Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
Display:
I watched one of the 9-11 conspiracy videos today.  At least with the Pentagon crash and flight 93, they make a very good point:  the debris and targets in the crashes do not look the way they should.  

I used to test aircraft engines for Prattt and Whitney and sat at dozens of enquiries about air crashes and I've never seen debris like that of those two crashes.

It's a google video called "Loose Change"

by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 02:02:28 PM EST
The conspiracy thing just doesn't seem to go away. Today's headline of the 'Blick' was, it is not yet online, so I do not know what it is really about - 'Schweizer Uni-Forscher stellen heisse Fragen:
9/11: Steckt doch der Bush-Clan dahinter?' (Swiss Universitiy researchers are asking hot questions: 9/11: is the Bush-Clan yet behind it?

I know it is the Blick, I saw the headling while waiting in line at the supermarket - it is equivalent to the Bild in Germany and I think the Mirror in the UK - but still, the topic is not going away.

by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 02:13:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
well, the thing that convinced me about this movie was at the Pentagon crash, they showed the hole in the wall caused by the plane.  There was no way that a 727 went into that hole because it was about 10 metres high and about 5 metres wide.  I mean, what about the wings?

The wings weren't lying on the ground either.  There was just no wreckage.  To me, it was really that simple

by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 02:17:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't know what the truth is, but I am convinced that the official version is not true. Why should a government that lies when ever they open their mouth, tell the truth in this one thing. Besides there are just to many question marks and unanswered questions.

It makes sense to me what you describe about the pentagon  crash. Just wondering if we will ever find out the truth. Maybe with the internet it might be possible, as information can not be hidden as easily anymore.

by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 02:21:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
another thing I wanted to "investigate" is that the first plane hitting the World Trade Centre doesn't look like a plane.  The second one does, but the first really doesn't.  Now that I have downloaded the video, I can stop and freeze the frame.  

If you're intested, look at video.google.com

The one I was watching was Loose Change but if you google 9-11, you should be able to get a few others, including those that debunk the debunkers.

by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 02:25:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
1.  I've gone through the following process:  Initially being in disbelief and offended by the idea that our own govt could do this (many of my friends were suggesting it just weeks after the event.)  To thinking that it was not planned, but gross negligence by the Bush Admin (remember that PDB?).  To thinking they knew it would happen and did nothing to stop it because it would benefit them.  To being open to the possibility, or even probability that the Admin was involved in the orchestration of the event.

I think my best guess right now is that knew it would happen and did nothing to stop it because it would benefit them.

One simply cannot comprehend just how well they have benefitted from the attacks.  Almost nothing this administration has done can be even remotely justified without 9-11.  

But I've always been pretty liberal and pretty open to conspiracies.  I will say this on behalf of the American people: it is difficult to wrap your brain around the fact that the people who are supposed to be protecting your safety, your way of life, your country, are actually out to kill you.  Minorities, draftees, etc have experienced this.  But for most Americans, the idea that we could be attacked, militarily, by our own White House, in a time of peace, requires such a shift of consciousness that it may take decades or centuries to accept that.

It reminds me of a story I heard about Columbus' ships arriving in the Americas and the native peoples not seeing them on the horizon because they simply had no reference in their psyches to recognize them.

Here is a reference to that legend.
http://www.empowermentillustrated.com/mtarchive/000663.html

I don't know if it is true, but it sounds appropriate to explain much of what is happening now.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 02:35:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
i had that shift happen while watching a documentary on pbs in the 80's (very late at night, when all good drones are slumbering), about the christic institute eand their investigations into cia cocaine smuggling and the huge rise of coke use in the usa.

nancy 'eyes apopping' reagan was touring the schools wisely enjoining the children to 'just say no', like the compassionate soul she was, and there on the tv was a damning document with bush senior's john hancock on it.

right there, on my tv, in america!

i always loved phil donahue and 60 minutes, but this was a whole new level.

i never doubted for an instant that 9-11 was a false flag....it was too spielberg to be anything else...

i still have a touching faith in the moon landing, santa claus and the tooth fairy!

oh yes, and that we will pull our collective cranium outta our collective rear end one fine, sunny day...

9-11 changed everything...i became a news junkie (and stopped reading fiction.....)

i know a third act-opener when i see one, and the stagecraft of this saudi moriarty served as a rousing wake-up call.

to what?

1984 - the sequel?

i'll let you know after a long, refreshing nap...

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 08:33:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
These arguments have been debunked a number of times, here and elsewhere.

Please, no conspiracy theories here on ET. I don't intend to ban anyone on this like on dKos, but I find the topic tasteless, pointless and mindless.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 02:57:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think that if we are going to refer to ourselves as "reality based" we have an obligation to find out what "reality" is.  Even when we find it tasteless.

I find Kos' policy regarding the topic appalling.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 02:59:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
poemless, if you know it, can you quickly tell me something about Frederic Forsyth's "Icon" and its film interpretation? 100% Russophobic/total waste of time to watch, or not?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:26:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No clue.  Looks like the film is produced for the Hallmark Channel, which, translated into Hungarian, means, "Run for your fucking life."

And this from the author's wiki page:

"Forsyth is a Eurosceptic Conservative. In 2003, he was awarded the One of Us Award from the Conservative Way Forward group for his services to the Conservative movement in Britain."

Sounds like here might be something better to do with your time.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:37:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks! The novel and film is about Russia, that's why I thought maybe you know it, but the above info is thumbs down enough for me.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:42:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We bought a rail map of Europe today ...
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:44:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Do you travel across the north of Wales, or do you come down the Cambrian coast line through Macynlleth?

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:34:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The Hallmark channel?

Picking jaw from floor, will be back when I glue the pieces together.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:49:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What's the deal with the Hallmark Channel? Is it some right-wing madhouse, think Fox or Clear Channel?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:10:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hallmark has a virtual monopoly in the printing of stupid greeting/birthday/inspirational cards and the marketing of kitsch trinkets.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:12:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't think they are politically motivated like FOX, but they specialize in sappy made-for-TV films that are "appropriate for the whole family".  I think they have some backing from faith based organizations.

Their biggest offense is the promotion of attrocious acting and writing.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:26:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We're reality biased. Most people are actually. The only ones that aren't eat grains and levitate all day long.
by Alex in Toulouse on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:55:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Is that a sourdough version of reality?
by de Gondi (publiobestia aaaatttthotmaildaughtusual) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:11:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Click for (much) larger.

See this

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:22:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
sorry, not convincing
by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:26:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's not up to me to convince you, it's up to you to convince me.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:30:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Now, if we're going to do this honestly you have to set the goalposts ahead of time.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:32:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This started this thread:


I watched one of the 9-11 conspiracy videos today.  At least with the Pentagon crash and flight 93, they make a very good point:  the debris and targets in the crashes do not look the way they should.  

An extraordinary claim. So far I have seen no evidence beyond "it doesn't look the way it should and I know, I'm a mechanical engineer".

I don't claim any mechanical competence, but I call for evidence. Nothing more, nothing less.

Thus your comment is disingenuous. I did not move the goalposts.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:38:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You have to give some indication of what you will accept as "extraordinary evidence" ahead of time. I did not say you moved the goalposts.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:44:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't even try to convince people with closed minds
by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:38:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You're smart.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:59:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
so I guess this isn't really an open thread, is it?

shouldn't that be written somewhere in little letters in legal language?

by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:08:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's time for a diary, especially since you claim specific expertise that nobody else on this thread has.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:53:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Jerome is a mechanical engineer as well, I believe.  I don't know if he has any aeronautical experience but I think wind turbines qualify
by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:57:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Wind turbines are like airplane wings. Fuselage is an entirely different beast. I'm not going to make any statements about Jerome's qualifications. He did study at polytechnique before switching to economics.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:31:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh it's open. Which also includes the right to say that what you write is silly and worse.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:24:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
really?  any reason for saying that or just a prejudice against so-called conspiracy theories that question first ever recorded lack of wreckage after such an impact?  
by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:28:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Why do you keep claiming lack of wreckage after I pointed you to photos of wreckage?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:34:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
wreckage?  no plane wreckage that I can see?  no engines, no seats, no luggage, no bodies

I see a whole in a building, soot marks on the grass and some on the Pentagon, and broken windows

I don't see any plane wreckage

by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:46:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Having covered others elsewhere, I'll continue the pictoral proof that you didn't look at my links here:

engine:

hole cut by the right-side engine next to the smashed generator:

wreckage of seats behind the Honeywell GTCP331-200 APU:



*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:04:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I see one diffuser case, one turbine wheel, a few fuel hoses, one fuel or oil valve, some electric cabling and a little bit of fuselage

I could fit it in one large suitcase

the point of the makers of the film was that that was ALL the wreckage that existed.  now compare that to another airplane wreckage and you'll find that there isn't a lot here

where's the rest of the seats, engines, fuselage, luggage, etc?  I don't even see little bits of them on the ground

and look at the cable spools - they look intact

by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:12:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
How many times do you change the story? First you claimed there was no wreckage. Then that there was no sign of the engines. Then that the plane is claimed to have been vaporized literally (torn to molecules), rather than little pieces. Having shown you examples against all three (wreckage pieces both large and small, engine pieces, lots of small pieces lying on the grass), now you shift to claim that my examples are "all". (And no that large piece in my other picture comment is not from the bow.) Well if you would check my links at last, you'd see a couple of other photos, and those are again only brought up as examples in longer aticles. I also posted more photos of structural parts down below. (And these pieces definitely don't fit into a suitcase.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:45:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Here we go again - the difference between a physicist and an engineer

physicist:  none =0.000000

engineer:  0 ± 1 or 2

by none, I meant not a lot.  You don't even have enough parts to build 1/10 of an engine there.  there are 2 engines.  about 150 seats and at least 100 people with their baggage.  (other engineers would understand that, by the way.)

by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:00:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
looking at the diffuser case, I am surprised that the injectors were knocked right out of their holes.  they're fastened pretty tight in there.  all of them seemed to be gone too.  pretty extraordinary.  
by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:02:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

And sprinkling the thread with "1" and "2" ratings and using a righteous, insulted tone does little for your credibility.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:34:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The thread might have turned out differently if you had said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" initially, instead of bringing up Kos' banning policy.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:38:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You honestly think so?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:53:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, yes, the entire pie fight is a subthread of "Oh for God's Sake", and manon got instantly defensive as a result of your comment.  Let me run the direct thread leading to this comment past you:
manon: I just watched "Loose Change"
Fran: The conspiracy thing just doesn't seem to go away
manon: What convinced me was the pentagon crash
Jerome: I don't intend to ban anyone on this like on dKos, but I find the topic tasteless, pointless and mindless.
manon: so I guess this isn't really an open thread, is it?
Jerome: Oh it's open. Which also includes the right to say that what you write is silly and worse.
manon: Really?  any reason for saying that or just a prejudice?
Jerome: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And sprinkling the thread with "1" and "2" ratings and using a righteous, insulted tone does little for your credibility.
Migeru: The thread might have turned out differently if you had said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" initially, instead of bringing up Kos' banning policy.
Jerome: You honestly think so?
I honestly do.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:08:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, being scrupulously fair, I'm sure you'll put somewhere in the wiki that my policy regarding conspiracy theories is "show me the beef"  and that I have little patience for assertions that rely heavily on title rather than on actual content.

You may note also that, apart form my initial comment, I dropped in at comment 80 or 90. Obviously I was not successful at stopping this silliness. Maybe I should have censored things, since I'm accused of it anyway.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:11:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You were successful at starting them, then come in 80 or 90 comments later and accude manon of being incivil.

I am not going to put anything "somewhere in the wiki" about your policy on anything. There are places for admins to put those kinds of things.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:25:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Migeru, there's something like 1 hr 10 mins between

I guess this isn't really an open thread..?

and

Oh it's open. Which also includes the right...

1 hr and 10 mins of invective.

Your "montage" isn't of any help because it doesn't reflect the real flow of the thread.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:16:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, I am sorry, that's how I see it. My point was that the invective has its origin in the mention of Kos' banning policy.

But you make a good point.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:21:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
had its origin in an unsubstantiated "9/11 did not happen" assertion.


In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:23:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
mais non

No one is saying 9-11 did not happen.

Some people are just questioning how it happened.

Remember the magic bullet in the JFK assassination?

Questioning established facts is not a bad thing, IMHO.

You guys see wreckage, and I see a few items.  You guys see proof from the burn marks on the building, I don't see anything of the sort.  

Why is that a bad thing?

by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:42:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
by p------- on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:04:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:07:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Naturally.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:09:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Indeed.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:13:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But of course.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
by p------- on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:44:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This sub-thread is laughable. And I mean that literally. Or 'lol' as it is also written.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
by A swedish kind of death on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 08:33:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"open" as in "open fire range"?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:40:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
open as in "open for business"
by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:44:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't understand that comment, manon. Would you care to explain?
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:53:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
you know, someone's brain is open for business, i.e. working
by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:37:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think mine's working. Mind you, I'm not an engineer or even a physicist, so I don't know what kind of brain I might have. For what it's worth, my brain tells me the subject there was the thread, not someone's brain.

So someone's brain was open for business? Really?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:49:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm trying to respond to a few people so I may be mistaken in my response to you
by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:06:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's obvious that you originally meant "'open' as in 'unrestricted content'", so why not just say that?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:09:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
because there have been no restrictions on content.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:12:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't think manon likes other people speaking for her, Mig.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:22:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Migeru can be my official spokesperson anytime

that way, I can get a Spanish translation as well

by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:26:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
sorry - I thought I was talking about closed minds
by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:24:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Migeru said "open" as in "open fire range", and you thought it was about closed minds so you said "open for business"?

Look, let's be kind and say you must have been very confused. And didn't mean to make unfortunate insinuations about this site and the way it's run, or the people, Jerome first, who put in a huge amount of their time here for 0 kopeks.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:39:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:24:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the extraordinary claim here is the accepted theory that for the first time in history, an aircraft impact caused vaporisation of the plane
by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:40:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Then it should be easy to debunk. Where's the plane? Where are the passengers that took that flight? etc, etc.

what caused this?



In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:51:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
that's not airplane wreckage

those are doors and other parts of the building

by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:56:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
and I'm pretty good at recognizing my mechanical parts  - I can recognize a high pressure tube from a regular tube and most engineers can't
by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:58:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Please stop bragging. It's unseemly. You're digging your won hole faster than a Boeing could.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:02:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
that's not bragging

bragging would be much more unbearable

by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:13:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
hey, give it a try.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:21:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I can cook better than Paul Bocuse!
by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:28:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Then it should be easy to debunk. Where's the plane? Where are the passengers that took that flight? etc, etc.

As the US government has had plans that included the fake desturtion of an airplane, this approach might not get you very far.

Wikipedia on Operation Northwoods:

The suggestions included:
[...]
Destroying an unmanned drone masquerading as a commercial aircraft supposedly full of "college students off on a holiday". This proposal was the one supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

On the other hand:

what caused this?

Leads into a whole other direction filled with speculation.

In general I think one should be allowed to question one theory about an event without immediately presenting another. The need to have a complete story at every point is in my opinion one of the driving forces behind the 'conspiracy theory'-discourse that is counterproductive to an investigative approach an rational discourse (as I believe a huge part of this thread shows).

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 09:01:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Certainly naive and stupid, and debunked several times, but tasteless, pointless (from the writers' point of view)?

Also, as much as "where are the wings" & co get on me with every repetition, I'd say that while there are real conspiracies, conspiracy theories can't be dismissed out of hand, it shall be done on a case-by-case basis. (BTW there is a diary up at present with MS Estonia conspiracy theories, which after some pre-knowledge and some research I see exactly on the level of 9/11 ones.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:17:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
no need to get personal.  

I don't know why you should take this as some sort of personal affront, but in my professional experience, that is not what a plane wreck looks like.  

by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:19:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
How many planes crashing into massive buildings at near maximum speed have been part of your professional experience?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:21:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
actually, a plane crash is a plane crash if the velocity and fuel level is the same, you can extrapolate for the conditions of the object that was hit

what makes you so eminently qualified to judge events?  blind faith or something more substantial?

by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:27:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
no answer.  I guess blind faith.  And I thought we were all hip people who didn't put much faith in blind faith.
by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:33:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You want an answer in twelve minutes???
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:34:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
ok, you know something about engineering and/or aircraft?
by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:35:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Me? Shit no. But I don't get all cranky if I don't get a response within twelve minutes.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:36:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hell, I can't even do arithmetic. Make that six minutes.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:38:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
how about if I called you stupid and naive like I just was?
by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:38:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh feel free. It seems to be the fashion around here right now.

Anyway, he didn't call you stupid and naive. He called the theory that. Not only stupid and naive people hold stupid and naive theories.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:42:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
you forgot to mention that people who support the accepted theories without knowing anything about the field in question, feel they know it all.  not all of them are ignorant.
by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:44:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
After 6 years of schooling and 10 years of profesional exprience, don't try to tell me to accept your word about something because you said so.
by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:48:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Are you confusing me and DoDo? I didn't ask you to accept anything?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:51:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
then maybe you shouldn't be arguing his case?
by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:55:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
He was trying to moderate.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:57:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
oh, is that what you call moderating around here?  
by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:58:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You have a point.

I prefer the cupcake method of moderating, myself...

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:00:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Can I have a cupcake?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:04:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, it's Colman we're talking about. If you look at the ET-opedia article on "grumpy" his picture is on it.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:03:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And did I?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:55:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Stop it.  Both of you.  Please.  With a cherry on top.



Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:45:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hey.

I happen to know that there is a subliminal flashing message on the title "open thread" which reads Please Be Overly Irritable! ... Please Be Overly Irritable! ... but let's all make an effort to ignore it.  We are better than some crappy brainwashing technology.  We can overcome it.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:41:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
BLOODY HELL. WE GIVE YOU THE KEYS TO GNOMEDOM AND HOW DO YOU REPAY US? HOW??? BY GIVING AWAY OUR SECRETS. I HATE YOU!!!!
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:43:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Calm down, now, Colman, you're validating poemless's revelations and we don't want that, do we?

Just tell her that theory is stupid and naive, that should do it.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:50:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Aha I should have known there was a reason for people fighting so much around here lately. Since your promotion we've been packing punches around like Mike Tyson on a blindfold.

But I'll let you in on my own thought about this: fighting is good, it shows that we're passionate.

by Alex in Toulouse on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:52:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Whaddayou know about anything anyway?
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:58:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I read a great quote today, in a comic book by Goossens ("Encyclopedia of Babies"):

"The ultimate quest for a baby, is that for wisdom. In certain philosophies, the quest for Wisdom expresses itself as the slow ascension towards Buddhahood. At the end of his quest, a Western baby can brutally decide to slow down all his daily gestures and reduce the size of his universe. He is then capable of playing cards for hours straight, while talking about his daily life to a barman. It is the ultimate renouncement of the desire to achieve Buddhahood that only a wise Westerner is capable of".

by Alex in Toulouse on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:10:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hey, I had nothing to do with this one.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
by p------- on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:59:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Aha, so you admit to having everything to do with all the other ones?
I'm calling my 7-foot tall buddies.
by Alex in Toulouse on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:05:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
spoken like a true Frenchman ;-)
by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:19:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry Alex...totally off the topic...just found this...we thought you might like it...

http://www.tourdafrique.com/orient/index.htm

We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars. Oscar Wilde

by Sam on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:03:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
manon, I'm certainly not the instant-reply type, I do my research, as it happens I was doing it just to reply your other comment downthread.

One plane crash is not the other if velocity and fuel level is the same, the impacted medium and impact angle also count.  But I asked you specifically about speed, too.

what makes you so eminently qualified to judge events?

Of the two of us it wasn't me who tried to use the argument from authority.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:49:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
speed can be vectored as horizontal and vertical components and thus the angle of impact isn't really important

as for the impacted medium, I have already told you that that was a variable, but if you know it's physical properties, you can extrapolate from one medium to another

by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:53:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Write a technical diary, DoDo is an astrophysicist so you know what level of technical detail to shoot for.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:55:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
gotcha

I just finished a gig at an observatory filled with wannabee mechanical engineers with astrophysics degrees

not the same thing in the least

by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:01:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Trained astrophysicist working as a railway engineer, to be exact. The point is not about being the same, but about an audience with what education you should tilor your technical arguments for.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:06:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I mean, I have a physics degree too. I can follow materials science arguments.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:07:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
and you can troll rate as well, I noticed

material science? really?  how about destructive testing?  do any of that?

by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:14:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, I can give you and Colman each a warning. I'm the one who gets troll-rated around here on a regular basis.

Look, all I'm saying is feel free to write a technical diary about this. DoDo is sceptical, I'm actually interested. We're both physicists. That doesn't mean we know better but you know what to expect us to know or be able to understand.

Everyone getting defensive doesn't help.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:18:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
perhaps the problem is that you are physicists

you approach this with a bias that is more appropriate to the birth process of stars than to metallurgical failures due to impact

come on, you're talking about 9 m/sec/sec acceleration versus a 520 mph thrust forward

you're also arguing against the established facts -  no aircraft has sustained this type of damage from an impact of any kind in history. EVER.  and people are questioning it.  doesn't that ring any bells for you?

by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:24:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, I can understand that gravity is irrelevant. Point to a comment of mine where I mention gravity.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:27:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The problem is that you replace technical arguments with innuendo and argument from authority or argument from incredulity, plus some out-of-context argument and misrepresentation (like that about g and 520 mph). You're the expert, you could educate us instead.

That no plane sustained this kind of damage is paralleled by the fact that no plane suffered this kind of impact. You were navigating around that point for several rounds. You were not responding to any queries about to what kind of experience you have with impacts, not even kinds of impact that could be extrapolated for the case of the Pentagon.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:31:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
but that is EXTREMELY important

how do people in engineering design things?  from previous experience

how do they know how things behave in certain conditions?  from previous experience

I once had to test a certain type of bearing seal called an air seal that exists in the hot part of the engine and supports the power shaft in some turboshaft engines.  The seal worked most of the time, but nobody who had worked with it over years and years could tell me where the high pressure and low pressure areas were, ie, how the seal actually worked.  It worked, that's all.  

A lot of engineering is like that - you design something and hope it works.  You don't necessarily put instruments all over the place and figure out how it works.

Same thing when something ruptures.  Most engineers don't care about anything at the molecular level.  They just want to know under what conditions it will happen.

So the fact that it has never happened before, and it happened TWICE, both times on 9-11, and not anytime since then, when planes have hit buildings before, makes it extremely suspicious and that is what should be investigated, not the 10,000 times or more that it didn't happen.

by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:06:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This is a big part of this threads wildness. And not only this thread.

In general we do not have mathematical proof for stuff we know that we know. Neither do we always have an reference handy (not even with the help of google). Be it engineering or the access to firewood in Sweden. And getting challenged on stuff we know that we know, that are basic, does not prompt eagerness to prove it, for what proofs would be acceptable for those that does not share our knowledge? And then a "you prove it - no you prove it" is quickly started.

Therefore I am not sure this debate over Pentagon will lead anywhere. On the other hand I would be interested in a diary on what plane crashes into objects usually look like. I know formulating it would probably mean some work for you (it is that way with knowledge we normally use rather then describe) but I think it would be interesting. If you like to compare it with 911 is up to you.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 09:38:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Great suggestion. And may I add a diary on how buildings collapse. I'm thinking about the "pancake" theory which explains the collapse of the twin towers.
Note: very important for that matter would be to know the actual structure of the centre of those towers (or an estimation of it), and an estimation of the temperature inside after the attack (as a function of time). these "parameters" could be given as an appendix or as a separate thread.

that would be extremely nice. I know nothing about structural mechanics.

by findmeaDoorIntoSummer on Sat Sep 16th, 2006 at 06:28:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The "basic" report is here....(quite a lot of pdf files)!

An important point would be the "B.4.3 Floor Truss Seated End Connections at Spandrel Beam and Core" chapter... As it would seem that some of those connectors were supple (as design) and couldn't be fireproofed very well... ?

An audio-slide show shows for the layman the whole story !

"What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman

by margouillat (hemidactylus(dot)frenatus(at)wanadoo(dot)fr) on Sat Sep 16th, 2006 at 08:56:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Hey, you gave me a 4! If I get a 2 from you as well I'll have comment properly rated as a 2. I haven't had one of those in absolutely ages.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:24:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, it's ok, I found the 2. I'll treasure it.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:25:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think we should be harsher on our grading, but we'd need to all synchronize our watches to do it (so that no one stops giving 4s systematically if the others don't follow).
And as grades push comments up (or down), they really should not be used lightly, no?
Would it be difficult to rewrite the grading system to have something along the lines of:

"Acknowledged"
"Funny"
and then "0-9" for an actual grading of instructiveness/pertinence/whatever of the comment

The first two would not count in the grading average.

by Alex in Toulouse on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:30:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My own preferred grading system:

  1. outstanding [implies nothing on agreement/disagreement]
  2. agree strongly
  3. uncivil
  4. troll
  5. disgraceful

I have never actually applied it except for occasional 2's that I am always recriminated about.

We have been warned on at least one occasion not to deviate from the binary unrated/4 rating system, as people get really sensitive really quick.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:36:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually that system's not bad at all, so perhaps we could just add text labels next to the number for a reminder (inside the scroll list, in the same format you used above). This could help people lighten up about grading.
by Alex in Toulouse on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:39:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And now, after saying this, I just notice (or remember for the firs time, habit being what it is) that there already are text labels next to the values.
Pffffou, can't wait to go out tonight. Will be called for a few whiskey shots when some friends leave a restaurant.
by Alex in Toulouse on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:43:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Aha, the phone rang! Need to go in a hurry, we'll also be watching the film rushes (I mentioned doing a suit & tie company ultralight role in a university movie, this week).
Love to all.
by Alex in Toulouse on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:45:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Trouble is, nobody uses the 3's for quality and people (including myself) tend to use 4s for endorsement. I do a conscious effort of giving 4 to insightful posts I am inclined to disagree with, but it's hard.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:47:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm sceptical, but if manon has techical arguments, I'm interested too.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:24:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What I mean is that I'm actually more sympathetic than you are to the conspiracy theories. Which will make it really amusing when I present and ridicule the conspiracy theories about March 11.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:29:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What I meant was that I am more sympathetic to the conspiracy theories than you are. On the other hand, you have obviously done more reading on the technical details than I've had the patience for.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:42:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I fail to see how examining physical evidence scientifically can be extrapolated into being the conspiracy theory that J so objects to.

There are some things that appear to be anomalies - unexpected phenomena to scientists. Some things that need explaining.

Now if we have knowledgeable people here at ET, on the possible explanations for these phenomena, then I think we are entitled to discuss them.

Of course, we may find that the answer is in ourselves - according to the theory of a very respected and senior medical researcher friend of mine. He told me three months ago about it, and I heard more at a meeting today. Clinical tests are confirming his theory.

The answer is a panic disorder caused by changes in CO2 levels. This is a cousin of the panic of suffocation or drowning. Apparently we have two 'sensors' - one is in the medulla at the back of the brain, the other in a main aorta leaving the heart. The brain monitors the levels of CO2 in the blood in a kind of steroscopic way. A differential in the two signals causes a reaction of seeking to avoid the situation (like lifting the head or going outside) on up in severity to a full blown panic attack. Jogging for instance does not cause the panic, because oxygen going down is not a trigger. There also seems to be an element of pattern recognition in which, if the cause of of the CO2 rise is 'logical' - such as swimming underwater holding your breath, the reaction can easily be suppressed.

The real feeling of panic is when your brain detects a differential but 'sees' no cause for it.

Perhaps therefore, our tendency to see conspiracy in 9/11 is related very much to one of the constant interests of this forum. The existence, origin and consequences of changes in CO2 levels in our urban environments.

Now there's a conundrum...

Somewhat like a brain surgeon performing surgery on his own brain - perhaps the ultimate feedback system.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:54:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Panic attacks and CO2 increase.

Could you elaborate a bit more.

Verrry interesting.

"When the abyss stares at me, it wets its pants." Brian Hopkins

by EricC on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:27:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't know much more at the moment, other than that a handheld scrubber is under development - like an asthma inhaler except it works like a scuba rebreather.

In limited trials it has proved very effective, bigger trials coming up. Main problem has been the caustic chemical used for scrubbing - but now solved.

Original observation of reaction is quite old and well documented. What is new is the understanding of how it works.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Sep 16th, 2006 at 03:37:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The importance of the angle of impact comes from the effects of gravity and the distance that can be travelled across surface structures before hitting the ground. I don't see where you mentioned the impacted medium. Which medium you had professional experience with compares to a building with a dozen lines of parallel support columns and various walls?

This discussion is frustating because it's like shadow boxing. You make claims without going specific about them. As Migeru pointed out, I have a level of physics education to at least follow your technical arguments if made explicit.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:02:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
now you're clutching at straws.  gravity is a minor matter in this type of event - with forward velocity equaling 520 mph?  it affects lift and drag, but we're not looking at aeronautical effects, we're talking about destructive effects of impact

and we're not talking about the molecular level either

this is the FIRST incident of a plane "vaporising" due to an impact and you can't even see any metal vapour coating on the buildings or on the cable spools in front of the building, about 15 feet from the impact point.  amazing!  a plasma effect from Jet-A1 fuel (which has about the same properties as diesel fuel)

by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:09:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
now you're clutching at straws.  gravity is a minor matter

Gravity was just a small part of what I wrote, picking it out of context, and as the only bit to respond to, more fits your charge.

with forward velocity equaling 520 mph?

For a falling plane, gravity adds to speed before impact and adds 1G to impact force. For a plane flying into a building more or less level, the speed you name is initial speed. This was of course an academic point making part of my argument countering your dismissal of impact angle as a factor, not a specific Pentagon impact argument.

this is the FIRST incident of a plane "vaporising"

Vaporising??? Are you now taking figurative speech literally? I again refer you to the photographs of wreckage from the wings.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:20:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
there is no wreckage from the wings.  

there is a burn pattern on the building but nothing that would indicate the geometry of the object that caused it.

by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:37:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
By now its pretty obvious that you haven't really looked at the photos in my link, or just scrolled across them without reading even the captions, not to mention the explanatory text.

No wreckage? I must be hallucinating:

Here I must be seeing paper clips and the piece of the Global Hawk:

Bur damages? These aren't burn damages:



*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:52:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
no, sorry, I see a part of a nose cone that should have been the first thing to strike the building, but it doesn't seem to be discoloured in any way

I don't see anything except some soot on a building that was hit by something which some people tell me was an airplane.  I can't see anything on the building that convinces me of that.  There is some debris, but very little for such a large object such as a 757.  

Sorry but that's what I see

by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:20:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Okay but - have you considered what's involved in crashing an airliner into a building * exactly * at ground level?

This may have been debunked already, in which case I'm happy to see links explaining how it was done.

But otherwise, this one has me baffled.

Normal airport landings use a system called ILS which guides the pilot to the runway, and optionally autolands if visibility is poor, or the pilot is feeling lazy.

The Pentagon obviously had no ILS. So we're talking about aiming something with the handling characteristics of a very, very large and unwieldy object, travelling at a very high speed.

I'd estimate the target corridor subtends an angle of a couple of degrees. Too high and you overshoot. Too low and you crash into the ground well ahead of the target, spraying the facade with debris, but not doing any structural damage.

You have to get this angle right while flying at between 300 and 500mph. This doesn't give you a lot of time to make pitch and altitude corrections during the final approach.

You can't use the altimeter to improvise a glideslope because there are no clear horizontal cues outside of the windows that you can check against - and everything is happening too fast to run a checklist anyway.

So you're:

Not using instruments or other aids

Approaching at a rate at which everything is happening between 2 and 4 times faster than for a typical landing.

Hitting a target corridor, which has to be accurate to (let's be generous) a few degrees

In something with the handling characteristics of an airborne express train

This may be exactly what happened. But if so, it's extremely impressive flying.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:15:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If the target was the Pentagon (you know, the largest building on earth), it's not that impressive, unless you say that the pilot actually targetted the part where he actually hit.

The fact that he hit so low suggests that he almost missed the target, which is not surprising, as you point out.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:23:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's not that simple. Come on - think this through.

The Pentagon may cover the biggest surface area of any building, but it's not particularly tall. In fact it only has four storeys, at maybe fifty feet. There's a scale photo from a recent study here. For comparison the tail fin on the 757 is just over 44ft.

Let's be conservative and say the approach speed is 300mph, or five miles a minute.

Let's say you're a minute away from your target at an altitude of a couple of thousand feet. How tall does a four storey building look five miles away at a shallow angle?

Fifteen seconds from impact, that four storey building is still more than a mile away.

Because I'm in a pedantic mood, I've worked out the visible width of the target corridor from a mile away. It's a little more than half a degree. And that's just to hit the damn thing at all, never mind score a bullseye on the ground floor.

Let's call it a degree if you assume that some overshoot into the body of the building still counts as a success. (And that's generous considering the actual shallow angle of approach.)

Unlike a car, which is fairly responsive, any altitude and pitch correction is going to take at least a few seconds to work itself through your brain, the avionics, the engines and flaps. Mostly likely you'll overshoot any correction and have to compensate in the other direction, which will eat further into your time allowance. What you certainly can't do is throw a 757 around the sky like a sports car.

Still, being even more generous, the reality is that if you're more than a few degrees out a mile away, you've already missed - by a long way.

As I said - impressive flying.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 07:25:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I doubt it's much harder to hit than a runway.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 07:27:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hitting the ground floor is impressive only if the pilot was aiming at the ground floor.  

Do you if the pilot was aiming for the ground floor?

And if so ... how?

(Just being my usual amiable self  ;-)

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Sat Sep 16th, 2006 at 12:33:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
extremely good argument.  
by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:47:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hilarious. Multiple eyewitnesses saw the plane flying toward and into the pentagon, but that can all be dismissed and it's a conspiracy because you think the debris trail looks funny, and now you're setting yourself up as the inquisitor. You know what conspiracies theories are good for? Weeding out people with big egos and narrow perceptions of reality.

Heaven forbid we pay attention to real "conspiracies" that aren't even hidden, such as the entire public relations industry.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:59:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
actually, no.  some people saw one type of plane, others saw another, and others something completely different.  any film from surrounding video cameras were seized and the film has never been shown.

I just know what I can see with my own eyes.  That was no airplane.

by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:03:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I just know what I can see with my own eyes.  That was no airplane.

You were there and you saw it? Why didn't you say so?

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:13:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
no, but I did see the point of impact

there is such a thing as deductive reasoning, in case you haven't heard

by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:17:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The government's confiscation [and failure to release] of all the private closed-circuit TV footage with a chance of capturing the impact doesn't invite confidence.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:06:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The confiscation of the evidence is probably the best circumstantial argument for a conspiracy.

After Challenger and Columbia - a huge on-the-record public enquiry and engineering effort.

After 9/11 - hey, we're holding on to all the evidence we can, and we'll only agree to set up an enquiry if we're bullied into it. (Although we reserve the right to release excerpts from emergency phone recordings of the Towers whenever there's a politically sensitive moment.)

Where are the photos and amateur video footage of the Pentagon attack?

I'd expect a ground level attack would be much less likely to be filmed than an attack on a tall building, for common sense reasons. But did no one take a photo of an airliner flying an approach run on a public building?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:38:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's true. On the other hand, the government's similar handling of (1) the tape from which the three frames that matter were already released, (2) the other parking lot camera that doesn't show much different (both finally released in a FOIA request this year) points to much less spectacular explanations than covering up a conspiracy.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:39:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not saying your'e wrong, but if you were going to appear to be open and above board, you would have released all of the films at once.

releasing just one and then being forced to release the others through the courts, is an absolutely stupid PR move.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:11:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Goverments tend to do that. In relation to Starvid's "Estonia" thread, in that case the area of the shipwreck was cordoned off by the Navy for a couple of months and civilian investigators claim not to have seen all the evidence yet.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:13:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's always invited criticism, The fact that it's the camera with what appears to be the worst view of the situation dosent help either.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:03:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You're going to love the upcoming March-11 diaries.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:57:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I disagree with you on principle, DL.

I think that the level of conspiracy-writing or, the other way around, debunking of conspiracy, that we here at ET can come up with, is based on data that is completely external to us and frankly not very accessible to us either. If we accept the external proof that there was no Pentagon crash, or its contrary, that there was a Pentagon crash, we are only taking chances in both cases.

Basing any theory, conspiracy or its contrary, on pictures, can't really get us very far. Pictures or their settings, can be doctored (no conspiracy), and can be interpreted (conspiracy).

by Alex in Toulouse on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:04:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Pictures, especially amateur shot digital ones, are a very poor substitute for examining the site.

And people who have investigated more than a few crash scenes, are the best people, IMO, to interpret the evidence.

Now, If someone could help me locate that picture of Ms. Royal that appeared here several weeks ago, I will go away and write a diary.

"When the abyss stares at me, it wets its pants." Brian Hopkins

by EricC on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:42:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But maybe it's not her, just someone looking like her. Who knows?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:46:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
One thing for sure, it ain't François Mitterand.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:55:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I meant the one under the trees with her henchmen and a dress on. some kind of political meeting.

I already had this one.

TeHeHe.

But your picture is much bigger, DL.

Thanks.

"When the abyss stares at me, it wets its pants." Brian Hopkins

by EricC on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 09:10:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Nooo-ooo-ooo, not again....

757 not 727. What went through that hole was the wreck of the central fuselage, not the entire structurally intact plane. Note that the entire plane virtually disintegrated on impact, only wreckage went further. The video apparently also didn't show you the photos on which the mark of the wings can be seen on the building wall, and the photos on which lots of scrap metal from the wings in front of the Pentagon is visible. The "where are the wings" conspiracy theory is actually the weakest of them all, dismissed even by part of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. I suggest you read what I wrote and linked earlier here.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:11:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
sorry not convinced.  I just saw the pics and they prove, not disprove the point.

 

by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:15:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Which pictures prove which point?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:18:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Say, the picture showing metal parts from the plane prove your claim that there were no wreckage from the pane at all?...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:19:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
there doesn't seem to be much apart from a nose cone, a diffuser case and another mechanical part of some kind.  

now I've supervised mechanics putting together turboprop, turboshaft and turbofan engines and APU's, and I have yet to see a part that looks like the one found in the wreckage which wasn't recognizable by reps of R&R and P&W

by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:23:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So now you ignore the photos that are evidence of the wreckage of the wings, the marks on the building, the hit lampposts and generator, the wheels and all the rest, and base your rejection solely on identifyable mechanical parts and engine wreckage?

Even so, from the text of the very first link:

There have been some people who claim that a Global Hawk was what hit the Pentagon. Here is what John W. Brown, spokesman for Rolls Royce (Indianapolis), had to say about the part in the photo above "It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I'm familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy." (Of course it wouldn't be anything he's familiar with, it's a powerplant made by Honeywell.) The AE 3007 engines are used in small commuter jets such as the Cessna Citation; the AE 3007H is also used in the military's unmanned aircraft, the Global Hawk. The Global Hawk is manufactured by Northrop Grumman's subsidiary Ryan Aeronautical, which it acquired from Teledyne, Inc. in July 1999. A detailed view of what the turbofan that powers the Global Hawk looks like - I'm sure you can see it's too small to be anything in the pictures contained here or anywhere else in the Pentagon crash evidence. Also visible in this photo, one of the 757's blue passenger seats to the left of the turbine, and possibly a 2nd seat above the other seat.


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:39:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
12 minutes passed.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:51:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Smug.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:59:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am not sure everybody appreciates your arcane sense of humor.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:04:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Starting here:
DoDo: How many planes crashing into massive buildings at near maximum speed have been part of your professional experience?
manon: what makes you so eminently qualified to judge events?
manon: no answer.
Colman: You want an answer in twelve minutes???
manon: ok, you know something about engineering and/or aircraft?
Colman: Me? Shit no. But I don't get all cranky if I don't get a response within twelve minutes.

...later, on a parallel thread...

DoDo: 12 minutes passed.

You might also want to explain why manon might have been inclined to troll-rate DoDo for that.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:16:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
DoDo's comment was wrong, because it was 6 minutes, not 12.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:22:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You mean Colman's comment.

If I may comment this meta-discussion, I don't see my problems with manon's debating style explained by Jérôme's provocation, nor do I think mentioning that he won't follow Kos's policy is the same as "bringing up" Kos's banning policy, even though I disagreed with that initial comment by Jérôme and saw it as provocative (and implied so in a reply, which to complicate things was in turn taken as an insult by manon).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:52:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Once again your summary doesn't reflect reality, this time in tone.

manon: what makes you so eminently qualified to judge events?  blind faith or something more substantial?

6 mins later...

manon: no answer.  I guess blind faith.  And I thought we were all hip people who didn't put much faith in blind faith.

Those are arrogant, belittling comments that were not justified (by what you want to say about Jerome or by anyhting else). Colman stepped in with his twelve minutes comment to wisecrack... OK, it didn't work... and suggest manon was overdoing it.

Later, DoDo explained that he didn't reply instantaneously because he was looking for data. And when manon didn't reply to a question of his, he pulled out the "twelve minutes" clause. The troll rating for that was obviously ridiculous.

BTW, I asked manon three-quarters of an hour ago what she meant by "open for business". I mean to get an answer.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:41:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So it seems I got one this very minute...
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:42:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You already did, and manon is obviously pissed off.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:42:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"manon is obviously pissed off"?

What, by me now? Wowee...

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:58:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, not by you. Just generally pissed off enough that I wasn't expecting a constructive answer to your question.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:00:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not sure what constructive answer she could make.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:02:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Then what's the point of your question?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:03:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not to let her insinuation go by unchallenged.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:16:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
don't  you think I have enough people challenging me?
by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:36:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
a conspiracy against you.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:47:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not out to challenge you on the Pentagon business, I haven't got a fixed opinion on that. But no one challenged you on that comment which had to do with the thread, the site, how it's run. So you've just got little me in your way on that one.

Let me point out, manon, that you have distributed troll ratings, while no one, afaik (if I'm wrong forgive me) has troll-rated you. And you have slung around some pretty high-handed comments about other people's capacities and qualifications. I don't think you are justified in passing yourself off as a victim.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:47:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the shape of the mechanical piece - the one you think is manufactured by Honeywell, doesn't match anything that one would ever see in an aircraft engine
by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:54:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Heh. Let me help you out where you should search for it:

Bonus: more metal parts close-ups for you:



(Even more at this Italian page.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:33:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
 A brand spanking new seven stage axial compressor (at least I think it is - it could be the power turbines but I can't see close enough to see if there are any cooling holes in the blades) being assembled to the combustion liner or exhaust?

A torn gasket with a fuel filter still attached?

And some unknown but rather small parts of the aircraft?

by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:55:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
you'd need quite a few suitcases to bring all of this around.

And would they have been spread out on the grass by the suitcase carriers before whatever made the impact on the Pentagon, or after?

And what happened to flight 77? And its passengers? They're all with Elvis?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:09:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Where are all the corpses?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:11:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In the atmosphere. You're probably breathing some right now.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:14:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
For a second there I thought that was a snark.

Do you know how hard it is to completely burn a human body?

Where are all the black boxes? In the atmosphere too?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:16:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
were reported to be found:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a091301blackboxes

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:35:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Have the recordings been released?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Sep 16th, 2006 at 03:49:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Just a small question along these lines, aren't the engines the heaviest, most sold parts of an aircraft? why wouldn't their be two holes where they punched through the wall and the body pankcaked on the outside?

I'm not trying to push some conspiracy, it's just something that has always been sitting there with a questionmark hovering over it, and I've never found anyone who had enough technical knowledge to explain it to me.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:30:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
aircraft engines do tend to stay in one piece more or less in an aircraft accident.  

the parts are pretty heavy, mechanically fitted together, wired into place (every bolt has to have wiring around it so it doesn't loosen) and many of the parts are designed to withstand extremely high temperatures

by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:44:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the reason I ask is that I know of at least one aircrash where the plane was reduced to inconvenient confetti, apart from the engine, which passed entirely through one building, coming to rest about a mile beyond the crash, somewhat battered, but still essentially in one piece.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:49:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
really?  do you remember where or when this happened?

the Pentagon is reinforced so it would not replicate the same conditions, but there would be some similarities to your incident

maybe if you could give us some more details of what you remember about it?

by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:59:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh yes, I've been looking for details of it on t'internet, but so far no luck. It's one of my fathers stories from when he was doing his National Service somewhere at the end of the 1950's at el Adam airbase. a Hawker Hunter hit the ground and was basically reduced to scrap. According to my father the largest part left was about the size of your hand. However the engine bounced across the airfield clearing several bulidings, and demolishing one half of one building. fortunately just missing the cleaner, who had heard a bang, and found the building behind him was missing when he turned round. from what I remember of the story it finally came to rest somewhere just short of a mile and a half away.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 07:12:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm no specialist in planes (though I know some tidbits on structural engineering and materials), and not paranoid enough to follow intricate plots...
But if the modeling of the crash shown here is not too far from reality (or at least a straightforward hypothesis), those engines went through the ground floor.

In Dodo's links you'll find those pictures of the damages on the outer part of the building. The structural damages were mostly at the ground floor and is consistent with the flight path and height level (in fact the plane must have been on a an air cushion effect, "effet de sol" in french).

One of them, left wing, chunked out a bit of concrete railing and the right one hit the generator (two structures at less then 1m and 3m high respectively) and went inside (picture of one engine inside the wrecked building) through the ground floor part of the facade.

Not surprisingly, the pictures show that posts and beams are damaged much further then the central big hole... (the famed wing problem)!

The Pentagone building shape and built technique had the same effect (my feeling) then the multiple layers of plastic sheets used to stop a bullet in forensic tests... The shape charge effect of such a plane at such a velocity would have otherwise reached the central courtyard. While it seems that only two holes were blown up on that side  (either perpendicular corridors, or part of the engines)!

I would agree with some that the chances to hit the target, flying so low and in such a short distance to maneuver and align the plane is really hard to achieve even for a trained fighter pilot !

My two euro cents worth of explanation !


"What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman

by margouillat (hemidactylus(dot)frenatus(at)wanadoo(dot)fr) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 07:07:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the pictures to which you point your readers in your post.  the extensive collection of pictures that supposedly explain where damage is attributable to the wings.
by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:20:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Details please.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:21:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The only bit I choke at is the reference to 911 (the emergency number). There were other options that would have been less "in your face": April 2nd for a reference to 24 hours (non-stop), March 4th for the 43rd president of the US (GWB), the 4th of July, August 4th for a reference to 48 the date of Israel's creation, December 9th for the US police radio code "are we clear?" ("we have a 912, repeat, we have a 912 here") etc etc
by Alex in Toulouse on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:49:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The main problem with this particular conspiracy theory is the huge number of people who have to be in on it. Thousands of rescue workers, academic researchers, engineering organizations, political groups with all sorts of viewpoints, media people, tourists with cameras, etc.

It's hard enough to keep a conspiracy with two or three people from leaking out, but in this case there is a MOUNTAIN of debunking analysis.

by asdf on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 10:31:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series