9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

reply to post by weedwhacker I want to take a moment to step back from this 'debate'...... The entire discussion about the 9/11 issue...call it '9/11 MADNESS' if you wish...seems to miss the point of the TRAGEDY of that day. People died on that day. Citizens, innocents, people who had nothing to do with any war. I'm afraid we get lost in the rhetoric of the discussion, and tend to forget the fact that people died, needlessly. What I am struck by, is how some argue about the attacks, and callously forget that AA77 had, onboard, a group of CHILDREN, from a local DC school, excited about their trip to Los Angeles. If you wish to believe that our Government, however twisted they may be, however corrupt they may be, would intentionally and knowingly sacrifice CHILDREN in an operation to promote an invasion of Iraq, as part of 9/11, then I would ask you to sit down and take a deep breath, and think about it. The Human tragedy has been lost, IMO, in these discussions. I have presented, to the best of my ability, given the forum we are restricted to, my impressions of that day. I present my knowledge and experience, since I have many thousands of hours in the B757 and B767. I try to be patient, and explain as best I can, when others post and obviously are posting nonsense...but, I am only one person. I really hate to see BS being spread around the Internet...and ATS is heads above all of the sites out here...so I especially hate to see BS on ATS. Sorry if 'BS' is offensive to anyone...I am just trying to make a point. Thanks.... edit to add...I actually did have several paragraphs, I indented and everything, so sorry that the result looks like a run-on sentence! [edit on 7-2-2008 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker That is exactly why I never bought the "official" reports at face value. I knew they were lies from day one. I started and continue to investigate precisely because of the human lives involved. Who are you to blatantly imply I do not care about humanity. That is exactly what you just did with another unnecessary red herring. I am also fully aware of that discussion. I posted in it. It would have been much more reasonable of you, if you had simply honestly stated you could not logically explain how something too big to enter a specific size hole entered it anyway, without breaking out veritical load bearing supports to enlarge it. That could have been done many posts ago, and avoided all the red herring and ad hominem you, instead, choose to sling.

reply to post by weedwhacker Hi Weed, Your post is similar as to what we as skeptics of the 911 truth movment say. Many truthers disrespect the victims, family members, and first responders. The rant about silly stuff like hollograms. Then accuse firefighters as being in and it. Phone calls are "morphed", missiles and flyovers at the pentagon and shanksville, the list goes on and on. The OP of this thread signed sealed and delivered the facts of what happened at the Pentagon. Based on this, there is no question in my mind what happened.

Originally posted by OrionStars reply to post by weedwhacker

 

That is exactly why I never bought the "official" reports at face value. I knew they were lies from day one. I started and continue to investigate precisely because of the human lives involved. Who are you to blatantly imply I do not care about humanity. That is exactly what you just did with another unnecessary red herring. I am also fully aware of that discussion. I posted in it. It would have been much more reasonable of you, if you had simply honestly stated you could not logically explain how something too big to enter a specific size hole entered it anyway, without breaking out veritical load bearing supports to enlarge it. That could have been done many posts ago, and avoided all the red herring and ad hominem you, instead, choose to sling.

OS, I don't know where you are, or wher you live. I am tired of your continued use of 'ad hominem' and 'red herring'...(a term I USED first, the 'red herring' term...now you want to use it against me?)... The Shuttle Altantis MECO just occured...a safe launch!!!!

reply to post by CaptainObvious CO, Thanks for our post...I am still a little puzzled as to your point. Please clarify, thanks!

Originally posted by weedwhacker OS, I don't know where you are, or wher you live. I am tired of your continued use of 'ad hominem' and 'red herring'...(a term I USED first, the 'red herring' term...now you want to use it against me?)...

Where I reside has nothing to do with those words. Why you believe it does, I have no idea. If that is not what you meant, it was clearly stated that is not what you meant. Those words originate as defintions of logical fallacy, which you have consistently used when addressing my posts. If you are tired of the continuous use of those words, please do not address my posts again using illogical fallacies.

reply to post by OrionStars Correction: Where the words illogical fallacies apperar at the end of my previous post, they should read logical fallacies.

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by weedwhacker OS, I don't know where you are, or wher you live. I am tired of your continued use of 'ad hominem' and 'red herring'...(a term I USED first, the 'red herring' term...now you want to use it against me?)...

Where I reside has nothing to do with those words. Why you believe it does, I have no idea. If that is not what you meant, it was clearly stated that is not what you meant. Those words originate as defintions of logical fallacy, which you have consistently used when addressing my posts. If you are tired of the continuous use of those words, please do not address my posts again using illogical fallacies.

This, I use as an example of your, OrionStars, continued use of these boards to obfuscate and ingore valid questions. When your most clearly held 'beliefs' are challenged, you resort to the term 'ad hominem'...it is the refuge of a coward, SIR!! I first offerred, for your enjoyment, the term 'red herring'. ANYONE who wishes to review older posts will see that YOU, SIR! ...did not use the phrase 'red herring' until I wrote it in a post.... Of course, not...you love that phrase, the one I offered. I daresay you will be using it over and over again, in other posts.... OK, carry on!

reply to post by weedwhacker Weed ~ Simple point I was trying to make. Many truthers sicken me for the disrespect they have for the victims and their families. Some leaders of the truth movement have stated that the FDNY should be charged with Manslaughter. Heck, some even questioned the existance of the people who died. Thats about it~ C.O.

reply to post by OrionStars Once again, OS, You refuse to answer any questions...valid questions posed of you. You, SIR, are a fraud!! I stand by that statement, because I KNOW who I am. I have demonstrated my knowledge and skill-set in many posts. You, SIR, have yet to demonstrate your credentials. Once I am convinced you are an intellectual, I will begin to treat you as such. Until then, you are not credible. Sorry to be so blunt.

Originally posted by weedwhacker This, I use as an example of your, OrionStars, continued use of these boards to obfuscate and ingore valid questions. When your most clearly held 'beliefs' are challenged, you resort to the term 'ad hominem'...it is the refuge of a coward, SIR!!

You have received qualified answers. The fact you reject those answers, while refusing to answer topic questions presented to yourself, by deliberately going off on irrelevant tangents, is quite clear in the exchanges made between us. You are once again deliberatley derailing this topic. I have asked you several times how an object, much larger than a specific size hole, can possibly penetrate and enlarge that hole to allow complete entry, without knocking out vertical load bearing supports of the Pentagon. You have consistently gone off on irrelevant tangents to avoid answering the obvious, including your above partially cited post. The obvious is: It cannot. The proof is the pictures of the wall of Pentagon, with no hole large enough to accommodate and allow complete entry of a Boeing 757.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Weed ~ Simple point I was trying to make. Many truthers sicken me for the disrespect they have for the victims and their families. Some leaders of the truth movement have stated that the FDNY should be charged with Manslaughter. Heck, some even questioned the existance of the people who died. Thats about it~ C.O.

Thanks, C.O. I think I made it painfully clear, in an earlier post, that we have seemed to have lost sight of the incredible loss of the survivors... THAT is why I cannot let these falsehoods stand...when nonsense about how airplanes fly is spouted, I have to stand up and cry 'FOUL'!! I am not thinking, in that moment, about the victims. That comes later. I am thinking, in that moment, about the false science, the nonsense that is being promoted on the Internet, when it relates to how airplanes fly, and aerodynamics, and how airlines work (behind the scenes..). There is an old adage that comes to mind, various authors have been attributed...some say it was Mark Twain... "A lie will be half-way 'round the World before Truth gets its boots on..." In this age of the Internet...or, the 'Innertubz'...that quote is more prescient than can be imagined........ edit to spell 'to'... [edit on 7-2-2008 by weedwhacker]

These are material facts concerning the Pentagon. I was built during WWII when steel was being rationed to civilians. The Pentagon is primarily reinforced concrete, with much less steel than expected in that type of building construction. The fact the perimeter primary vertical load bearing supports are still standing, with holes not able to accommodate a full sized Boeing 757, speaks volumes that no Boeing 757 impacted, much less completely penetrated as far as the "official" reports tout it allegedly did. en.wikipedia.org...

Prior to the construction of the Pentagon, the War Department was housed in a series of "temporary" buildings erected during World War I which nearly covered the National Mall. Ground was broken for the Pentagon on September 11, 1941, with construction completed in approximately sixteen months at a cost of $83 million. A minimal amount of steel was used in construction, which was in short supply during World War II. 680,000 tons of sand, dredged from the Potomac River, were used in the reinforced concrete structure.[5]

reply to post by OrionStars Yes, OS...that is true. The Pentagon was built during a time when steel was being diverted to the War effort....but this is AFTER Pearl Harbor...you know, December 7, 1941? You just made my point...the Pentagon was built using concrete, since the steel of the day was diverted to War Production priorities... The building HAD to be reinforced with what they had at the time...that was concrete, and lots of it! When it comes to building a skyscraper, even in the 1970s, you could not use concrete as a support for the building. It had to be an internal structure, with cantilever floors...supported, of course, by the exterior facade. The structures, as designed, in New York, would be unlikely to pass standards of engineering requirements if they had been built, in say, Los Angeles. Because...in LA, buildings have to be designed to withstand earthquakes. Nobody ever expected an 'earthquake' on Manhattan Island...but, nobody expected a suicidal madman would fly an airplane into a skyscraper...not once, but twice!!! It happened. Please try to come to grips with what happened. NOW...let's focus on preventing it from happening again. THIS is what has been missing from these debates! STOP analyzing something from the past, when the same thing can occur right under your nose!!! Look ahead, not behind....that's my motto... OK, Carry on!

Originally posted by OrionStars The following website has a photo of the Pentagon after roof collapse. It also has [...] silentbutdeadly.ifrance.com...

Silent but Deadly is a fart, not an engineer. That author is a proponent of a Global Hawk attack. Even AFTER the Sam Danner episode SBD said: "“sam danner said he lied, so statements are removed. Nevertheless, the best version is still the globalhawk one.” This person's repetition of flawed analyses is not relevant to the discussion at hand.

Originally posted by OrionStars reply to post by weedwhacker

 

I am sorry, but that is simply another red herring on your part. Either an alleged 757 made a hole (knocked out enough vertical load bearing supports) to accommodate its full self or did not. The photos, of the Pentagon wall, say it definitely did not.

Maybe it was, but probably not. But who is the one here always talking about what the photos show without ever showing any ability to actually comprehend, and then illustrate what they show? Center of mass, center of density, velocity, existing structure characteristics and extent of damage, etc. are the operative elements in a real crash. You're talking about a gaping uniform hole at least as wide as the whole plane that would 'swallow' and then 'digest' and then presumably 'pass' the plane. What if we tied eight-foot peacock feathers to the tip of each wing? Would 'the hole' have to be sixteen feet wider then? You've seen some more evidence now I presume, so riddle me this: is the hole big enough for the fuselage and engines and at least part of the wings? Measure from the center of damage each way, not left-right. Officially center of fuselage was just below the 2nd floor slab, the top of it above, right wing tilted slightly high.

Originally posted by OrionStars These are material facts concerning the Pentagon. I was built during WWII when steel was being rationed to civilians. The Pentagon is primarily reinforced concrete, with much less steel than expected in that type of building construction.

Alright, looking at some facts. Nothing useful there except that it was primarily concrete, which I guess you know since you've already decided how the building would perform. It's actually a more classical structure, pillars and such, which is usually conrete-based, not built AT ALL like a standard vertical office building. Unless I'm wrong there, whatever. I think you picked that ource because it mentioned the oddity that its groundbreaking was 9/11/41 - three months before Pearl Harbor and exactly sixty years before the 'new Pearl Harbor.' That still gets me. Then you go ahead and decide based on these scant new facts:

The fact the perimeter primary vertical load bearing supports are still standing, with holes not able to accommodate a full sized Boeing 757, speaks volumes that no Boeing 757 impacted, much less completely penetrated as far as the "official" reports tout it allegedly did

No. Again, ONE hole, nine columns are gone on floor one (this again being ONLY the exterior columns), and one is present but just dangling w/no integrity on floor 2. This is enough to accommodate all the parts of a 757 that matter, the parts that were strong enough to make a hole in that. Everything else flows from that. Are you going to keep talking in circles about this?

reply to post by Caustic Logic Caustic Logic, I am trying to wrap my head around what stance you are supporting here. Very simple...either one can agree that 9/11 was a co-ordinated and planned attack by al Quaida terrorists, or one will subscribe to a scenario where our OWN Government, or parties within our Government, orchestrated the whole thing... The first stance is something I can understand. The second is something I have a hard time swallowing. I know, the 'Bush Administration' has not been fully clear, even after 7 years...but to think that this criminal could have 'masterminded' something as complex as 9/11 is ridiculous. I mean, 9/11 happened too early in the 'Bush' adminstration to have been 'planned' in advance. From a logical standpoint, it is obvious that the 'Bush' adminstration used 9/11 as a 'sounding board' to pump up Congress to fuel the 'hype' and beat the drums, in order to invade Iraq. It is plainly evident, now, in hindsight. SO...question is, knowing what we know now, where do we go from here?

Since people have expressed their lack of knowledge related to buildings being constructed and indefinitely staying up, it is exceptionally difficult, if not impossible, to reason with opposition arguments. The fact is, it would not matter what is trying to get into a hole from the outside, be it a 757, Global Hawk, or the Goodyear blimp. When something does not enlarge a hole to accommodate itself, the odds are zero to none nothing of alleged size impacted or penetrated any wall, because the visual condition of the wall is the evidence proving it. When a building loses 124' 10" of external and internal primary vertical load bearing support, that building is going to collapse in the area that much vertical support is lost. If people have a problem with that, please take it up with those proving the laws of physics, concerning weight, mass, and gravitational pull, when primary vertical supports are lost under lateral load bearing supports, particularly in two or more stories of steel and concrete buildings. Try this. Try your arguments on people who actually work on constructing buildings, which do indefinitely stay up. See how your arguments fly with those artisians and professionals. The irony of that is the opposition has already wasted a great deal of time arguing against someone with a few years of experience in the construction industry - residential and commercial. Why doesn't the opposition now try approaching others with experience in the construction industry to compare answers?

reply to post by OrionStars OS, Again, you deflect the question. Am I the only one who sees this happening? So, now, OS, you are an expert in constructing buildings? Earier you said you were knowledgeable about airports and airplanes...in fact, you said I was speaking to you as a child... Really, OS, I'd like to know where you are coming from, and what your point really is. Because, right now, you make very little sense... edit for spelling... [edit on 7-2-2008 by weedwhacker]