Bodies strapped to seats on AA77, Pentagon?

Originally posted by SPreston

posted by Seymour Butz
Yes or no -

Would any wall strong enough to protect her from the massive overpressure from any alleged explosives strong enough to breach the reinforced wall be strong enough to protect her from aircraft debris?

We're not discussing whether or not there was a plane. Let's limit the discussion to this single point for now.

Obfuscation on your part proves that you lose your argument....

So now you wish to pretend that liquid jet fuel is not a factor, and you will lump it all in with 'aircraft debris'?

Have fun.

No, that's fine. Include the fuel along with the aircraft debris if you wish.

So, will you now answer my very simple question? Or will you continue to dodge?

Yes or no -

Would any wall strong enough to protect her from the massive overpressure from any alleged explosives strong enough to breach the reinforced wall be strong enough to protect her from aircraft debris and being covered in jet fuel?

Originally posted by SPreston
So now you wish to pretend that liquid jet fuel is not a factor, and you will lump it all in with 'aircraft debris'?

Have fun.

posted by Seymour Butz
No, that's fine. Include the fuel along with the aircraft debris if you wish.

So, will you now answer my very simple question? Or will you continue to dodge?

Yes or no -

Would any wall strong enough to protect her from the massive overpressure from any alleged explosives strong enough to breach the reinforced wall be strong enough to protect her from aircraft debris and being covered in jet fuel?

No. The jet fuel would be liquid and perhaps already on fire, and you defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory claim your 757 pierced the wall along its entire wingspan. April Gallup said NO JET FUEL. If there had been an aircraft impact such as envisioned by the official fairy tale, the jet fuel would have entered the building and enveloped April and Elijah and burned them up. The jet fuel would have splattered everything in its path. But there was no sign of jet fuel anywhere was there?

In actuality there was originally only a 16-18 foot hole through the wall until they deliberately collapsed the roof with explosives about a half hour later. The original explosive blasting the 16-18 foot hole through the wall and emanating from a construction trailer would have been directional, and April and Elijah off to the side of the directional blast would have been protected by the remaining wall from the blast's direct effects.

They still experienced the collapsing ceiling and other rubble caused by the explosion(s), but no jet fuel. April Gallup witnessed no jet fuel at all, either inside nor outside.

Also the five 247 pound light poles should have ruptured the wing tanks at 535 mph, but there was no sign of jet fuel nor burning grass out on the lawn. No sign of jet fuel anywhere. Perhaps the 9-11 perps blew some fuel/air bombs further inside the Pentagon to create the illusion of burning jet fuel.

Below is how this defender of the 9-11 perps partner of yours, represented the jet fuel through the area April Gallup was sitting at her desk in.

Originally posted by SPreston

No. The jet fuel would be liquid and perhaps already on fire,

Your claim is this -

1-the interior wall protected her from the massive overpressure of an alleged blast powerful enough to breach the newly reinforced exterior wall.

2- the interior wall would not have protected her from being covered in jet fuel EVEN THOUGH THE AIRCRAFT DEBRIS DID NOT BREACH THAT SAME WALL, since she would have been killed outright if the debris in fact had breached "her" protective wall, since as you point out, she was in line with the debris field.

Is this correct?

LEAVE this alone! We will NEVER know the truth!!!! We need to move on after all these years. You can make yourself crazy. No disrespect intended.

posted by SPreston
No. The jet fuel would be liquid and perhaps already on fire,

posted by Seymour Butz
Your claim is this -

1-the interior wall protected her from the massive overpressure of an alleged blast powerful enough to breach the newly reinforced exterior wall.

2- the interior wall would not have protected her from being covered in jet fuel EVEN THOUGH THE AIRCRAFT DEBRIS DID NOT BREACH THAT SAME WALL, since she would have been killed outright if the debris in fact had breached "her" protective wall, since as you point out, she was in line with the debris field.

Is this correct?

Nope. You have everything totally turned around.

There is no interior wall. I said nothing about an interior wall. The interior wall in the 1st story is way over at the C-Ring wall way past April, 2 rings away.

I claim there was no aircraft. I claim an explosion in a construction trailer breeched a single hole through the Pentagon exterior wall. I claim that April was off to the side of the 16-18 ft breech through the wall and the remainder of the exterior wall protected her from direct damage from the explosion. There is no aircraft debris in my scenario; only shattered debris from the construction trailer and maybe pieces of the exterior wall. There were partitions in the office area which would have given a minimum of protection. Maybe a heavy column or two also stood between April and the blast hole and helped protect her.

You guys claim a 90 ton 535 mph 757 aircraft filled with jet fuel hit the wall and punctured multiple holes or one wide 100 ft hole through the exterior wall into the area where April was sitting at her desk. In your scenario, the jet fuel in the ruptured wing tanks would continue through your breeches through the wall and splash over April and burn her up. In your scenario the pieces of aircraft debris would continue through the wall breeches and slice April to ribbons. Your scenario obviously did not happen.

Look at the simulation below. April would be sitting in the short distance about 3 columns in, where they have it burning with jet fuel. Those are your partners in defending the Official Conspiracy Theory. Don't you like their efforts? You guys need to stick together if you wish to be successful in your defense of the 9-11 perps.

April saw no aircraft debris; no seats; no baggage; no passengers; no jet fuel. Neither she nor the others she helped rescue were soaked in jet fuel nor were they burned.
no jet fuel = no jet aircraft

We do not know exactly how they breeched the exterior wall. The hole is round similar to a shaped military wall breeching charge. 90 tons of inertia impacting the steel reinforced Pentagon wall at 535 mph would have transferred the impact across a large area of the entire reinforced exterior wall. But it did not. Many windows were not even broken right near the 16-18 ft hole. The upper storys are barely scratched. NO AIRCRAFT!!

The Purdue simulation shows your scenario; not mine.





[edit on 10/22/08 by SPreston]

posted by PammyK
LEAVE this alone! We will NEVER know the truth!!!! We need to move on after all these years. You can make yourself crazy. No disrespect intended.

Maybe you don't care, but I will never give up seeking justice for the murdered victims of the 9-11 planners. If we create enough waves, just maybe they will hesitate to ever try this treason again. It could be your loved ones or mine, who were not sacrificed in another skyscraper or nuclear power plant or entire city.

I served my nation in Nam and my brothers were sacrificed and abandoned in that war. If we just give up and do nothing, then their sacrifices would be wasted. The American people are worth fighting for; but not our corrupt government.

"Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is a force, like fire: a dangerous servant and a terrible master".
~ George Washington p1789-1797

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
~Thomas Jefferson p1801-1809

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
~James Madison p1809-1817

Originally posted by SPreston

There is no interior wall.

This doesn't help out your claim at all that there allegedly were explosives that breached the ext wall.

So you're saying that there was NOTHING to shield her from the massive overpressure from these alleged explosives?

And she was 40 ft away? She would have been killed outright by that amount of overpressure, nevermind that masonry shrapnel that would have cut her to ribbons.

The sheer lunacy of this claim is indicative of the delusional behavior that desperate individuals will go to in order to enforce some kind of self worth.

Probably better that you go back to the Loose Change forum where challenges to this kind of stupidity gets deleted before you make a laughingstock of yourself.

reply to post by Seymour Butz



(The sheer lunacy of this claim is indicative of the delusional behavior that desperate individuals will go to in order to enforce some kind of self worth.

Probably better that you go back to the Loose Change forum where challenges to this kind of stupidity gets deleted before you make a laughingstock of yourself.)


'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your comments or opinions fail to offer any meaningful dialog or information, and are worthless except to pander to emotionalism, and in fact, reveal you to be emotionally insecure with these matters. If you do not like reading 'this crap', why do you frequent this thread which is clearly for the purpose of such discussion? Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics!



[edit on 10/22/2008 by cashlink]

posted by SPreston
Nope. You have everything totally turned around.

There is no interior wall. I said nothing about an interior wall. The interior wall in the 1st story is way over at the C-Ring wall way past April, 2 rings away.

April saw no aircraft debris; no seats; no baggage; no passengers; no jet fuel. Neither she nor the others she helped rescue were soaked in jet fuel nor were they burned.
no jet fuel = no jet aircraft

posted by Seymour Butz
The sheer lunacy of this claim is indicative of the delusional behavior that desperate individuals will go to in order to enforce some kind of self worth.

The lunacy is entirely yours and your kind because you believe April Gallup and her baby boy could survive a 90 ton 535 mph aircraft filled with burning jet fuel driving through her personal office space.

reply to post by cashlink


Not to mention one of the supposed terrorist's passports just conveniantly on the street a few blocks away.

Originally posted by SPreston

The lunacy is entirely yours

Yes, you win.

What was I thinking.

Being 40 ft away from explosives powerful enough to breach an 18", newly reinforced wall is totally safe.

Makes you wonder how bombs work at all, eh?

They blow, buildings are destroyed, but people go unscathed.

Originally posted by cashlink

If you do not like reading 'this crap', why do you frequent this thread which is clearly for the purpose of such discussion?

Because I find the delusional behavior of troofers to be interesting.

And it gives me a chance to use my psychology minor to try and figure out what is wrong with their thought processes.

PLEASE reply to my post now, you are providing more material for me to research than I ever thought was possible....

reply to post by Seymour Butz


Reply! You have not answered any of my question to anything, but ridicule everyone!
What is your point?

reply to post by cashlink


I thought I made that clear.

My point is to counter the ridiculous 9/11 CT's, and to research into the inner workings of the delusional mind that is so drawn to the 9/11 CT's.

reply to post by Seymour Butz


(Because I find the delusional behavior of troofers to be interesting.)

No, you do not care about the truth about anything, you have demonstrated that very clearly in most of your posting.

You may want to examine your own behavior.
If you find delusional behavior interesting, then I would sagest you get some help!

reply to post by Seymour Butz


My point is to counter the ridiculous 9/11 CT's, and to research into the inner workings of the delusional mind that is so drawn to the 9/11 CT's.


So far you have “not” counter anything here.
You are not a Doctor so stop trying to be one .

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
My point is to counter the ridiculous 9/11 CT's, and to research into the inner workings of the delusional mind that is so drawn to the 9/11 CT's.

Seymour, do you remember this quote from page 7 of this thread?

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by tezzajw
While the complete sum of proof that you have offered to prove your claims is... nothing.

That's correct.

How have you countered the 'ridiculous 9/11 CT's' when you admit that you have not offered any proof. You could not prove that there were bodies found strapped to airline seats.

Perhaps a more introspective examination of your own 'delusions' and failings might be a better topic for you to study for your psyche research?

Originally posted by tezzajw

How have you countered the 'ridiculous 9/11 CT's' when you admit that you have not offered any proof. You could not prove that there were bodies found strapped to airline seats.

This is better, someone that actually has the intelligence to make some sense in their posts. Thank you for stepping up.

"Counter" means that I offer alternative explanations.... or specifically in Spreston's case , raise doubts about the validity of his claims that a person could be 40 ft away from an alleged blast - that was allegedly originated in a tralier that was parked 20+ ft away from the exterior of the building - and not be killed by the massive overpressure and masonry shrapnel from this ludircous scenario. See, in this case, he's making a positive claim, and how this works is I make "counter" points. This is the nature of adult discussion. We will never agree, but a claim was made, and a counter was also made. Ya follow?

As regards your delusional denailism, you made no positive claims, but are asking me to prove something to you. I see no point in playing that game, since you will delusionally deny any evidence given. You have a track record of this, so it is not speculation on my part. You make no positive claim....... I am happy with the generally accepted evidence...... There is nothing for me to do here.

This denislism you display is similar to your good buddy Ultima1 over at JREF right now. He's questioning the validity of photos, saying that they can't be used in court, even though he's been shown that those very photos WERE IN FACT USED IN COURT. What's the point of engaging someone like that? That person is just a disgusting troll, or such a basketcase that they are incapable of accepting evidence that goes against the delusional construct that they have built for themselves. This is where I have placed you in my list of troofers until you can show a change in behavior. You are not worthy of my time.

As an aside, there's medications you can take for this. Anxiety, etc are behaviors that are actually "learned" by the brain. Repetitive worrying over a subject will construct and enforce the pathways that make this such a debilitating condition. Products like Lexapro - an MOIA inhibitor - prevent the recycling of the chemical messengers that are responsible. Blocking this recycling allows the brain to slowly deconstruct these pathways that many find so debilitating. Denialism can also be handled in the same way.

reply to post by SPreston


So let me get this straight:
There was no way the woman and boy could survive an airplane impact nearby, but they could easily survive an extremely highly powerful explosive which punched through the Pentagon' walls, just 40ft away? And their internal organs weren't liquefied by the overpressure blast or deafened or struck by any high velocity debris that comes from a high power explosive, in an enclosed space?

I have to ask you this as well:
Do you know how explosives work? At all?

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
As regards your delusional denailism, you made no positive claims, but are asking me to prove something to you.

Correct. I asked questions about the bodies allegedly being strapped to airline seats. I did not make this claim - others did, while others also support it. I asked for some proof and I got none.

I see no point in playing that game, since you will delusionally deny any evidence given.

You're predicting actions that I have not yet made, Seymour. Why? You refuse to prove that bodies were found strapped to airline seats. Why?

You make no positive claim....... I am happy with the generally accepted evidence...... There is nothing for me to do here.

I don't need to make a positive claim about anything. I am questioning the claims made by others. You do know what a question is, right?

You already admitted that you can't prove that bodies were found strapped to airline seats. That claim can not be supported without evidence.

This denislism you display is similar to your good buddy Ultima1 over at JREF right now. He's questioning the validity of photos... (snip)

Off topic and bordering on breaking the T&Cs of this website.

This is where I have placed you in my list of troofers until you can show a change in behavior.

Labelling me as a 'troofer' is a potential breach of T&Cs of this website. Be very careful that you're not warned for it.

You are not worthy of my time.

Yet, even after admitting that you can not support the claim that there were bodies found strapped to airline seats, you still spend your time replying to me, in this thread.

In case you don't realise, Seymour, that's a contradiction. If I was not worth your time, then you would simply not respond to me.

As an aside, there's medications you can take for this... (snip)

Again, it's all off-topic and it handwaves the fact that you can not prove there were bodies strapped to airline seats, but you choose to believe it.

I'll give you some free advice, stay on topic. You're dangerously close to being warned. I know it and you know it too. The moderators are on top of this thread.