|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 27, 2013 9:02:09 GMT -5
Well then you just accept what you're told and you're sold, everything is 100% accurate for you, including the lies, regardless that the 9/11 Commission admitted they were lied to and NIST admitted they made "mistakes" but didn't fix their report as a result of correcting their mistakes. Shyam Sunder admitted free fall for WTC7 and described free fall but didn't change anything in the NIST report as a result of those admissions.
I'm not as easy as you are. The Pentagon issue and in fact, most issues have not been resolved for me and apparently for hundreds of millions of other people and are not even close to resolution. You can parrot all the bulls**t you swallowed about 9/11 but you're not convincing me of anything.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 27, 2013 9:07:29 GMT -5
I accept what the airlines who lost their planes and aircrews say. I accept what Leslie Robertson says. I accept that the elasticity of steel increases in fire. I accept that WTC7 suffered massive structural damage and fire from the collapses of the twin towers. I accept that eyewitnesses saw an American Airlines jet hit the Pentagon. I accept that the terrorists who claimed responsibility had the means and motive to do what they have said they did.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 27, 2013 9:39:47 GMT -5
Right, you accept everything you've been fed as truth, including all the theories and admitted lies. So at least we have a point of agreement. We went through this already.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 27, 2013 12:26:37 GMT -5
'fed' is quite a silly term. Why would United Airlines and American Airlines collude with a conspiracy to murder thousands of Americans in a plot which would kill their own passengers their own staff harm their profits, and potentially destroy their businesses ? Why would any member of staff from the Pentagon lie about the details of an attack which killed over a hundred of their colleagues, not to mention the rest of nearly 3000 people killed in those attacks ?? If I were a member of staff at the Pentagon, and had seen the impact area and hypothetically there hadn't been an airliner hit the Pentagon, I'd defect to a safe country and blow the whistle.
There's no motive for the US Government to do this, if there had been they'd have destroyed the WTC's in 1993. There's no reason for Airlines to collude in a conspiracy.The aftermath of the attacks hurt airline profits drastically.American Airline's parent corporation AMR took a massive hit to the value of their shares and United Airlines who lost two 767's along with crew and passengers that day filed for bankruptcy protection in 2002.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 27, 2013 12:48:38 GMT -5
"'fed' is quite a silly term."
Only for the ignorant who don't understand the nature of propaganda.
"Why, why?"
What makes you even ask those questions? Who says any of that happened? What makes you think I have answers to these questions?
"If I were a member of staff at the Pentagon, and had seen the impact area and hypothetically there hadn't been an airliner hit the Pentagon, I'd defect to a safe country and blow the whistle."
And your hypothesis has to do with what?
"There's no motive for the US Government to do this, if there had been they'd have destroyed the WTC's in 1993. There's no reason for Airlines to collude in a conspiracy.The aftermath of the attacks hurt airline profits drastically.American Airline's parent corporation AMR took a massive hit to the value of their shares and United Airlines who lost two 767's along with crew and passengers that day filed for bankruptcy protection in 2002."
That's your opinion, it has nothing to do with what happened or didn't happen on 9/11 so it's irrelevant. In fact nothing you posted has anything to do with the events of 9/11.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 28, 2013 5:04:24 GMT -5
It's not propaganda. It's an established consensus amongst the construction industry (including structural fire engineers), firefighters, the airlines, journalists, military, the people on the ground who watched in horror as airliners full of people and fuel slammed into buildings at high speed, the relatives of victims who were phoned from the planes and told what had happened on board before their loved ones died.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 28, 2013 7:53:52 GMT -5
It's not propaganda. It's an established consensus amongst the construction industry (including structural fire engineers), firefighters, the airlines, journalists, military, the people on the ground who watched in horror as airliners full of people and fuel slammed into buildings at high speed, the relatives of victims who were phoned from the planes and told what had happened on board before their loved ones died. That's your opinion, these people also have an established consensus: www.consensus911.org/And their consensus was reached after this international hearing (which is available on video): torontohearings.org/And these people also have their own opinions: patriotsquestion911.com/And all the above people involved are NOT anonymous, in fact some of these people are quite well known.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 28, 2013 12:32:39 GMT -5
LOL not even one of them is a structural fire engineer.
|
|
|
Post by cheknurpulse on Mar 28, 2013 12:46:24 GMT -5
Amongst Loose Change's many lies it has been postulated that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon they claim it would be impossible for a Boeing 757 in Ground Effect to hit the Pentagon at full speed. Their allegation is ridiculous. I have seen the video that they finally released of the Pentagon. There was no 757 in that video. What ever it was went way to fast for a huge plane like that. It was nothing but a white blur in that video. And a 757 would not leave a 16 foot hole and no wing marks in the building. Something is not right with that story of a 757 hitting the pentagon.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 28, 2013 12:55:06 GMT -5
LOL not even one of them is a structural fire engineer. If you say so, regardless even if that's true, they are all sorts of experts in many different disciplines and they are highly credible in my estimation. You certainly have zero credibility with me and you summarily dismiss (and often attack) these thousands of people just because you don't agree. That in itself makes anything you say about them and about 9/11 a pathetic joke at best.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 28, 2013 13:04:28 GMT -5
The 12 feet wide hole was on the innermost ring, the outer hole was as big as the span of a 757. Airliners have a light aluminium skin not much thicker than a beer can but reinforced with glass, this skin tore off, the plane came apart inside the pentagon and the heavy bits like the engines and the undercarriage carried furthest. The hole in the inner ring of the pentagon was made by the nose gear. Airliners are designed to fly not to smash through buildings so it's no wonder the wings didn't make it all the way through to the other side. American Airlines lost their 757 N644AA on that day, it's wreckage was recovered from inside the Pentagon. It's passengers phoned their relatives before they died. People were in that plane, people like this poor bugger: www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/thumbs/P200045.jpg
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 28, 2013 13:08:22 GMT -5
"a 757 would not leave a 16 foot hole and no wing marks in the building"
The wings are made of mostly aluminum but the titanium engines are nearly indestructible yet there are no holes in the wall of the Pentagon where the engines should have hit. And that's only one problem with the official story, there are literally thousands of other problems.
|
|
|
Post by cheknurpulse on Mar 28, 2013 13:10:08 GMT -5
"a 757 would not leave a 16 foot hole and no wing marks in the building"
The wings are made of mostly aluminum but the titanium engines are nearly indestructible yet there are no holes in the wall of the Pentagon where the engines should have hit. And that's only one problem with the official story, there are literally thousands of other problems. There would have been some sort of damage around that hole. IE, windows broken etc. That was not a 757 that hit the pentagon.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 28, 2013 13:54:22 GMT -5
So every eyewitness who saw a 757 hit the pentagon was lying ? Mike Walter was lying ? The passengers who phoned their loved ones were lying ? The debris from the 757 in the pentagon was a hologram? This debris from the 757 is a hologram ?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 28, 2013 13:56:52 GMT -5
"a 757 would not leave a 16 foot hole and no wing marks in the building"
The wings are made of mostly aluminum but the titanium engines are nearly indestructible yet there are no holes in the wall of the Pentagon where the engines should have hit. And that's only one problem with the official story, there are literally thousands of other problems. Simple, the engines were less streamlined than the nosegear, presenting more surface area and slowing down more quickly as they passed through the pentagon and broke up.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 28, 2013 20:56:00 GMT -5
So every eyewitness who saw a 757 hit the pentagon was lying ? Mike Walter was lying ? The passengers who phoned their loved ones were lying ? The debris from the 757 in the pentagon was a hologram? This debris from the 757 is a hologram ? There are accounts of people seeing a large airliner heading toward the Pentagon before the crash. That does not necessarily mean the actual large airliner crashed into the Pentagon. There is also the possibility that it lifted over the Pentagon and that something else hit the Pentagon. If you use your brains for just one moment and assume that the whole thing was planned in advance and in detail, it's possible that the large airliner was just made to fly over the Pentagon as a decoy for what really hit it. I'm not saying that's what actually happened but I am saying there are alternative explanations and nothing can be discounted. The issue of the phone calls has many holes, especially the ones that allegedly used cell phones. There was not nearly enough debris to constitute a large airliner crash. FBI and other agents were photographed picking up debris. That's absurd on 2 points. One is that FBI should know better than to touch evidence from a crime scene. And two, there is not a chance that a couple of agents or more can actually pick up enough debris by hand that would clean up a large airliner crash. That the debris was from a 757 is also suspect. So bottom line, the entire story has major holes and is highly suspect from start to finish. Again, it is extremely far from settled and there was never any forensic criminal investigation into the Pentagon disaster. And that only adds to the problem. Of course for you, everything is 100% and settled.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 28, 2013 23:23:00 GMT -5
"Simple, the engines were less streamlined than the nosegear, presenting more surface area and slowing down more quickly as they passed through the pentagon and broke up."
Everything is "simple" for the simple minded who deliberately deny the obvious because it doesn't fit in with their simple mindset.
Are you saying the engines "passed through the pentagon" as if the walls weren't there? In order for them to "pass through", they first have to penetrate the wall at a distance on either side of the nose of the aircraft. That means there should be a hole to the left of where the large hole appears and one to the right. There was only one hole. And again, titanium engines don't "break up" and crumble to dust.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 29, 2013 13:26:06 GMT -5
In your opinion. But I've seen photos of the remains of the RB211 engines, they broke up around the joins. Also the turbine fans in RB211-535's aren't titanium, they're made from single-crystal super alloy to provide the ultimate resistance to viscoplastic creep at high temperature, but aren't designed to be flown through concrete. RB211-535e4 series engines are used in the American Airlines 757 fleet. www.aa.com/i18n/aboutUs/ourPlanes/boeing757.jspGlass backed aluminium aircraft skin bearing AA livery, The airport fire truck in the photo came from Ronald Regan airport just 5 minutes drive away, photo must have been taken a short time after the impact, the area around the impact hole had not yet collapsed:- There wasn't any time available to fake this in front of hundreds of eyewitnesses.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 29, 2013 14:10:53 GMT -5
"In your opinion."What part is my opinion? That 2 airliner engines slamming into a wall would damage the wall on either side of the nose? If that's an opinion you can't agree with then either your elevator doesn't go to the top or you're just deliberately playing dumb. As to titanium, you said "the turbine fans in RB211-535's aren't titanium", but this article says: "Another advantage of the compact three-spool arrangement is the intermediate compressor stator casing. The casing is mounted in a TITANIUM drum, and this drum is responsible for absorbing all the mechanical loads and forces, which relieves the stator casing from any loads other than air pressures. As a result, the stator casing does not flex, which again means that the compressor tip clearances are maintained." (emphasis mine) www.aviationpros.com/article/10389026/rolls-royce-535And I'm sure you know that because it's obvious you did research on this and you want to deliberately try to obfuscate by telling part of the story and leaving out the key point because as usual, reality doesn't match up with your bulls**t. "There wasn't any time available to fake this in front of hundreds of eyewitnesses."Both of which are your opinion, that there was no time to fake and the "hundreds of eyewitnesses". Hundreds??? Why didn't you just say thousands?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 29, 2013 14:52:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 29, 2013 21:28:58 GMT -5
"So what ?"
What do you mean "so what"? You did what you could to try to conceal the FACT that these engines contain a large amount of TITANIUM by saying the blades are not made of titanium. Obviously your intent was to pretend that the engines would not damage the wall of the Pentagon.
"And why didn't I just say thousands ? Because I wanted to know if you were truly listening and thinking to what I'm saying."
Is that supposed to be a joke or what? There were NOT hundreds of eyewitnesses, you lie as you always do. You fabricate, tell partial stories as if the rest of the facts are meaningless and can be ignored and you make incredible wild claims labeling thousands of people "so-called experts" who in your view have all colluded to perpetrate a hoax. And all these shenanigans because you don't agree with any possible alternate explanation about 9/11 and you can only agree 100% with the official ADMITTED and PROVEN bulls**t story.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 30, 2013 10:14:40 GMT -5
The point being they aren't wholly Titanium are they ? The RB211's broke apart inside the Pentagon. The concrete slowed the largely flat parts of the RB211's down whilst the more streamlined nose gear carried on through to the inner ring like a large bullet.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 30, 2013 10:56:27 GMT -5
"The point being they aren't wholly Titanium are they ?"
No that's not the point at all, that's your point. I already made my point quite explicitly and all you've done is to try to dance around it.
"The RB211's broke apart inside the Pentagon. The concrete slowed the largely flat parts of the RB211's down whilst the more streamlined nose gear carried on through to the inner ring like a large bullet."
So you're trying to say in your theory that both engines, mostly or even partially if you prefer, made of titanium, went through the wall without damaging it but "the more streamlined nose", which is mostly aluminum, made a gaping hole smaller than the size the fuselage including the tail section, and penetrated 3 newly reinforced rings of the Pentagon. Sure Einstein, everyone knows that titanium engines go through walls at over 500 MPH (or let's say even "slowed down" to 300 MPH) without making a scratch. I must be the only who can't figure that out. The problem with your "slowed down" theory is that the only frames that allegedly show something (whatever it was) crashing into the Pentagon was moving so incredibly fast that it only appeared as a blur in one frame.
|
|
|
Post by cheknurpulse on Mar 30, 2013 11:38:14 GMT -5
The point being they aren't wholly Titanium are they ? The RB211's broke apart inside the Pentagon. The concrete slowed the largely flat parts of the RB211's down whilst the more streamlined nose gear carried on through to the inner ring like a large bullet. So explain how they can go through a wall without damaging said wall? But yet the fuselage of the plane can make a 16 foot hole three rings in?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 30, 2013 11:45:37 GMT -5
They did damage said walls, nobody except conspiracy theorists is saying otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 30, 2013 11:54:14 GMT -5
"The point being they aren't wholly Titanium are they ?"No that's not the point at all, that's your point. I already made my point quite explicitly and all you've done is to try to dance around it. "The RB211's broke apart inside the Pentagon. The concrete slowed the largely flat parts of the RB211's down whilst the more streamlined nose gear carried on through to the inner ring like a large bullet."So you're trying to say in your theory that both engines, mostly or even partially if you prefer, made of titanium, went through the wall without damaging it but "the more streamlined nose", which is mostly aluminum, made a gaping hole smaller than the size the fuselage including the tail section, and penetrated 3 newly reinforced rings of the Pentagon. Sure Einstein, everyone knows that titanium engines go through walls at over 500 MPH (or let's say even "slowed down" to 300 MPH) without making a scratch. I must be the only who can't figure that out. The problem with your "slowed down" theory is that the only frames that allegedly show something (whatever it was) crashing into the Pentagon was moving so incredibly fast that it only appeared as a blur in one frame. The Nosegear isn't made of Aluminium it's made of Steel. Wall behind that engine part looks pretty damaged to me.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 30, 2013 12:47:08 GMT -5
"The Nosegear isn't made of Aluminium it's made of Steel."That's the NOSEGEAR, the nose and the fuselage are made of mostly aluminum. "Wall behind that engine part looks pretty damaged to me."That's a picture of the wall after it collapsed. This is a 757: search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AgrWwXUG33hOmBkFV3Lh01WbvZx4?fr=yfp-t-900-s&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&p=boeing%20757Look at where the engines are located in the above picture relative to the nose. Now look at the picture you show in your response and tell me where that engine is located. Is it inside the Pentagon? No. You said it went through the Pentagon and broke up, so you lied. Is it at an approximately correct distance from where the nose created the hole in the wall? No, it seems to be located right where the nose should have been since it's almost exactly in front of the only hole created by whatever hit the Pentagon. And where are the 2 titanium drums? Where is the other engine? In your opinion, there's nothing suspect about the engine part and its location in the picture? That's a rhetorical question because you already said everything you've been fed is 100% correct.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 30, 2013 13:18:20 GMT -5
The engines went through the pentagon and broke up, a lot of parts such as the compressor casings and nickel superalloy turbine blades were found inside the pentagon. So how have I lied ? The engines did break up, the turbine blades weren't attached to the disc after it smashed through walls, that disc made it through to the inner courtyard of the Pentagon but the engines weren't intact they were smashed to bits in the crash. I didn't say the nose I said nose gear and wheel from the undercarriage. Smaller, but very heavy and with a lot of inertia. You disregard the statements of Pentagon and FEMA staff involved in the clean up and reconstruction. 125 Pentagon staff were killed in that attack mate. You ignore photographic evidence of what is quite obviously the wreckage of an airliner. You disregard the eyewitnesses (including seven pilots) who stated on record that they had seen a An American Airlines 757 crash into the pentagon. You disregard the FDR data, you disregard relatives who were phoned from the planes. How is it possible to have an intelligent discussion with you when you take such an obstinate stance ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 30, 2013 13:30:10 GMT -5
"The engines went through the pentagon and broke up, a lot of parts such as the compressor casings and nickel superalloy turbine blades were found inside the pentagon. So how have I lied ? The engines did break up, the turbine blades weren't attached to the disc after it smashed through walls the engines weren't intact."
So what is that engine part doing a few feet in front of the hole in the wall? Where are the titanium drums? Did they "break up" too but leave the engine part seen in the picture mostly intact? Where are the holes made by the 2 engines on either side of the main hole? You like to make things up, outright lie and conveniently fail to answer any question that you can't answer because that would make a mess of your beliefs and theories.
|
|
|
Post by cheknurpulse on Mar 30, 2013 17:46:27 GMT -5
The engines went through the pentagon and broke up, a lot of parts such as the compressor casings and nickel superalloy turbine blades were found inside the pentagon. So how have I lied ? The engines did break up, the turbine blades weren't attached to the disc after it smashed through walls, that disc made it through to the inner courtyard of the Pentagon but the engines weren't intact they were smashed to bits in the crash. I didn't say the nose I said nose gear and wheel from the undercarriage. Smaller, but very heavy and with a lot of inertia. You disregard the statements of Pentagon and FEMA staff involved in the clean up and reconstruction. 125 Pentagon staff were killed in that attack mate. You ignore photographic evidence of what is quite obviously the wreckage of an airliner. You disregard the eyewitnesses (including seven pilots) who stated on record that they had seen a An American Airlines 757 crash into the pentagon. You disregard the FDR data, you disregard relatives who were phoned from the planes. How is it possible to have an intelligent discussion with you when you take such an obstinate stance ? They went through the Pentagon without doing any damage?
|
|