No, I didn't miss them, it's just that these "parts" have been documented from all angles already. Nothing new there. Together with the scrap, they easily fit into the container that's burning here:
That's btw a typical misunderstanding of loud-mouthed but low-research "debunkers" in assessing the Pentagon situation, especially regarding the work of the CIT. If it hadn't be so obvious that no large passenger plane hit the Pentagon, this conclusive research would not have been triggered:
Once again, ad nauseum, year after year, time after time, forum after forum, post after post, its been explained why there would NOT be any traditionally recognizable parts to a plane there. Its been pointed out more often than Carter has liver pills, again and again, that a fuel-laden vessel of that size with that speed hitting that wall has a potential energy force that would render the entire aircraft into small pieces. Nobody with any scintilla of aeronautical acumen doubts this concept of total destruction. Nobody. There would be no tail, no wings, no horizontal stabs, no section of fuselage, no nothing. 750 feet per second is about as fast as a .45 caliber bullet. These aircraft have upwards of 20 to 30 tons of dense, heavy metal built into the aircraft. That mass, with that fuel, at that speed, and that wall...one word. Boom.
To keep coming back asking why there isn't an "airplane" there is really one of the more hilarious of many hilarious claims from the CTs. It smacks of pure ignorance and only cements the notion that they really, *really* have no clue what they are talking about.
To keep coming back asking why there isn't an "airplane" there is really one of the more hilarious of many hilarious claims from the CTs. It smacks of pure ignorance and only cements the notion that they really, *really* have no clue what they are talking about.
Once again, ad nauseum, year after year, time after time, forum after forum, post after post, its been explained why there would NOT be any traditionally recognizable parts to a plane there. Its been pointed out more often than Carter has liver pills, again and again, that a fuel-laden vessel of that size with that speed hitting that wall has a potential energy force that would render the entire aircraft into small pieces. Nobody with any scintilla of aeronautical acumen doubts this concept of total destruction. Nobody. There would be no tail, no wings, no horizontal stabs, no section of fuselage, no nothing. 750 feet per second is about as fast as a .45 caliber bullet. These aircraft have upwards of 20 to 30 tons of dense, heavy metal built into the aircraft. That mass, with that fuel, at that speed, and that wall...one word. Boom.
To keep coming back asking why there isn't an "airplane" there is really one of the more hilarious of many hilarious claims from the CTs. It smacks of pure ignorance and only cements the notion that they really, *really* have no clue what they are talking about.
Yawn, yeah we've all seen the experiments. Thing is, the matter doesn't disappear, and you don't get a nice little "exit hole" at the same time the remains spray the whole area. It just did not happen - you CAN trust what you see here. Deal with it.
No, I didn't miss them, it's just that these "parts" have been documented from all angles already. Nothing new there. Together with the scrap, they easily fit into the container that's burning here:
That's btw a typical misunderstanding of loud-mouthed but low-research "debunkers" in assessing the Pentagon situation, especially regarding the work of the CIT. If it hadn't be so obvious that no large passenger plane hit the Pentagon, this conclusive research would not have been triggered:
So the plane broke apart on impact, scattering debris everywhere, debris you freely acknowledge exists, yet somehow this proves there was no plane.
Okaay.....
You are an intelligent man, CE. By the same logic...
There is no desk, no office worker, no phone, no coathanger, no computer, no chair, no folder, no stapler in that photo, either - nothing to prove this was the office building of a government department's administration headquarter. No plans of missiles, no handguns, no nuclear codes either.
Are you convinced now that the Pentagon building has merely been a dummy, a mock-up of an office building? That would be incredibly naive, wouldn't it?
And yet, you pretend that not seeing readily identifiable parts of a plane is any one of so many photos is, by any logic, an indication no plane crashed. You are not fooling no one, unless they came already fooled. You ought to be intelligent enough to understand that this naivety can't fool a non-fool, so why do you even try?
Show a photo after clean up, and make up a lie only CIT nuts would love.
People saw 77 hit the Pentagon, you are still pushing lies.
You show an F-4 test into a concrete structure testing how to stop planes, and make up lies. The landing gear and debris knocked a hole in the lower floor. It is called mass, simple physics, and 9/11 truth never uses science, they use fear, ignorance, bias, hate, and BS to float the lies you believe.
15 years of failure, 9/11 truth, with a lock on eternal failure based on ignorance and hate. CIT and p4t, the dumbest part of the 9/11 truth movement of lies.
The you show the dumbest research in history, CIT drugged induced search for lies. CIT is not an investigation team, it is idiots who can't interview a rock. It is funny their work confirms the south flight path, the FDR flight path and that 77 hit the Pentagon. All their witnesses agree 77 hit the Pentagon. That is special.
That's btw a typical misunderstanding of loud-mouthed but low-research "debunkers" in assessing the Pentagon situation, especially regarding the work of the CIT. If it hadn't be so obvious that no large passenger plane hit the Pentagon, this conclusive research would not have been triggered:
The conclusive research? Yes, it proves CIT are idiots, triggered by ignorance and insanity.
It is sad idiots produced a video which fools people who can't do reality.
Here is where CIT vidoes based on insane claims stands in the world of reality.
Cats get 122 million views, idiotic lies based on BS gets 34 thousand views.
Cats beat CIT. CIT is self-debunking, only a fringe few can't see the major flaws in their failed arguments.
Not figuring out Flight 77 hit the Pentagon after 15 years? Can you explain what is conclusive about the failed research of CIT? No. FDR, RADAR, DNA, ignored by CIT. The fantasy world of CIT.
What hit the Pentagon in your version of 9/11? 19 terrorists figured out 9/11 first, and the Passengers on Flight 93 figured out 9/11 in minutes; you are sitting on over 15 years and the best you can do is post the work of idiots, CIT failed nonsense, dumbed down beyond reason.
Yawn, yeah we've all seen the experiments. Thing is, the matter doesn't disappear, and you don't get a nice little "exit hole" at the same time the remains spray the whole area. It just did not happen - you CAN trust what you see here. Deal with it.
You're thinking the walls of the Pentagon have structural strength comparable to a solid block of reinforced concrete that's several meters thick? That's way, way beyond a reasonable comparison.
The narrator of that clip even says that the block was representative of the containment walls of a nuclear energy plant and the test was specifically designed to simulate a high speed collision of an aircraft with a nuke power plant.
I haven't ever looked at the engineering specs of the Pentagon's structure, but it's an office building that's very robust, as far as office buildings go, but obviously not designed to contain a reactor melt-down, right?
I would be surprised if the Pentagon's structural integrity was as tough as a Jersey Barrier that you see lining highways around the world. The block of concrete in that clip is roughly the mass of a thousand of those, is monolithic, and has no windows.
I'd like to know why I'm supposed to think that you're making an apt comparison.
I was replying to the dude who pretended that the "truther" argument is that a plane should be there as if a car hit a wall at low-speed. That's a strawman. Watch the short video I posted in #4. There aren't more remains on the magic pentalawn than fit into the container that's burning there. The facade is pretty unimpressed (but will partly collapse later). And yet there's a nice "exit hole" you can look at in the photos in the OP if you haven't seen it before. You can study the planeless scene on many videos although they have a tendency of disappearing. It's (not) there in plain sight.
I was replying to the dude who pretended that the "truther" argument is that a plane should be there as if a car hit a wall at low-speed. That's a strawman. Watch the short video I posted in #4. There aren't more remains on the magic pentalawn than fit into the container that's burning there. The facade is pretty unimpressed (but will partly collapse later). And yet there's a nice "exit hole" you can look at in the photos in the OP if you haven't seen it before. You can study the planeless scene on many videos although they have a tendency of disappearing. It's (not) there in plain sight.
They have a tendency of disappearing? What Craig took down his site or something?
Hell, even other truthers knew that Craig and Fat Aldo were full of beans. Then when it was shown that they misrepresented where one of their star witnesses was when he saw the plane on its way to hit the Pentagon?
Breathtaking misdirection there; trying to imply the damage to the façade was trivial while still admitting that it was enough to make it collapse. Unless, of course, you're claiming that the façade collapse was caused by something other than the damage from the impact, using the time-honoured conspiracist's trick of inventing a bit more of the conspiracy to cover everything that doesn't make sense.
Meaning that the majority of the fast-moving debris penetrated far enough into the building to break through the inner wall, which is why it wasn't left on the lawn outside. (And, of course, which is why a whole lot of it can be seen on other photos piled up inside the building.)
Jeez. A ten year old of below average intelligence could see through this nonsense.
Meaning that the majority of the fast-moving debris penetrated far enough into the building to break through the inner wall, which is why it wasn't left on the lawn outside. (And, of course, which is why a whole lot of it can be seen on other photos piled up inside the building.)
Jeez. A ten year old of below average intelligence could see through this nonsense.
That's btw a typical misunderstanding of loud-mouthed but low-research "debunkers" in assessing the Pentagon situation, especially regarding the work of the CIT. If it hadn't be so obvious that no large passenger plane hit the Pentagon, this conclusive research would not have been triggered:
I was replying to the dude who pretended that the "truther" argument is that a plane should be there as if a car hit a wall at low-speed. That's a strawman. Watch the short video I posted in #4. There aren't more remains on the magic pentalawn than fit into the container that's burning there. The facade is pretty unimpressed (but will partly collapse later). And yet there's a nice "exit hole" you can look at in the photos in the OP if you haven't seen it before. You can study the planeless scene on many videos although they have a tendency of disappearing. It's (not) there in plain sight.
I don't understand what you're getting at. The Pentagon is not a monolith, and neither is the airplane. As the airliner disintegrated into it, the Pentagon's structurue deformed and collapsed around the shredding airframe, and both bodies dissipated the energy of the collision by being torn into bits as the collision progressed. Not much of the airplane bounced off of the building because the building was yielding to the momentum of the impact. Exactly as one who understands a little physics would expect.
In the F-4 video, the solid block of concrete is way too rigid to be deformed by the impact, but the whole thing does move back a little as the airframe shreds itself into little bits that fly off in a hemisphere of hot metal and fractured concrete. Exactly as one who understands a little physics would expect.
The photo is what? When was it taken, what is it showing? Is it showing the recovery efforts and taken at night? The debris is what was there during the day, or what the firefighters and rescue workers dragged out of the Pentagon through a break made larger by rescue workers? What is the point?
A photo at night, it not what was there the second flight 77 mass hit the Pentagon and came to rest. A photo after firefighters and recovery effort is proof of what?
The point is CIT ignored reality, proved by the idiotic video you posted. Nuts like CIT and p4t, try to sell videos and lies. Their failed claims are based on ignoring the evidence found in the FDR, Radar tapes, and DNA.
Yawn, yeah we've all seen the experiments. Thing is, the matter doesn't disappear, and you don't get a nice little "exit hole" at the same time the remains spray the whole area. It just did not happen - you CAN trust what you see here. Deal with it.
It was taken by terrorists and flown into the Pentagon, Radar proved, as did the FDR. Radar and FDR told you, you failed to listen. UBL could tell you but he had an accident while hiding all those years.
What happened in your version, as Paik points to the south?
Was an inside job, a false flag? No, it was idiots inspired by UBL to kill americans. A simple plot which only worked because of the way the USA handled hijacking before 9/11.
You are an intelligent man, CE. By the same logic...
There is no desk, no office worker, no phone, no coathanger, no computer, no chair, no folder, no stapler in that photo, either - nothing to prove this was the office building of a government department's administration headquarter. No plans of missiles, no handguns, no nuclear codes either.
Are you convinced now that the Pentagon building has merely been a dummy, a mock-up of an office building? That would be incredibly naive, wouldn't it?
And yet, you pretend that not seeing readily identifiable parts of a plane is any one of so many photos is, by any logic, an indication no plane crashed. You are not fooling no one, unless they came already fooled. You ought to be intelligent enough to understand that this naivety can't fool a non-fool, so why do you even try?
Hey, Childlike Empress. I have quoted the above as you may have missed it in your rush to respond to later posts. Would you care to comment on Oystein's post? I think he makes good valid points.
No, I didn't miss them, it's just that these "parts" have been documented from all angles already. Nothing new there. Together with the scrap, they easily fit into the container that's burning here:
Why would you expect even a substantially large portion that scrap to be near holes that were allegedly punched by detached engines? Wouldn't you expect the bulk of that scrap to be exactly in the center of the crash site where the main building collapse then occurred? What do you expect the bulk of the scrap to look like after (1) the initial impact, (2) the collapse of multiple floors of the pentagon on top of it, and (3) being subjected to hours of severe fires?
Why would you expect even a substantially large portion that scrap to be near holes that were allegedly punched by detached engines? Wouldn't you expect the bulk of that scrap to be exactly in the center of the crash site where the main building collapse then occurred? What do you expect the bulk of the scrap to look like after (1) the initial impact, (2) the collapse of multiple floors of the pentagon on top of it, and (3) being subjected to hours of severe fires?
What the hell are you babbling about? "The bulk of the scrap" after (1) you can see in the video I posted in #4. People are proud to point to maybee fifteen kilos like seen in #3. Show me "the bulk" and we can talk about if it looks right. Fail and ask yourself why that is.
At the scene of an awfully nasty human tragedy, the effort required to separate that amount of broken airplane from a hill of broken bodies, building, and furniture that's all been cooked in a pretty big fire seems tremendously thoughtless and wasteful to me.
Picking through the rubble and separating out the few major components that were still recognisable as airplane afterwards was quite enough to ask of the people sifting through stinking piles for teeth and pieces of passports in dim hope of finding some few things to identify the shredded dead.
You mean the "fast-moving debris penetrated far enough into the building to break through the inner wall" event you proclaimed didn't happen? It's not inside the exit hole at all? Just a bit of random junk, mostly outside? Well spotted, Dave. Why does it take me to point that out to you in 2017? Stop deceiving yourself.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
