. Also one more thing, the doctored photo of the collapsed part of the building with the pre collapse foam covered facade, with the cartoon aircraft does more damage to you theory then anything else. The red line extending from left wing tip is unacceptable, it should be parrallel to the fuesalodge(spelling?), and using Newtons' law of physics an object in motion tends to remain in motion unless acted upon by an unbalenced force, the left wing should have continued in motion, even when the right wing and body of said aircraft contacted reinforced concrete and steel, and hit against the exterior far down the left side of the building, well beyond where the red line ends. Back again tomorrow Caustic, Infinity out.

Thanks. Yeah, this is about as far as i'm gonna go with this part.

Originally posted by infinityoreilly
Also one more thing, the doctored photo of the collapsed part of the building with the pre collapse foam covered facade, with the cartoon aircraft does more damage to you theory then anything else.

I'm glad I was able to help you retrace the source info for that graphic. Waht was doctored? These are the photos - I think I may've stretched 'em a tad by accident, but it doen't change the facts any does it? All that graphic was was unclear on source photos, and thanks for spurring me to sort that out...

The red line extending from left wing tip is unacceptable, it should be parrallel to the fuesalodge(spelling?), and using Newtons' law of physics an object in motion tends to remain in motion unless acted upon by an unbalenced force, the left wing should have continued in motion, even when the right wing and body of said aircraft contacted reinforced concrete and steel, and hit against the exterior far down the left side of the building, well beyond where the red line ends. Back again tomorrow Caustic, Infinity out.

?? The line continues right up to the wall... parallel? It's all parallel, that's called "perspective" there, where lines slowly merge to imply depth... Newton himself would probably see the wall as a pretty good counterforce... anyway, it's not my work. I only wish I could do that... contact Purdue University and tell them their graphics are unacceptable.

[edit on 21-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Plane victims? Unsure, but some look seated, with seats partly intact, which is a clue. How burnt does a body have to be before DNA is useless? I dunno...

[edit on 21-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Oh, so i guess the seats must have been fireproofed to survive a fire that destroyed most of the plane.

Moussaoui trial, Prosecution phase two exhibits P200045, P200047 (042 and 048 also show human remains, the ones in between seem to be most of the withheld ones, not listed, and probably also of Pentagon remains). View with discretion:
www.vaed.uscourts.gov... s/prosecution/P200045.html
www.vaed.uscourts.gov... s/prosecution/P200047.html

Okay, not really seats. I guess I remembered it a bit more clearly than it was... But in a seated position. If I was a building worker I wouldn't die sitting but running or standing in surprise at least. If I was on a plane and had no choice I would probably die seated.

Some kind of spring possibly from a seat (lap-level in 045)
Something like an airplane windowframe in 047 - sturdy enough? Maybe something else...
Other oddity: orange jump-suit?

So not a conclusive point at all, but this is a body from somewhere, DNA looks viable I'd guess, bodies on a plane in the fire might fare about as well. I remember these aliens on Star Trek that call Humans "bags of mostly water." So why are the claims of DNA recovery so unbelievble again?

[edit on 22-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 22-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

I realized about 2 months ago what is essentially being argued here. Was a crime committed by someone other than the people we were told committed it. The sick feeling it made in the middle of my soul was hard to shake off. Are very rich special intrest groups really heartless enough to kill that many people for monetary gain? The fact that there is not enough solid evidence to knock these theories out is the single most heartbreaking thing about 911. Please keep trying.

I'm a bit slow with some of these threads; no sooner have I read and thought about what I've read, has the subject moved along.

I'm not sure at all these are columns - see my expl here - column 16 in particular is where the right engine should've gone in officially, its upper half. No way a columns should be intact, and this doesn't look like a column, even tho the PBPR, FEMA, and others say it is. I thinks its a piece of facade or second floor slab that fell after the column was destroyed by the engine...

This was my single biggest problem when I first started looking into the Pentagon - where they said the engine should have gone, there was this "pillar" which should have been destroyed when hit at 500MPH by 6 tons of metal.

Your explanation/thoughts on what it actually is/might be clears that up. I can't see how it could possibly have been there pre-impact, and survive to be there post-impact. It has to have come from somewhere else in the building.

[edit on 22-3-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
So not a conclusive point at all, but this is a body from somewhere, DNA looks viable I'd guess, bodies on a plane in the fire might fare about as well. I remember these aliens on Star Trek that call Humans "bags of mostly water." So why are the claims of DNA recovery so unbelievble again?
[edit on 22-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Well first heat destroys DNA. Back in 2001 we did not have the DNA testing required to do testing on DNA that had been severly crushed or burned.

Thier were NIST DNA experts that came up with some new testing for the WTC but it was not ready untill 2002.

www.nist.gov...

Due to the nature of the World Trade Center disaster, it quickly became evident that traditional methods for performing DNA typing were not likely to be fully successful in identifying all of the recovered remains. Traditional DNA ID methods depend on the presence of long, intact segments of DNA in order to accurately type the sample. The DNA in many of the samples recovered in this situation were so fragmented that these standard methods were ineffective.

In early November 2001, Dr. Robert Shaler, the director of the WTC DNA identification effort, contacted me and asked if I would be willing to develop some new DNA tests to help in the identification effort. I agreed to fast track our research efforts over the next several months and produce some test materials for his laboratory to try by January 2002.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
This was my single biggest problem when I first started looking into the Pentagon - where they said the engine should have gone, there was this "pillar" which should have been destroyed when hit at 500MPH by 6 tons of metal.

Your explanation/thoughts on what it actually is/might be clears that up. I can't see how it could possibly have been there pre-impact, and survive to be there post-impact. It has to have come from somewhere else in the building.

I got that tip from Jim Hoffman. Then I added by thinking it's prob actually facade, not slab to be precise. So Jim, me, and you now? The "somewhere else" of course being right above. Here's a pic that shows what I think column 16 actually is (column lines 18-20 - imagine the same chunk from between 15 + 16):

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well first heat destroys DNA. Back in 2001 we did not have the DNA testing required to do testing on DNA that had been severly crushed or burned.

Thier were NIST DNA experts that came up with some new testing for the WTC but it was not ready untill 2002.

True enuff. I've herd that, DNA probs at WTC and new method. The question remains tho was that even needed at the Pentagon? A 110 story collpase on top of plane damage and fire would grind bodies up, the heat seen from space would do the rest over the next monthsof slow recovery.

At the Pentagon five stories fell and it only burned for a couple of days at lower temps I think. These were two different crime scenes. I'm not convinced yet.

[edit on 22-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]


[edit on 22-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 22-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
True enuff. I've herd that, DNA probs at WTC and new method. The question remains tho was that even needed at the Pentagon? A 110 story collpase on top of plane damage and fire would grind bodies up, the heat seen from space would do the rest over the next monthsof slow recovery.

At the Pentagon five stories fell and it only burned for a couple of days at lower temps I think. These were two different crime scenes. I'm not convinced yet.
[edit on 22-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Well i do beleive that if the fire was hot enough to completely destroy the plane inside the Pentagon i think thier would have been enough heat to destroy DNA evidence.