General Stubblebine Image Expert "Plane Does not Fit" Pentagon

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
If you reread my post, I explained how.

No, not really. If the nose gear was up inside the wheel well how did it cause so much damage.

What other parts are you talking about following it?


[edit on 29-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
No, not really. If the nose gear was up inside the wheel well how did it cause so much damage.

What other parts are you talking about following it?

Yes, I did. I explained that after the nose wheel punched through, it would create a hole that other parts could follow through and "erode" it to a larger size.

The nose wheel is part of the plane, isn't it?

Why would it matter if it was retracted or not?

Do you agree that the nose wheel could punch through the outer wall?

Other parts=the rest of the plane's fuselage, mechanical systems under the flight deck, etc.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Why would it matter if it was retracted or not?

If you knew anything about aircraft you would know.

If the nose wheel was retracted it would have been protected by harder parts of the plane including kevler gear doors.

So again how did the nose gear do serious damage if it was inside and protected by the wheel well?



[edit on 29-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
If you knew anything about aircraft you would know.

If the nose wheel was retracted it would have been protected by harder parts of the plane including kevler gear doors.

So again how did the nose gear do serious damage if it was inside and protected by the wheel well?

a- you don't know how much I know, so don't make assumptions.

b- yes, there are even more hardened parts that are associated with the nose wheel that would add mass to the front of the plane. I try to keep it simple for the layman.

c- like YOU said, there is even MORE mass available to punch through the outer wall. Thank you for briniging that up.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
c- like YOU said, there is even MORE mass available to punch through the outer wall. Thank you for briniging that up.

Please answer the question.

How did the nose wheel casue that much damage, and that big of a hole if it was retracted and protected?

How did it get out of the protected wheel well to cause that much damage?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
c- like YOU said, there is even MORE mass available to punch through the outer wall. Thank you for briniging that up.

Please answer the question.

How did the nose wheel casue that much damage, and that big of a hole if it was retracted and protected?

How did it get out of the protected wheel well to cause that much damage?

Ok, I'll keep it simple.

kinetic energy

Also when it first hit the wall the nosecone and the rest of the plane was intact. Whatever it's made of, a cone is a strong shape that transfers energy well. 90 tons of mass, 530 mph, and a 21" reinforced concrete column is gone as well as the nosecone if that's where the hit happened. A window pane or truss would be gone. Bricks, limestone, even the kevlar cloth would be moving away from the scene very fast, with the nosecone damaged but intact if that was the point hit. That's why 90 feet worth of outer wall was entirely removed on floor 1. Engines and fuselage at that angle are about 70-75 feet wide. After that the plane is breaking up and the damage will be more sporadic. 50+ columns were damaged, all bowed inward. The neat punch-out hole IS odd, but it was an odd event.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
kinetic energy

One more time.

Please explain how the nose gear caused the damage that is shown at the Pentagon.

If your next post does not explain this then you have admited it was not the nose gear that casued the damage.

[edit on 1-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Ok, I'll keep it simple. kinetic energy

Hey Cpt.Obvious you must have missed physics class the day they explained kinetic energy?

You seem to think it has 'power' of some kind?

Kinetic energy is energy of motion. The kinetic energy of an object is the energy it possesses because of its motion.

Source

All kinetic energy is is motion, as soon as an object hits another object kinetic energy is lost to resistance and friction. It has no power to propel anything or penetrate walls.

This is second laugh I've had today. Gravity and kinetic energy is all it takes to globally collapse buildings, and send 757's crashing through reinforced walls leaving very little debris and a small hole Yeah 'pull' the other one mate... What planet did you go to school on?

Edit; you should email Controlled Demolition Inc., and let them know they don't need to bother with expensive time consuming explosives anymore. You have a new way that allows three buildings to be demolished on the same day! Think of the time and money they'll save. Amazing! They should hire you mate...

[edit on 1/5/2008 by ANOK]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
kinetic energy

One more time.

Please explain how the nose gear caused the damage that is shown at the Pentagon.

If your next post does not explain this then you have admited it was not the nose gear that casued the damage.

[edit on 1-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

One last time.

Kinetic energy.

Your failure to understand the simplicity of this answer does not mean that I haven't explained it.

It merely demonstrates your failure to understand.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Whatever it's made of, a cone is a strong shape that transfers energy well.

Oh yes the fibre glass nose is sooo strong...



That must have been a Kevlar reinforced bird...

Also, two colliding objects hit each other with equal force no matter how fast one is moving, so the stronger object will win regardless of speed. Think of that F-4 hitting the concrete wall the other way around.
Stationary plane and moving wall. Would the outcome be different? Or will the plane still be smashed to pieces by the wall? Think about that and then put it into context with the pentagoon.
Another point to think about, if the nose cone was strong enough to break through the reinforced wall where did it go? Where did the rest of the planes fuselage go? Not to mention wings and tail section, engines etc. There was nothing beyond that first wall that would have destroyed the plane. You can't have it both ways, either the plane broke through and should still be somewhat recognisable as a plane, or it wouldn't break through and in the extreme do what that F-4 did.
Another point do you really think if the nose cone could make a hole that the engines would be obliterated? It's like you use one argument for the nose cone and a contradicting one for the engine and wings. Again you can't have it both ways.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
One last time. Kinetic energy...

This must be comedy hour? Seriously dude you are just digging yourself a huge hole here. It's obvious you don't know what you're saying. And you do it with so much confidence.

And you probably think we don't know who you are..lol

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Kinetic energy.

NO, kinetic energy does not explain how the nose gear caused all the damage shown if it was retracted into the wheel well.

So please explain how it caused the damage without the BS of kinetic energy.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

NO, kinetic energy does not explain how the nose gear caused all the damage shown if it was retracted into the wheel well.

So please explain how it caused the damage without the BS of kinetic energy.

Ok, I'll make even simpler for you then.

Plane biiiig.

Plane have heavy thiiiiings.

Plane go faaaaaaaaast.

Plane fly looooow.

Uh oh, plane hit wall!!

Wall fall down, go boom.

Understand it now?

reply to post by Seymour Butz


Not that I'm even keeping up with this discussion but consider this:


Plane big and heavy.

Plane fast.

Plane hits wall.

Wall turns into blueberry jelly.

I can say whatever the hell I damned well please and it doesn't change reality.

Do you understand?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Not that I'm even keeping up with this discussion but consider this:

Then perhaps you SHOULD read up, and understand the dichotomy fallacy that ULTIMA1 is proposing.

Then come back and post something useful.

reply to post by Seymour Butz


Your "reasoning" is totally fallacious regardless of the facts. I don't have to read the specific information to know that. I don't even care what hit the Pentagon.

www.nizkor.org...


You do realize you aren't making a sound case at all, right? Just stating your way of looking at things? And there is a difference?

[edit on 1-5-2008 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
[ regardless of the facts.

^Well, this is typical.^

So I guess you don't see the fallacy him asking, "How did the nose wheel casue that much damage, and that big of a hole if it was retracted and protected? " ........ without first determining whether or not the nose wheel is retracted would have any effect?

There's the false dichotomy. There are many possibilities between the 2 extremes that we all know will be the crux of his argument. His style is known.

His argument will be this:

1- the nose wheel was retracted and protected by the wheel well, therefore it couldn't have caused the damage.

then he will ask me to prove:

2- that the nose wheel was extended. Because he will assert without evidence that is the only way it could have punched through the wall.

Of course there will be his own personal appeal to authority because of his time as a Phantom crew chief. But of course when you make a statement about how the Phantom was mostly made of steel just to further an argument, a statement which has proven to be false and he continues to defend, the appeal to authority goes out the window.


Hope this clears it up for you why I know his question here to a fallacious one.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Understand it now?

Let me make it simple for you.

HOW...DID...NOSE...GEAR...CAUSE...ALL...THE...DAMAGE...SHOWN ?

Can you answer the question, YES or NO ?

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Of course there will be his own personal appeal to authority because of his time as a Phantom crew chief. But of course when you make a statement about how the Phantom was mostly made of steel just to further an argument, a statement which has proven to be false and he continues to defend, the appeal to authority goes out the window.

I am still waiting on evindece to support the claim that the nose wheel caused the damage at the Pentagon.

I have proven that the F-4 has a large percentage of steel. Why do you guys have to lie ?

[edit on 2-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]