Where did the right wing hit the Pentagon? Or is Gravy wrong?

[Confuseling]

...
"SLIGHT. UPWARD. TILT."
...

What if the plane came in upside down?

Aah, rats. Then it would have been the left wing.

I know! How about upside down, and backwards?

 

[Bobert]

"The important thing is not to stop questioning". Albert Einstein.



If there is more than one answer to a given question, then the issue is still open to debate. The debunkers throw out a panoply of explanations hoping that something will stick. This is a bad way to discover the truth. Let me give an example of what the debunkers consider to be a good answer. There is a horrible plane crash and hundreds of people are killed. People obviously want to investigate and find out how this accident occurred. So what did cause the plane to crash? The answer is gravity. It is true that gravity caused the plane to crash but that would hardly be considered an acceptable answer to most people, debunkers excepted. A good investigation would want to go into the details and find the specific mechanical failure that caused the plane to crash. However, the debunkers would just consider this to be the "minutiae" of the case and not really important to understand. Some would say, "well something happened on the plane to cause it to crash." This is also not a good or precise answer, even though the answer might be accurate in some ways. What caused the hole in the C-Ring of the Pentagon? Beachnut responded, "Kinetic energy." This might be the case but it hardly qualifies as a precise answer. To say that gravity caused the plane to crash doesn't tell me anything important. It doesn't tell me why some planes crash and others don't. Nevertheless, it is good that accident and crime scene investigators don't have the same attitude as the Randians when they are searching for answers.

Where did you copy and paste that from?

 

[beachnut]

. maintenance experts like Colonel George Nelson USAF.

Try to get just one of these JREF ‘debunkers’ (heh) to produce just one picture of AA77 or AA93 crashed ANYWHERE. Good luck, because the holes in their heads are bigger than the one in the Wedge One E-Ring outer wall. :0)

GL,

Terral

Your standard SPAM. Nelson's ideas are proven to be wrong if you have any basic reading comprehension skills; you should read what he said instead of posting what he says without reading it. Then you could present some evidence to prove 77 did not hit the Pentagon.

So the you said

Good luck, because the holes in their heads are bigger than the one in the Wedge One E-Ring outer wall. :0)

This is your evidence? Where is your source? You are the biggest SPAM truther for a while. No substance just SPAM, you never read and comprehend anything and have yet to disprove 77 hit the Pentagon. Your only claim to fame is SPAM and no knowledge on 9/11.

 

[beachnut]

"The important thing is not to stop questioning". Albert Einstein.



If there is more than one answer to a given question, then the issue is still open to debate. The debunkers throw out a panoply of explanations hoping that something will stick. This is a bad way to discover the truth. Let me give an example of what the debunkers consider to be a good answer. There is a horrible plane crash and hundreds of people are killed. People obviously want to investigate and find out how this accident occurred. So what did cause the plane to crash? The answer is gravity. It is true that gravity caused the plane to crash but that would hardly be considered an acceptable answer to most people, debunkers excepted. A good investigation would want to go into the details and find the specific mechanical failure that caused the plane to crash. However, the debunkers would just consider this to be the "minutiae" of the case and not really important to understand. Some would say, "well something happened on the plane to cause it to crash." This is also not a good or precise answer, even though the answer might be accurate in some ways. What caused the hole in the C-Ring of the Pentagon? Beachnut responded, "Kinetic energy." This might be the case but it hardly qualifies as a precise answer. To say that gravity caused the plane to crash doesn't tell me anything important. It doesn't tell me why some planes crash and others don't. Nevertheless, it is good that accident and crime scene investigators don't have the same attitude as the Randians when they are searching for answers.



LOL I knew someone was probably going to say something along those lines.

The important thing to do is not stop thinking! You have no idea what beachnut said, because you have no idea what KE is! You are perfect for the truth movement, you buy all their theories and dumb ideas without knowledge.
Learn science and you will stop being a truther.

BTW, as an accident investigator, it is clear from the scene at the Pentagon 77 hit it. Sorry, but tax dollars actually paid for me to go to school and learn that fact! Darn, you get free advice, but choose the liars of 9/11 truth as your source; you are the one who does not question 9/11 truth; you are not taking your own advice stolen from others.

 

[gc051360]

Whether it is an accident or a crime, both events deserve a thorough investigation.

It got a thorough investigation.

How do you have any idea when the hole in the C-Ring was created?

I know a plane hit the Pentagon. That is enough for me.

eta: I will make the assumption, that damage at the Pentagon was made by the plane that crashed into it. I don't think I'm going out on a limb with that one.

Mark Roberts has tilt of the aircraft incorrect and the height, according to the PBPR

so?

What is your basic point?

 

[DC]

Of course it did.

got evidence?
the FBI didnt find any. only the 0 second attempt

 

[uruk]

I'm so sick of twoofer JAQing off I could eat iron and spit nails.

JAQing off too much will make you go blind.......to the truth.

Ba Dum bum, CRASH!!

 

[tanabear]

We have absolute evidence that the hole was not created by a wall-breaching kit. The debris is thrown primarily in the direction in which the aircraft was travelling when it hit the facade, and corresponds to the longest trail of damage through the impacted area. Little of the debris was thrown to the right of the hole. Thus, no explosive devices were used in its creation.

That leaves an airplane as the causitive agent.

The hole was not created at the angle at which the plane entered the Pentagon. It created almost right in between the two columns. It does not look like random impact damage.

BS. The engine may have impacted there. They stick out in front of the wings, you know.

Yes they do. But the engines would not have impacted between column line 18 and 21. They would have impacted around column line 16 and 17. The right wing would have been above the second-floor slab from column line 17 or 18 onwards. What damaged the area beneath the second-floor slab if the wing did not impact there?

There was enough mass in the material that entered that it was like a monster load of shotgun pellets. Question answered.

So did the wings turn into shotgun pellets or did they fold backwards? Mike Walter stated, "The wings folded back and it was like watching someone slam an empty aluminum can into a wall. The jet folded up like an accordion." If the wings folded back then what damaged the columns behind the facade? Let's assume the wings didn't fold back. The PBPR states, "A second photograph (figure 3.9) taken before the collapse reveals that first-floor exterior columns on column lines 15, 16, and 17 were severely distorted but still attached at least at their top ends to the second-floor framing." So right where the right wing would have it with its greatest force, the impact still wasn't able to break the attachment between the columns and the second-floor framing. I like all the analogies that the debunkers use to describe how the plane impacted the building. To explain why the hole is so small Popular Mechanics stated, "What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass." Allyn Kilsheimer stated that, "The plane became almost like an artillery shell or tank round." Now we have the plane transformed into shotgun pellets. Interesting. Mutually contradictory explanations to explain the Pentagon attack. Which one should I believe?

There is nothing phony about being outraged at people like truthers. You are engaged in mental masturbation in order to make yourselves look better, the victims be damned. There is no respect coming your way.

How does investigating a crime dishonor the memories of the victims of that crime?

 

[MIKILLINI]

"The important thing is not to stop questioning". Albert Einstein.



If there is more than one answer to a given question, then the issue is still open to debate. The debunkers throw out a panoply of explanations hoping that something will stick. This is a bad way to discover the truth. Let me give an example of what the debunkers consider to be a good answer. There is a horrible plane crash and hundreds of people are killed. People obviously want to investigate and find out how this accident occurred. So what did cause the plane to crash? The answer is gravity. It is true that gravity caused the plane to crash but that would hardly be considered an acceptable answer to most people, debunkers excepted. A good investigation would want to go into the details and find the specific mechanical failure that caused the plane to crash. However, the debunkers would just consider this to be the "minutiae" of the case and not really important to understand. Some would say, "well something happened on the plane to cause it to crash." This is also not a good or precise answer, even though the answer might be accurate in some ways. What caused the hole in the C-Ring of the Pentagon? Beachnut responded, "Kinetic energy." This might be the case but it hardly qualifies as a precise answer. To say that gravity caused the plane to crash doesn't tell me anything important. It doesn't tell me why some planes crash and others don't. Nevertheless, it is good that accident and crime scene investigators don't have the same attitude as the Randians when they are searching for answers.

Gee Tana, you would have a point if there was no investigation done at the crash site. But, there was a crash investigation done at the site, along with victim identification through DNA matching.

If Beachnuts answer isn't good enough for you, I suggest you ask if he has had any experience with crash investigations.

If you want to know why some planes crash and others don't, you can inquire the NTSB for answers.

 

[WildCat]

got evidence?
the FBI didnt find any. only the 0 second attempt

Bump this thread if you want to discuss it: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107375

 

[X]

The important thing to establish is whether or not a plane hit the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.
One did.

Next up would be which plane.
In this case, flight AA77, a Boeing 757-223, tail number N644AA is the plane, its passengers and some people in their offices the unfortunate innocent victims.

These facts are known from eyewitness accounts, tracking, DNA analysis of the passengers, debris, etc.

What is accomplished by arguing about how the tail or right wing or nose cone created certain elements of the observed damage?
What could you possibly hope to acheive by demanding absolute knowledge of the trajectory of every single piece of the aircraft, or the exact to-the-millimeter location of impact, or exactly what happened to every part of the plane, down to the tiniest bolt?

What's the point?

You are not asking whether a car which crashed on a highway at night had it's headlights on,Tanabear.
You are asking for exact details on how a chip of plastic from the fan shroud came to lie 30 feet away in the grass.

It's absurd, and ultimately pointless, unless you care to elaborate on how these questions support a conspiracy theory over the accepted version of events layed out in the first few sentences of this post?
And don't come back claiming you "don't necessarily belive in CT's, that you just want more information". You wouldn't be asking such ridiculous questions if you believed AA77 hit the Pentagon. There would be no point.

 

[leftysergeant]

So did the wings turn into shotgun pellets or did they fold backwards? Mike Walter stated, "The wings folded back and it was like watching someone slam an empty aluminum can into a wall. The jet folded up like an accordion." If the wings folded back then what damaged the columns behind the facade? Let's assume the wings didn't fold back. The PBPR states, "A second photograph (figure 3.9) taken before the collapse reveals that first-floor exterior columns on column lines 15, 16, and 17 were severely distorted but still attached at least at their top ends to the second-floor framing."

They would have folded back and broken into pieces simultaneously as joints and rivets failed.

 

[uk_dave]

The hole was not created at the angle at which the plane entered the Pentagon. It created almost right in between the two columns. It does not look like random impact damage.

Only to your untrained eye.

Yes they do. But the engines would not have impacted between column line 18 and 21. They would have impacted around column line 16 and 17. The right wing would have been above the second-floor slab from column line 17 or 18 onwards. What damaged the area beneath the second-floor slab if the wing did not impact there?

Cool Tana, you've blown the case wide open!!
I'm very impressed that you make this deduction when the people who faked the events of 9-11 couldn't fake it well enough to get it past you.

Ever wonder if maybe you over estimate your powers of deduction?
Just sayin'

So did the wings turn into shotgun pellets or did they fold backwards? Mike Walter stated, "The wings folded back and it was like watching someone slam an empty aluminum can into a wall. The jet folded up like an accordion." If the wings folded back then what damaged the columns behind the facade? Let's assume the wings didn't fold back. The PBPR states, "A second photograph (figure 3.9) taken before the collapse reveals that first-floor exterior columns on column lines 15, 16, and 17 were severely distorted but still attached at least at their top ends to the second-floor framing." So right where the right wing would have it with its greatest force, the impact still wasn't able to break the attachment between the columns and the second-floor framing. I like all the analogies that the debunkers use to describe how the plane impacted the building. To explain why the hole is so small Popular Mechanics stated, "What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass." Allyn Kilsheimer stated that, "The plane became almost like an artillery shell or tank round." Now we have the plane transformed into shotgun pellets. Interesting. Mutually contradictory explanations to explain the Pentagon attack. Which one should I believe?

Look up 'simile' in the dictionary.

Mutually contradictory conspiracy theories surround the pentagon attack. Preplanted explosives and flyover, or plane crash but not the missing plane, or cruise missile and no plane, or five foot tall pentagon and a destructive shadow. Who shall we believe?

How does investigating a crime dishonor the memories of the victims of that crime?

It doesn't. But you're not investigating because you're not an investigator. You're surfing the internet and looking at photos.
That's all. The question is, do you remember the victims?

 

[CurtC]

The hole was not created at the angle at which the plane entered the Pentagon.

You mean this hole ?!?

 

[Swing Dangler]

We have absolute evidence that the hole was not created by a wall-breaching kit. The debris is thrown primarily in the direction in which the aircraft was travelling when it hit the facade, and corresponds to the longest trail of damage through the impacted area. Little of the debris was thrown to the right of the hole. Thus, no explosive devices were used in its creation.

That leaves an airplane as the causitive agent.

Can you source where chemical tests were done on the debris to disprove the use of explosives?

Ahh never mind, I know the answer. You can't. There is no evidence disproving the use of explosives in whatever form.

 

[DGM]

Can you source where chemical tests were done on the debris to disprove the use of explosives?

Ahh never mind, I know the answer. You can't. There is no evidence disproving the use of explosives in whatever form.

Did the explosives suck the debris through the hole?

 

[Par]

Can you source where chemical tests were done on the debris to disprove the use of explosives?... You can't. There is no evidence disproving the use of explosives in whatever form.

There are two things one could point out here (although there’s probably no point in doing so):

• You’re committing the argument from ignorance fallacy.
• You’re suggesting that because something has been disproved via method X and not method Y, it hasn’t been disproved at all, which is particularly odd.

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

the Pentagon

CurtC: One of my wife's friends lost her husband (a Navy Captain) in the Pentagon. Whenever I see that diagram of the damage inside the building I always wonder where he was when the plane hit and hope that it was so quick he didn't feel anything. It's one reason why I despise the twoofers as much as I do. (As much as I despise this administration). They're mentally jacking off over the corpses of the people killed that day.

MP

 

[Belz...]

Mark Roberts (My Thread) is an Official Cover Story cronie telling nothing but Loyal Bushie LIES.

Yeah, sure. Just like the US government is paying laymen from all over the world to protect their interests in an obscure internet (read: virtual) forum.

 

[Pardalis]

"The important thing is not to stop questioning". Albert Einstein.

I didn't say stop trying to understand the events did I?

I said it's not because there are still things unanswered that it justifies doubting and denying the entire account of that day.

Please, before you quote Einstein, make sure you actually understood the point the other person was making, it kind of makes you look like an idiot.