why can't 'truthers' tell the truth ?

[abenja1]

In what ways is the diagram inaccurate? This is another diagram of the impact:

[qimg]http://www.kolumbus.fi/sy-k/pentagon/osumakaavio.jpg[/qimg]

In the diagram shown by WAC the tail seems to be in the right place. The Pentagon Building Performance Report states,

"The height of the damage to the facade of the building was much less than the height of the aircraft’s tail. At approximately 45 ft, the tail height was nearly as tall as the first four floors of the building. Obvious visible damage extended only over the lowest two floors, to approximately 25 ft above grade."

To what degree is the diagram incorrect?



There is no "official" explanation for what caused the hole in the C-Ring. The answers seem to keep changing. The suggestion that the hole was created by the nose was entertained at one time.

Lee Evey, the Pentagon Renovation Program spokesman stated, “the nose of the plane just barely broke through the inside of the C Ring, so it was extending into A-E Drive a little bit.”

Donald Rumsfeld stated, “I’m told nose is - is still there.”

 

[tanabear]

It also bears noting that this statement was apparently made on September 13th 2001; and the Evey statment was apparently made on the 15th. Thus, both claims were before any serious level of investigation could have been carried out.

The serious investigation began after most of the debris was removed. The PBPR states, "By the time the full Pentagon BPS team visited the site, all debris from the aircraft and structural collapse had been removed and shoring was in place wherever there was severe structural damage...the Pentagon BPS team never had direct access to the structural debris as it existed immediately after the aircraft impact and subsequent fire."

So why should one consider this investigation to be more credible than the statement by Lee Evey? Besides, the PBPR never states what caused the hole in the C-Ring of the Pentagon.

The red lines that project the path of the wingtips are angled inward to account for perspective. The one at the top of the tail is not.

ETA: Actually, it is. Just not to the same degree as the wingtips.

However, I still think it's a little misleading to assume that the tail would still be standing upright after the plane had slammed into the ground.

The path of the wingtips might be angled slightly inward. But when you compare both diagrams the areas of impact are relatively similar.

When did the plane slam into the ground? The plane slammed into the Pentagon, not the ground. The only part of the plane that might have hit the ground is the left engine. "It was flying nearly level, only a few feet above the ground...These data suggest that the front of the aircraft disintegrated essentially upon impact but, in the process, opened up a hole allowing the trailing portions of the fuselage to pass into the building."

 

[332nd]

SWEEEEEET!
Are we really "official"?
Does this mean I get the NWO Parking Spot at all major concerts and sporting events?
I tell ya chicks dig a guy who gets that spot!

No Bobert...

I get that spot.

I Always get that spot.

You can tell by the big G over it.
(You're right about the chicks though.)

 

[Pardalis]

Tanabear, when you're done searching for the nose, the tail or whatever piece of the plane you're looking for, maybe you'd like to have a crack at this?

Carry on.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

Oh the movies get to me. I love how when you point to the errors you get the "Well there are mistakes, but you need to look into the evidence." Seriously this is so much of the response you get from people. You could tear it apart, and they'll tell you to "look into it". Which means a google search, like Alex "Google it" Jones instructs his followers.

 

[uk_dave]

Tanabear,

I think I would actually agree with you on this point about the representation of the size of the plane, as to me it doesn't appear to be unrealistic.

But what is the point of the WAC image? Are they seriously trying to suggest that the thinner, smaller wingtips and the tip of the tail should have had the same destructive power as the larger sections closer to the body of the plane? Do they not consider that both the wings and tail taper back from the body so that their connection with the fuselage of the plane is already undergoing destruction before they even reach the wall and that their is no logical reason to believe that the wing and tail tips would be in the same positions as an undamaged plane at the momnet they reached the pentagon wall?

And what about the rest of the lies on the wac sheet?

Are they really looking for the truth? The matter of the engine parts has been debunked for a long time now, and yet these 'truthers' don't appear to care about the truth. Doesn't that worry you?

Surely if they are mistaken about their assumptions about the ability of the wing and tail tips to cause damage to the facade, and they are mistaken about the engine parts and the debris field, why aren't they thanking people for correcting these mistakes and why haven't they changed their presentation?

And please don't respond by saying "I don't know, you need to ask them" because quite frankly I do know and I don't need to ask them: They are not interested in the truth.

But are you?

 

[Thunder]

"truthers" lie cause they do not seek the truth.

 

[Stellafane]

Wrong! The English horn is a large oboe.

Aw man, and I knew that too. I feel like such a bassoon...

 

[Par]

So you’re not going to address your doctoring of the quotation. Well, all right then.

It also bears noting that this statement was apparently made on September 13th 2001; and the Evey statment was apparently made on the 15th. Thus, both claims were before any serious level of investigation could have been carried out.

The serious investigation began after most of the debris was removed. The PBPR states, "By the time the full Pentagon BPS team visited the site, all debris from the aircraft and structural collapse had been removed and shoring was in place wherever there was severe structural damage...the Pentagon BPS team never had direct access to the structural debris as it existed immediately after the aircraft impact and subsequent fire."

I said any serious level of investigation. The building and aircraft related investigations might have begun immediately after the attacks. But when the statements in question were made, those investigations would have been – at the very most – scarcely a couple of days old. People tend to know more towards the end of an investigation rather than at the very beginning. Hence it is hardly surprising when rather tentative and speculative statements made early on are superseded as time goes on.

In any event, given that Rumsfeld was at that time the Secretary of Defence for a nation that had just suffered its largest ever terrorist attack, I dare say he had more pressing concerns than knowing precisely which bit of plane went where.

So why should one consider this investigation to be more credible than the statement by Lee Evey? Besides, the PBPR never states what caused the hole in the C-Ring of the Pentagon.

You’re asking why the results of an investigation carried out by trained professionals should be taken more seriously than a single statement made in the few days immediately following the incident itself. Whether or not the debris had been removed, I’m sure you can work this out yourself.

Moreover, they might not have explicitly said what made the hole. But that’s neither here nor there. It served as an appreciably superior foundation from which to work.