DC Tom Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 I've always been puzzled at the imbalance in remembering 9/11. So much focus is placed on the World trade Center and hardly anything on the Pentagon. The entire Pentagon attack still seems weird. For one, the impact wound on the building so narrow? Why no sign of damage from the wings hitting? PTR First, it wasn't that narrow. It was huge. Unless you've seen the Pentagon (like someone said, I used to live next to it), you don't get a sense of the scale - it's a massive building. The damage in the picture looks small - and the collapsed part, in relation to the Pentagon, arguably is. But the size of the Pentagon itself hides the massive level of damage that was actually done. Second...airplanes aren't as solid as people tend to think. Wings and empennage tend to shear off rather readily (i.e. you wouldn't see an airplane-shaped hole in a solid stone building. This isn't the coyote falling off a cliff while he's chasing the road runner), and in that picture you linked any damage caused to the exterior of the building by the wings would tend to be unseen for the collapse and fire damage.
Bad Things Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 keep hating Hating? There's no hating at all in there. It was just a little warning to people to be careful who they listen to. DC Tom and other know-it-all's on this board (perhaps you,too?) sure loved to tell us all about how smart they were and much they knew about everything while pointing out how stupid the rest of us were for not being in agreement with them. With the gift of hindsight we can see who was actually right and who was wrong on the issues. Unfortunately, here in America it's not about actual credibility, it's about who can continue to spew the most bs and talk the loudest over everyone else.
KD in CA Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 First, it wasn't that narrow. It was huge. Unless you've seen the Pentagon (like someone said, I used to live next to it), you don't get a sense of the scale - it's a massive building. The damage in the picture looks small - and the collapsed part, in relation to the Pentagon, arguably is. But the size of the Pentagon itself hides the massive level of damage that was actually done. I think that's the same reason why so many people swore it was a small plane that hit WTC. Those buildings had very big footprints.
DC Tom Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 keep hating I've got such a dedicated fan club. It's cute.
ajzepp Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 Hating? There's no hating at all in there.It was just a little warning to people to be careful who they listen to. DC Tom and other know-it-all's on this board (perhaps you,too?) sure loved to tell us all about how smart they were and much they knew about everything while pointing out how stupid the rest of us were for not being in agreement with them. With the gift of hindsight we can see who was actually right and who was wrong on the issues. Unfortunately, here in America it's not about actual credibility, it's about who can continue to spew the most bs and talk the loudest over everyone else. I've had issues with fellow TBD'ers too at times...we all have. But it's not really cool to just blind side Tom or anyone else with such an out of context statement. Most of us don't know each other in person, but there are a lot of us who have been posting here and spending time with one another for many years, and we have established some sort of respect among our TBD peers. If you have some issue with Tom, then PM him or something...don't just post something inflammatory out of the blue and expect to not be taken to task on it.
RkFast Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 I've had issues with fellow TBD'ers too at times...we all have. But it's not really cool to just blind side Tom or anyone else with such an out of context statement. Most of us don't know each other in person, but there are a lot of us who have been posting here and spending time with one another for many years, and we have established some sort of respect among our TBD peers. If you have some issue with Tom, then PM him or something...don't just post something inflammatory out of the blue and expect to not be taken to task on it. Not to mention the fact Tom SAW THE !@#$ING PLANE. Maybe HE'S part of this "grand conspiracy"
ajzepp Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 Not to mention the fact Tom SAW THE !@#$ING PLANE. Maybe HE'S part of this "grand conspiracy" After all the stuff I've read today, that wouldn't surprise me lol
Guffalo Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 Not to mention the fact Tom SAW THE !@#$ING PLANE. Maybe HE'S part of this "grand conspiracy" or was he flying it?
DC Tom Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 or was he flying it? I neither confirm nor deny.
Nanker Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 Convincing scientific proof I do believe in spooks.
GG Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 I've always been puzzled at the imbalance in remembering 9/11. So much focus is placed on the World trade Center and hardly anything on the Pentagon. The entire Pentagon attack still seems weird. For one, the impact wound on the building so narrow? Why no sign of damage from the wings hitting? PTR Uhm, what's that pile of twisted metal on the ground on the left side of the picture?
WellDressed Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/epis...y-4067/Overview Building 7
DC Tom Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 Uhm, what's that pile of twisted metal on the ground on the left side of the picture? Debris. I don't think you'd find anything in that picture conclusively demonstrating an airplane. Judging by the equpiment on-site (flood lights, dumpsters, cranes, guys in Tyvek suits), it looks like it was taken a few days afterwards.
GG Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 Debris. I don't think you'd find anything in that picture conclusively demonstrating an airplane. Judging by the equpiment on-site (flood lights, dumpsters, cranes, guys in Tyvek suits), it looks like it was taken a few days afterwards. Exactly. But the debris doesn't look like debris from the building collapse, which is markedly brown. From a distance it looks like scrap metal. Then you'd have to ask why is that debris separate from the general building debris. A reasonable explanation is to segregate the remnants of the plane parts from the building. The conspiracy answer is that it was flown in to make it look like an airplane hit. Plus, if Promo was truly interested in seeing the damage that the plane caused, just zoom in the image and see material damage to the facade on the left & right side of the hole. A missile wouldn't cause that kind of damage.
DC Tom Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 Exactly. But the debris doesn't look like debris from the building collapse, which is markedly brown. From a distance it looks like scrap metal. Then you'd have to ask why is that debris separate from the general building debris. A reasonable explanation is to segregate the remnants of the plane parts from the building. The conspiracy answer is that it was flown in to make it look like an airplane hit. Plus, if Promo was truly interested in seeing the damage that the plane caused, just zoom in the image and see material damage to the facade on the left & right side of the hole. A missile wouldn't cause that kind of damage. It's inconclusive. None of us is an expert in photo-analysis of damage patterns from impact and fire. You can't know that a missile wouldn't cause that kind of damage. Hell, I saw the damn plane, and I still wouldn't say conclusively that that debris was from the plane, or facade damage was from the wings. But the flip-side of that is: Promo can't know, either. But he thinks he does.
GG Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 It's inconclusive. None of us is an expert in photo-analysis of damage patterns from impact and fire. You can't know that a missile wouldn't cause that kind of damage. Hell, I saw the damn plane, and I still wouldn't say conclusively that that debris was from the plane, or facade damage was from the wings. But the flip-side of that is: Promo can't know, either. But he thinks he does. Just commenting on the evidence presented and the direct question asked. There's more visual evidence of a broader strike than not in that picture.
DC Tom Posted February 4, 2010 Posted February 4, 2010 Just commenting on the evidence presented and the direct question asked. There's more visual evidence of a broader strike than not in that picture. That's the kind of "well, that's what I think it looks like" thinking that makes people believe they see explosive charges in the WTC collapse. There's visual evidence of debris and damage, everything else is interpretation.
Wacka Posted February 4, 2010 Posted February 4, 2010 That's the kind of "well, that's what I think it looks like" thinking that makes people believe they see explosive charges in the WTC collapse. There's visual evidence of debris and damage, everything else is interpretation. It's the same sort of mentality that makes people think that the Kennedy assassination was a conspiracy too. They can't believe it happened, so they have to invent these enormous conspiracies in their minds. I remember seeing Oswald shot live on TV and my father saying "Holy S***!"over and over (I was 6 at the time). It was the the same reaction I had to watching the second plane hit.
Dennis in NC Posted February 4, 2010 Posted February 4, 2010 I agree. This has been a sticking point for me too, why is bldg.7 such a secret? Look up about the BBC reporter reporting Bldg 7 has fallen, when the reporter was standing in front of it. Ooops, too soon? Sorry. The two towers exploding can not, by the laws of physics (which we all live by every day), have occurred due to an airplane impact at the 90th floor. Impossible. Many Americans have a hard time disbelieving their government's official story, but it was a huge fabrication.
GG Posted February 4, 2010 Posted February 4, 2010 That's the kind of "well, that's what I think it looks like" thinking that makes people believe they see explosive charges in the WTC collapse. There's visual evidence of debris and damage, everything else is interpretation. And the debris on the left looks different than the debris on the right. That and the width of the damage counters the initial point that there was narrow damage, when the visual evidence doesn't corroborate it. I have no idea what the debris is, but there are more signs in that picture pointing to wider damage than from a missile strike. There are other pictures out there that show damage resulting from a plane hit than a missile. ps - Should National Geographic now be lumped in with gov't apologists, joing the ranks of Popular Mechanics?
Recommended Posts