the hole in the pentagon..is the big hole in the 911 story

reply to post by kidtwist


Nope. It still would gave shown up on the radar at Reagan. Besides, the tower crew at Reagan wouldn't need the transponder to use their eyeballs to see it.

reply to post by homervb


You and the other conspiracy types seem to be operating under the delusion that turning off the transponder
renders the plane invisible to ATC radar

It doesn't - what it does is remove the ID tag and altitude information that the transponder reports back to
ATC giving them information on who/where the plane is

The plane can still be tracked by what is called the primary return or "skin paint" as the beam is reflected
off the plane

Originally posted by kidtwist

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by kidtwist

 

No,my job is fixing F-16s. And, based on your posts to date, it is highly unlikely that you have more accurate information about the Pentagon than I do.

ok, you could have any credentials, and I certainly would not believe someone on a forum that has not shown one ounce of those credentials at any point in time. I could say i'm a rocket scientist!

I

I'm pretty certain WE dont think you would be a rocket scientist but if you want to talk about the buildings I have 30+ yrs in construction on the technical side starting of for a structural steelwork firm then working on site testing structural fixings you know the things that help hold buildings up/together.

So lets see your superduper Pentagon info

reply to post by thedman


LOL..the 'explanations' that try & explain away the OS get more bizarre by the day

Landing gear made the hole eh? Honestly, you would be better off claiming Pinocchio made the hole. At least theres a few people around here that believe in him.

reply to post by Nonchalant


What did they find in the alley just outside the hole in the wall?




Its a piece of the forward landing gear ......

Here is the forward landing gear assembly of a Boeing 757

reply to post by thedman


That's a main assembly.

OSers constantly state that skeptics have no logical thinking process. So, let's turn to a non-truther/expert's understanding:

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - Pentagon - Popular Mechanics

So an expert who doesn't believes in in a conspiracy has stated this. But then we get this testimony from someone who was actually there:

Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - Pentagon - Popular Mechanics

Even experts who do not believe in a conspiracy cannot get their facts to align with the testimony. Is it really that "ludicrous" to question the events of 9/11?

Originally posted by homervb
Even experts who do not believe in a conspiracy cannot get their facts to align with the testimony. Is it really that "ludicrous" to question the events of 9/11?

Yes it is, actually. Scores of eyewitnesses specifically saw it was a plane that hit the Pentagon, wreckage found in and around the Pentagon shows it came from a plane, the effects from the passengers known to have been on flight 77 were recovered, and even the flight recorder identifying it as being flight 77 was found. Despite all this evidence, you instead want to believe this "no plane" theory invented by some French guy who never even stepped foot in America to sell a bunch of books.

What gets me is that you have ZERO qualifications in structural engineering, ZERO experience in crash site forensics, and ZERO experience in aircraft design, and yet you're somehow magically coming up with all this expertise in insisting you know what would happen when a plane of that specific design crashed in that specific way into a building of that specific architecture. Combined with junk science the truthers are throwing around like "dustification of steel", ludicrous doesn't even begin to describe what the truthers are doing..

reply to post by homervb


Pardon me.. Would you please explain what is in conflict between those two accounts that you posted? Exactly what is it that bothers you about them?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by homervb
Even experts who do not believe in a conspiracy cannot get their facts to align with the testimony. Is it really that "ludicrous" to question the events of 9/11?

Yes it is, actually. Scores of eyewitnesses specifically saw it was a plane that hit the Pentagon, wreckage found in and around the Pentagon shows it came from a plane, the effects from the passengers known to have been on flight 77 were recovered, and even the flight recorder identifying it as being flight 77 was found. Despite all this evidence, you instead want to believe this "no plane" theory invented by some French guy who never even stepped foot in America to sell a bunch of books.

What gets me is that you have ZERO qualifications in structural engineering, ZERO experience in crash site forensics, and ZERO experience in aircraft design, and yet you're somehow magically coming up with all this expertise in insisting you know what would happen when a plane of that specific design crashed in that specific way into a building of that specific architecture. Combined with junk science the truthers are throwing around like "dustification of steel", ludicrous doesn't even begin to describe what the truthers are doing..

This is why I quoted Popular Mechanics DAVE...I never stated a plane did not hit the Pentagon . I simply said we have every right to question the events. You really do need to find a new hobby. Using your free time to do something you don't enjoy is very illogical. Now, you said that I thought I was some kind of expert, right? Here's my source Mr. GOD.

www.popularmechanics.com...

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report
The following content is from an in-depth investigation of the conspiracy theories surround the attacks of 9/11, which was published in the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics. That cover story was expanded and published in August 2006 as a book titled Debunking 9/11 Myths. The fully revised and updated 2011 edition of the book is now on sale.

So how bout you step down from your broken-record "sinister secret agents" mentality & get off this damn fool conspiracy website? I quoted EXPERTS...lmao..Dave you really do need to get off this message board.

Even experts who do not believe in a conspiracy cannot get their facts to align with the testimony. Is it really that "ludicrous" to question the events of 9/11?

Where do you see a no plane theory stated here? Come on GOD, you can only fabricate those words, because I never once stated that. It's quite clear the only reason your here is to repeat the same things over and over, get frustrated, and come back 100 more times through the day to blow off some more steam. If you know for a fact exactly what happened at the Pentagon then you literally have no purpose in joining in this thread.

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by homervb

 

Pardon me.. Would you please explain what is in conflict between those two accounts that you posted? Exactly what is it that bothers you about them?

Could be that one expert (non-truther) says the plane essentially turned to liquid while this on-site witness was holding body parts that were supposedly liquid.

Originally posted by homervb

Could be that one expert (non-truther) says the plane essentially turned to liquid while this on-site witness was holding body parts that were supposedly liquid.

At high velocities, gasses act as liquid, liquids act as a solid, and solids act as a liquid. It doesn't mead they stay that way when they stop.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by homervb

Could be that one expert (non-truther) says the plane essentially turned to liquid while this on-site witness was holding body parts that were supposedly liquid.

At high velocities, gasses act as liquid, liquids act as a solid, and solids act as a liquid. It doesn't mead they stay that way when they stop.

So it turned to liquid and managed to reshape itself back into a solid in it's original form? The uniforms of the airline employees were turned to liquid and then reshaped back to look exactly like uniforms? As well as the body parts?

Whatever dude. I'm not a scholar, but I don't think you need to be one to understand there's something wrong with that. And my point in my post wasn't to say there was no plane. My point was to show even experts theories do no work well with the on-site witnesses (Neither of which are sinister secret agents or truthers) which gives us a right to question the events of that day

Originally posted by homervb
So it turned to liquid and managed to reshape itself back into a solid in it's original form? The uniforms of the airline employees were turned to liquid and then reshaped back to look exactly like uniforms? As well as the body parts?

Whatever dude. I'm not a scholar, but I don't think you need to be one to understand there's something wrong with that

edit on 14-6-2012 by homervb because: (no reason given)

No. What is being said is that it act as a liquid. His statement wasn't fully accurate anyway. What is meant is that liquids are modelled as a large number of small particles moving nearly at random so that in aggregate they form a mass which can do substantial damage, but has practically no structural rigidity.

That's what happens to the plane once it hits an object. It is very quickly broken up into thousands and thousands of small parts, all with significant energy. They will hit objects in the building and rebound, but because there is so many of them and so many interactions it's impossible to model directly. Instead it is modelled as a liquid with the same mass as the plane. (It's not always strictly done this way but it is the principle being espoused)

This is what is being talked about, there's no actual transmutation of the elements, but because there are millions of them all interacting chaotically it cannot be modelled by taking each part individually. I hope that explains things for you.

Originally posted by homervb

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by homervb

 

Pardon me.. Would you please explain what is in conflict between those two accounts that you posted? Exactly what is it that bothers you about them?

Could be that one expert (non-truther) says the plane essentially turned to liquid while this on-site witness was holding body parts that were supposedly liquid.

Do you seriously not know what a simile is? These two people are not actually saying anything different. One is merely using a simile to simplify what happened for a layman while the other is more physically descriptive of what he actually found.. It's simply a difference in how they are explaining what they found as opposed to a difference in what they think happened.

Do you not know anything at all about Chemistry or Physics to understand that a solid doesn't actually turn into a liquid because of a collision with a solid object?

Edit: Ah, I see exponent has explained it perhaps a little more clearly. I totally agree with what exponent says.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by homervb
So it turned to liquid and managed to reshape itself back into a solid in it's original form? The uniforms of the airline employees were turned to liquid and then reshaped back to look exactly like uniforms? As well as the body parts?

Whatever dude. I'm not a scholar, but I don't think you need to be one to understand there's something wrong with that

edit on 14-6-2012 by homervb because: (no reason given)

No. What is being said is that it act as a liquid. His statement wasn't fully accurate anyway. What is meant is that liquids are modelled as a large number of small particles moving nearly at random so that in aggregate they form a mass which can do substantial damage, but has practically no structural rigidity.

That's what happens to the plane once it hits an object. It is very quickly broken up into thousands and thousands of small parts, all with significant energy. They will hit objects in the building and rebound, but because there is so many of them and so many interactions it's impossible to model directly. Instead it is modelled as a liquid with the same mass as the plane. (It's not always strictly done this way but it is the principle being espoused)

This is what is being talked about, there's no actual transmutation of the elements, but because there are millions of them all interacting chaotically it cannot be modelled by taking each part individually. I hope that explains things for you.

What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass.

It's state was more of a liquid than a solid mass