18 Minute Error In Pentagon Collapse Time.

ref said:
This means, that Wedge 1 collapsed 38 minutes after the impact, not 20 minutes after. I can't think of any remarkable difference this additional time makes.
Click to expand...
It doesn't make any difference in terms of debunking the no-planers. But in terms of historical accuracy, it makes a lot of difference. The building stayed up 52% longer than initially thought. That has engineering implications, especially concerning Mlakar's analysis of the building's structural stability under fire loading. I'm not an engineer, so I don't know how important an understanding of the Pentagon's performance is for other structures, but it should be clear that the specific analysis is based on incorrect data. It shows that the Pentagon performed even better than initially thought. And from a human point of view, it makes a huge difference that the building stayed up an additional 18 minutes, it gave more time for those on the upper floors to evacuate.
 
Russell Pickering said:
Finally useful information.
Click to expand...


That useful information has been sitting in the 9/11 Commission Report for three years. Your "research" is obviously not as extensive as you like to claim it is.

I, for one, am thoroughly unimpressed. You talk like a sensible, logical, critically thinking person seeking to understand what happened. You clearly don't think like one though.

-Gumboot
 
leftysergeant said:
Have you seen what Honnegger is making of the discrepency between the official narrative and the time it states for impact, and the time that she claims the clocks stopped?

I would be interested in how the official timeline was established for any of the events.

In the case of the Honnegger theory, it allowed a window for a truck bomb.

As absurd as that theory is, given the nature of the damage observed, some people buy into it on the basis of the time line.
Click to expand...


I have been waiting for someone to reveal the purpose behind this thread. Someone referred to Pickering as a Pentagon "specialist." Specialists are presumed to know a great deal about their, uh, specialties. What does Pickering have to say about Giulio Bernacchia's paper discussing Hanjour's piloting skills?
The view that a neoconservative think tank was able to start two wars is not suggestive of a scholar, or, for that matter, of a reasonably intelligent person possessing modest critical thinking skills.
 
Sometimes a discrepency in an official timeline has some evidenciary value. I do not think that the time of the collapse has.

It may, however, be further evidence of government ineptitude, but beyond that, I do not see it as especially probative of anything related to the who and how of the situation.

According to the Honnegger camp, the time of the attack is, as it allows a window of opportunity for a truck bomb. But there no evidence for that. And wasn't the whole idea of the retrofit to make the building safe against truck bombs, specificly?

Sometimes piddly little details will unravel a whole case. In this case, the last minutes of the destruction may have been less important, and poorly-documented than the first.

The timing of the collapse falls more into the category of "Oh, really? Hmmm.." type information.
 
Why all the venom at Russel and continued hamhanded approach with the responses in some (not all) posts, when he's already stated that he can see how the discrepency has been accounted for and is reasonably understood?
 
GreNME said:
Why all the venom at Russel and continued hamhanded approach with the responses in some (not all) posts, when he's already stated that he can see how the discrepency has been accounted for and is reasonably understood?
Click to expand...


You're obviously not familiar with his posting history and his theories. Quite a few people in these forums for some reason get a bit emotional about people who accuse others of mass murder based on "something funny". I can't imagine why that would be, mind you. :)

-Gumboot
 
GreNME said:
Why all the venom at Russel and continued hamhanded approach with the responses in some (not all) posts, when he's already stated that he can see how the discrepency has been accounted for and is reasonably understood?
Click to expand...

If you read his 1st few posts I think you will see that he was extremely insulting towards some of the other posters, and to some degree to the entire group. It was not a good start for the chap.
 
Russ for the most part is reasonable. Compared to most of the truth movement, he is a calm, reasonable, and usually without malice, poster. I guess, like all of us, he is human, and when attacked, or perceives himself so, he can retaliate.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
Russ for the most part is reasonable. Compared to most of the truth movement, he is a calm, reasonable, and usually without malice, poster. I guess, like all of us, he is human, and when attacked, or perceives himself so, he can retaliate.

TAM:)
Click to expand...



I don't personally consider someone who believes the US Government carried out the 9/11 Attacks to be reasonable.

-Gumboot
 
Well an atheist may not consider a christian or a satan worshiper "reasonable" as it goes against his beliefs.

Personally I prefer to think of people like Russ, reasonable, but paranoid wrt the USG and alleged NWO.

TAM:)
 
So many posts.

First of all hi to TAM who I do respect.

Thank you for the geography correction about Afghanistan. The whole GED thing does work against me.

Yes I am insulting toward some people here. It takes one to know one.

I sought information outside my realm. A couple of people here were well informed and provided the data - that is not a crime to seek understanding. I am grateful for those honest people.

I have said since my very first lessons here - I have ZERO proof for my beliefs/gut feelings.

Gumboot - If you truly understood the vast body of data here you would not fault me for knowing only a portion of it. This is why I seek data here. Lighten up man!

Stone WT - Think more.

Yes it is unusual that "rationalists" would have a knee-jerk reaction.

TAM (again) I can think of no nefarious reason for this discrepancy. I talked to the cameraman - David Stattler yesterday - he has a microwave feed time log he is sending me. But even the Pentagon historian consulted with him and consented to the ACFD error.

Alexg - Thank you for the benefit of the doubt. You are an honest skeptic despite the peer pressure of the regulars here.

I.E. If in an alley, many people here with a gun to their head would not ask for undeniable proof of the presence of a lead projectile - they would find reasonable grounds for compromise and move on with their life.

I feel the same about a action against Iran and the consequences.

Russell
 
I think he is speculating on a potential action from the USA etc...

TAM:)
 
Russell Pickering said:
So many posts.

First of all hi to TAM who I do respect.

Thank you for the geography correction about Afghanistan. The whole GED thing does work against me.

Yes I am insulting toward some people here. It takes one to know one.

I sought information outside my realm. A couple of people here were well informed and provided the data - that is not a crime to seek understanding. I am grateful for those honest people.

I have said since my very first lessons here - I have ZERO proof for my beliefs/gut feelings.

Gumboot - If you truly understood the vast body of data here you would not fault me for knowing only a portion of it. This is why I seek data here. Lighten up man!

Stone WT - Think more.

Yes it is unusual that "rationalists" would have a knee-jerk reaction.

TAM (again) I can think of no nefarious reason for this discrepancy. I talked to the cameraman - David Stattler yesterday - he has a microwave feed time log he is sending me. But even the Pentagon historian consulted with him and consented to the ACFD error.

Alexg - Thank you for the benefit of the doubt. You are an honest skeptic despite the peer pressure of the regulars here.

I.E. If in an alley, many people here with a gun to their head would not ask for undeniable proof of the presence of a lead projectile - they would find reasonable grounds for compromise and move on with their life.

I feel the same about a action against Iran and the consequences.

Russell
Click to expand...


What is your opinion on Giulio Bernacchia's paper?
 
pomeroo said:
Someone referred to Pickering as a Pentagon "specialist." Specialists are presumed to know a great deal about their, uh, specialties.
Click to expand...

I simply meant that the Pentagon was an area of special interest to Rus. Is that not the case? I implied nothing either way about his level of knowledge. He asked a question and got an answer. End of stroy.

I regard the very few, relatively agreeable and reasonable CTs as worthy adversaries, so to speak, and I give then a degree of respect. I also understand why patience here is thin. To each his own.
 
Russell Pickering said:
I have said since my very first lessons here - I have ZERO proof for my beliefs/gut feelings.
Click to expand...
Given this, shouldn't that make you stop and question your beliefs/gut feelings? If you, by your own admission, have no evidence to support your assertion, and there is much evidence against it, how can you maintain your position?
 
Corsair 115 said:
Given this, shouldn't that make you stop and question your beliefs/gut feelings? If you, by your own admission, have no evidence to support your assertion, and there is much evidence against it, how can you maintain your position?
Click to expand...


Faith!
 
Goodaye Russel,

Personally I would dismiss facts I believed in if I had no verifiable evidence of them. Im not sure your doing your own research any help by trying to fit the facts to a theory. Remember your good friend the scientific method.

Cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom