Printable View
here's something to think about. howcome the rubble outside the footprint fell the same speed as the tower. surely even if the steel could collapse under the weight they held for over 20 years the steel and concrete being crushed would fall slower than that, that only fights air
:lol: :lol: Really? You call this discrediting? Where's your evidence for all the red bits?Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
Evidence, according to you, is your word, Mr. Knowitall, if Lynx says it, then it must be true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynx
You're just a joke, you must be wishing you'd never posted here, because you're taking on a cause you can't win. Four planes went missing, one was found in a field, two were filmed crashing into the WTC, what happened to the other one? According to you there is no proof it crashed into the Pentagon.
Well, http://img358.imageshack.us/img358/5177/doh3la.gif
No, Lynx, I don't think you are really more cynical than I am about men, or for that matter women, too, with political power and the abuse of that power. You may be a tad bit more vocal about it than I am, though. :D And in my opinion, that is not a bad thing.
Nah, you really haven't disposed of any evidence for me. But thanks for trying. It has been a long process.....more than a few years of reading everything I could find on this.
One thing....'conspiracy' does kind of 'throw blame.' And in my experience, oftimes history shows that such blame is often misplaced, and even intentionally misdirected. imo 'alternative' theory is a better term and a lot less offsetting to those who have lived with this tragedy.
As for me, I am off to google 'color of black boxes'. :lol:
My husband has a documented genuis level IQ in mechanical problem solving. He also has a license in air frame and power plant mechanics and is a pilot. He has worked on airplanes from one end to the other. Amazing man. (don't tell him I said that or I will deny it. It is my lifes work to keep this man humble) I know I have discussed this some with him along the way, but basically, he encourages me to read and find my own way, and he would be the first to admit he wouldn't have a clue nor does he know anyone that has a clue what exactly happens when a plane hits a building, other than death. He would probably first tell me a lot would depend on the building's structure and how many of the load bearing walls were compromised by the hit. But then again he just might tell me that we had threats, we had gloating and dancing in the streets and responsiblity not only taken but thrown back repeatedly in our faces. What more do I want. ;)
I guess my point is a lot of people in the past with less experience than he has with airplanes and buildings have built alternative theories without having a leg to stand on. And maybe that has fogged things up a bit.
I do want to say that after once again googling all those sites last night, I came away with wondering how can these 'alternative theorists', mostly from other countries, not having been there and dealt with it, determine (from reading the reports from the American experts) that the American experts were so mistaken in their calculations.
Well, my husband did ask me if I knew what color black boxes were,. I am thinking he is suggesting I am out of my element. :lol:
Where possible I'll use sites backing your interpretation for this info:Quote:
Originally Posted by whypikonme
# Size of 757 matches the initial size of hole in the building - somewhere between 13 and 16 feet (757 is 13 feet wide/high)
The initial hole was about 75 feet.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=6&c=y
# Rims found in building match those of a 757
They match any commercial airplane wheelOk, you got me there, I should have said the rim matched any commercial airplane wheel, it is an NTSB requirement. It you doubt that remark, check your own link:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/..._evidence.html
# Small turbine engine outside is an APU
That has never been established
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/1210...nginepart.html
“There’s no way that’s an APU wheel,” an expert at Honeywell told AFP.
# Same engine has been clearly stated to not match a Global Hawk engine
There are dozens of other engines that have not been ruled out
Self evident.
# Blue seats from 757 laying on ground in photos
Blue upholstery laying on ground in photos
Most commercial aircraft seats are similar in design, but it would be virtually impossible to categorically state from the blurred photo that this upholstery even came from an aircraft. What's more, airlines have been severely criticised for the flamability of their seating. Strange that this one managed to survive the terrific temperatures unscathed.
# Part of "American" fuselage logo visible in more than 1 photo
SAME part of some fuselage logo in more than 1 photo
There is no way to determine from the photos that this piece of skin has an American Airlines logo on it.
# Engine parts photographed inside match a Rolls-Royce RB211
That was not established by Rolls-Royce's own expert
Self evident, he didn't.
# Structural components photographed in wreckage match Boeing paint primer schemes
Green and yellow paint found
http://paint.aeroperform.com/catalog/prod_info.asp
# Large deisel generator in front of building hit by a large heavy object
Large deisel generator was not in the flight path
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/..._evidence.html
Their own picture shows that the generator would have to have moved about 30 feet to the south in order to be in line with the engine.
# Large deisel engine outside is spun towards the building - could not be result of bomb blast or missile explosion
Large deisel generator was not in the flight path
See above
# Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner
Multiple eye witnesses say they saw a missile/small plane
Self evident
# Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner hit the Pentagon
Multiple eye witnesses say they saw a missile/small plane hit the Pentagon
Self evident
# 60+ bodies, matching the passenger list and flight crew roster identified and returned to families from Pentagon wreckage
This is the best of the lot. The fire burned for about 60 hours. For the first 3 and a half hours it was so intense that fire crews could not get close enough to get water on it. Yet they expect us to believe that they found and identified over 60 bodies. But at the same time other sites tell us that the reason so little of the plane was found is because it burnt up in the intense heat. We should be grateful that the human body is so much more resiliant than an airframe.[/QUOTE]
http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
I can't find the site that quoted 60 hours, but that's hardly important. The fact is that the Fire Chief stated that most of the aircraft had burnt up.
You can make yourself look an even bigger idiot and question the bits which are self evident if you like.
But you can't back up your own statements: "According to you there is no proof it crashed into the Pentagon."
I think I've told you that's not my position four times now, I can't be bothered to go back and count. Perhaps you want to dispute that and tell me it is only 3 times.
Now you've got a slight problem.
I've shown that your own link gives you some of the evidence you wanted. Of course, you can claim that evidence is crap if you want, like I've been doing for the last 2 days. But that hardly does your position much good does it. :lol: :lol:
What have you answered? Have you provided any proof that there is no evidence a 757 crashed into the Pentagon? NO!
What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. This was from one of the sites you quote, contrary to your assumption.
Did they? Where are these accounts then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynx
http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/4...ececomp4gq.jpgQuote:
There is no way to determine from the photos that this piece of skin has an American Airlines logo on it.
http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/4...irespray3w.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Lynx
Photo of a burning power generator (green arrow) in front of the Pentagon before the wall has collapsed.
:P
And I wasn't trying to. That's the fifth time I've told you that. Hasn't that sunk in yet?Quote:
Originally Posted by whypikonme
It was from one of the sites I disputed, but backs up your claim, as I clearly stated. But quite frankly look at it, it is a preposterous statement. A brand new matter state. Oh well, throw away all the science books. But let's assume for a second that it could have a grain of truth in it. We've all seen how liquids moving at speed gather themselves together to enter pipes and holes. Oh, wait, no they don't, they just keep going in a straight line.Quote:
What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. This was from one of the sites you quote, contrary to your assumption.
I know I said you could make yourself look even more of an idiot, I didn't really think you would take me up on it. I really am not going to bother with this nonsense. :lol: :lol:Quote:
Did they? Where are these accounts then?Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
Have you ever sat at the end of a runway watching planes land. Ever tried to work out what plane they are or who the carrier is in the few seconds between the plane passing over your head and it touching down? When I pick people up from the local airport there's a place i park where I can see just that much. It is damn difficult I can tell you, and that's when you are expecting planes to be coming.
Now imagine what it is like when you aren't expecting a plane, and it is travelling at well over twice normal landing speed. Still reckon everyone can say what sort of plane it is and who the carrier was. A few aviation experts may get it right, most wouldn't. The general public would certainly get it wrong in the majority of cases.
Nice picture of an aircraft. I'm tempted to concede the point about the logo. Looks like you've finally found a useful site. Care to let us in on what it is?
But the burning generator? There's nothing in that picture to suggest it has been hit or moved. And you imply that a large chunk of wall is about to collapse on it. Good job that won't do any damage then. Like putting a large depression in the top which will later be claimed as impact damage.
Keep it up, I'm enjoying your wriggling. :naughty:
Don't worry about the eyewitness accounts then, l wouldn't want to bother you. As for aircraft identification, l did that in the Air Cadets, so maybe l'm just good at it, living three miles from the runway at Heathrow may have helped too. l can certainly tell a 757 from a Cruise Missile.
Only if you promise not to critique the whole site.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynx
Mark Faram
Misrepresenting again? :lol: The CAPTION under the pic says, "Photo of a burning power generator (green arrow) in front of the Pentagon before the wall has collapsed." Who said it was next to the building, and close enough to be collapsed on?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynx
http://img360.imageshack.us/img360/3317/0000gen3gk.jpg
Flight 77 Generator
Pentagon Building Performance Report.
:lol: You wish! :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynx
Quote:
Originally Posted by osama bin laden
How about a real source rather than a fake quote?Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
http://www.public-action.com/911/oblintrv.html
apparently it was on the BBC site, but i can't find it.
he's right though :naughty: