Tinfoil hat time...
Al Yellon
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26777
Opinions?
--
"If you're not part of the future, then get out of the way"
-- John Mellencamp
Kevin O'Neill
<aye...@REMOVETHIScolgatealumni.org> wrote:
>Found this link on another NG:
>
>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26777
>
>Opinions?
Huh. That is, um, something. Dispite myself, I'm a little bothered.
I mean, where is the damn plane parts?
Kevin
adjusting tinfoil, adjusting tinfoil
Matt Miller
$Fm1.785380@news20:
> Found this link on another NG:
>
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26777
>
> Opinions?
The plane is in fact visible in the security camera photos, over on
the right hand side of the first picture. The plane hit the ground first
and slid into the building.
And really how many crash sites sport anything resembling a plane?
And what of all the eye witnesses? This thing looped around DC for a long
while before it struck the Pentagon.
--
Matt Miller
Big David
> Found this link on another NG:
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26777
> Opinions?
Your title says it all. I have friends who were there. Trust me when I tell you
that the plane hit the Pentagon, or actually, hit the ground then hit the
Pentagon. It was seen by more than one or two witnesses. FWIU, the fireball
torched most of the plane and everything in that section of the first ring. I
know a man whose office was in that exact portion of the Pentagon until they
started remodeling not too terribly long before 9/11 time back. He's since
retired from the Navy, but it spooks him out to think about it.
--
Big David
"Dutch asks, 'Horay?' And the Purple Primate answers "A stretch limo based on the
Corvette Stingray. Carries mo bitchas."
AFCA, March 5, 2002
Stephen Fels
"Kevin O'Neill" <K_S_O...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3c8d680c...@news.dallas.sbcglobal.net...
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2002 19:36:06 -0600, "Al Yellon"
> <aye...@REMOVETHIScolgatealumni.org> wrote:
>
> >Found this link on another NG:
> >
> >http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26777
> >
> >Opinions?
>
> Huh. That is, um, something. Dispite myself, I'm a little bothered.
> I mean, where is the damn plane parts?
>
"The first satellite image shows the section of the building that was hit by
the Boeing. In the image below, the second ring of the building is also
visible. It is clear that the aircraft only hit the first ring. The four
interior rings remain intact. They were only fire-damaged after the initial
explosion."
The satellite image is from the wrong angle to show whether there is damage
beyond the first ring (at least below the rooftop). The other photograph
shows that the uppermost floor of the second ring relatively unharmed. Below
that, the building appears blackened and it appears (to me at least) that
there could be a big hole involving some of the third floor windows and
extending down.
"Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and
travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour* only damaged the outside
of the Pentagon?"
They haven't proven that to be the case. In fact, the photo seems to
indicate significant damage to the lower floors of the second ring.
"The two photographs in question 2 show the building just after the attack.
We may observe that the aircraft only hit the ground floor."
Immediately to the right of the point where the two streams of foam (which
obscure the first floor) cross, there could very well be a 2 story high hole
that made a mess of 3 windows. That hole would fit the fuselage.
"The four upper floors collapsed towards 10.10 am. The building is 26 yards
high.
Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a
wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just
the ground floor of this building?"
They haven't proven that to be the case. The photos are inconclusive and
seem to show what could be a fuselage size hole.
"The photograph in question 4 shows a truck pouring sand over the lawn of
the Pentagon. Behind it a bulldozer is seen spreading gravel over the turf.
Can you explain why the Defense [sic] Secretary deemed it necessary to sand
over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack?"
Unexpected repair work, requiring heavy trucks and machinery, is often best
facilitated by temporary 'roads' that avoid forcing that machinery to take
the main entrance. This same ignorant question could be asked any time one
of the theme parks builds a new roller coaster.
"The photographs in Question 5 show representations of a Boeing 757-200
superimposed on the section of the building that was hit.
Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they
caused no damage?"
Actually, there does appear to be damage corresponding very well with the
wingspan. Also, notice how the heavy damage runs engine to engine, while the
more superficial damage extends out to the wingtips. Exactly as one would
expect.
"The two photographs in question 7 were taken just after the attack. They
show the precise spot on the outer ring where the Boeing struck.
Can you find the aircraft's point of impact?"
Impossible to tell through the foam. Since the expected impact point is
obscured by foam (aside from what appears to be the cockpit's point of
impact to the right and above where the streams cross) the question is
silly.
The five frame video missed capturing the aircraft, but considering the
field of view and the speed involved, capturing it would have been pure
chance.
As for a lack of debris on the lawn, the ground slopes up to the first floor
and any debris would have been travelling into the building at 400 mph. If I
fire a bullet into someone's house, I'm not going to expect to find it on
the lawn.
These people are looking at an unusual event and trying to draw conclusions
from a biased viewpoint. It isn't surprising that they're wrong. This
reminds me of the "M00n H0ax" folks. Much ado about nothing.
--
Stephen
Home Page: stephmon.com
Satellite Hunting: sathunt.com
Kim
"Al Yellon" <aye...@REMOVETHIScolgatealumni.org> wrote in message
> Found this link on another NG:
>
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26777
>
> Opinions?
I don't know. I never really understand all this "conspiracy" stuff, but if
they are trying to convince someone that a plane *didn't* hit the Pentagon,
then how do they account for the damage? An "oops" from a couple of UFO's
playing laser tag?
Kim
JmG
wrote:
>|
>| And really how many crash sites sport anything resembling a plane?
>|And what of all the eye witnesses? This thing looped around DC for a long
>|while before it struck the Pentagon.
I don't know, Matt. Seems to me that every crash site has lots and lots of
recognizable debris. I think the Goebbels quote is appropriate.
J
--
We now return you to the present, already in progress. [www.bongoboy.com]
Bill Diamond
alt.fan.cecil-adams back on Mon, 11 Mar 2002 19:36:06 -0600 that ...
>Found this link on another NG:
>
>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26777
>
>Opinions?
He needs to have his tin foil hat tuned to a better frequency.
I have neighbors who were in the Pentagon when it was hit. We have
other friends who witnessed the plane crashing into the side.
Can I just go beat on the french for a while? They seem to add no
value to anything these days.
Bill
ctc...@hotmail.com
> Found this link on another NG:
>
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26777
>
> Opinions?
I noticed the lack of parts from the start. Not being conspiratorial
minded (except when I am in on them), I assume it was the plane, not
the hat, which was tinfoil.
Xho
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service
Stephen Fels
"JmG" <jmgreenATbestweb.net> wrote in message
news:s41r8u0vel09p7qh5...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 03:13:18 GMT, Matt Miller <yaddaya...@blah.blah>
> wrote:
>
> >|
> >| And really how many crash sites sport anything resembling a plane?
> >|And what of all the eye witnesses? This thing looped around DC for a
long
> >|while before it struck the Pentagon.
>
> I don't know, Matt. Seems to me that every crash site has lots and lots of
> recognizable debris. I think the Goebbels quote is appropriate.
You believe what you want to believe, when it suits you, but the facts don't
bear you out.
Not 'every crash site' involves a jet, diving at full throttle, into a
structure like the Pentagon, but even so...
From accounts of the Concorde crash "The violence of the impact left a
tangled mess of mostly unrecognizable debris. It took three days to recover
the remains of all 114 victims."
An F-16 that crashed in NJ ""There's parts all over the place - tires,
circuits," said Capt. Thomas Dreher, of the New Jersey State Police, who saw
the wreckage and said it was unrecognizable as an airplane."
Here's a photo of Payne Stuart's crash site
http://www.canoe.ca/SlamGolfPayneStewart/stewart_31.html
Where's the plane!?!
I think you and Goebbels were meant for each other.
Lars Eighner
talented Al Yellon broadcast on alt.fan.cecil-adams:
> Found this link on another NG:
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26777
> Opinions?
Worldnetdaily is a neo-Nazi propaganda rag - well, it would be a
rag if it were printed. These are the same people who calculated
that not enough Jews were killed at the WTC and therefore Israel
had advanced notice of the attacks, if it didn't actually organize
them.
What in the world is so remarkable that a big jet loaded with
fuel crashes into a low building and/or the adjacent ground
and doesn't leave pieces big enough to be recognized by lay people
viewing low-res TV images and photos taken from a distance?
If that isn't Flight 77, where the hell is Flight 77 - and
Barbara Olsen, not that I want her back? Is she not sucking off
billy goats in hell?
There was enough left of one of the flight attendants to make
a positive ID, so how did the flight attendant get there without
the airplane? To get this conspiracy off the ground you would
have to explain how the real Flight 77 could be disappeared and
something else substituted to make a hole in the Pentagon in a
matter of minutes.
These guys gave up on trying to discredit the heros of Flight 93
weeks ago - evidently they preferred no one get credit than admit the
possibility that a gay man was among the rebellious passengers. I
can't figure their angle on Flight 77; maybe they are just stirring
the shit to keep their hands in.
--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
"Shhh! Be vewwy, vewwy quiet! I'm hunting Muswims!"
- President Elmer Bush
Greg Goss
>The satellite image is from the wrong angle to show whether there is damage
>beyond the first ring (at least below the rooftop). The other photograph
>shows that the uppermost floor of the second ring relatively unharmed. Below
>that, the building appears blackened and it appears (to me at least) that
>there could be a big hole involving some of the third floor windows and
>extending down.
The big photo is
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/images/facade-intacte-hte-def1.jpg
I don't know whether this is the one you're talking about. I only see
four rows of windows in a "5 story" building. It is hard to tell from
these photos whether the first floor is a double-height, or whether
the unwindowed space near the roof is the fifth floor.
If the wings were destroyed on impact with the ground, then we are
looking for three punctures into the building. The one just left of
the midline of the large picture above is a neat impact about two
stories high by two windows wide. If we take this to be the fuselage,
then the engine at the right did dramatically more damage. If the
plane bounced off the lawn first, then this makes sense. The water
stream makes it impossible to see if there is a left engine hole. Or
if the hole centered in the photo is the left engine, then the right
engine would hit behind the burning truck.
If the plane hit the ground first, then most of the strength in the
wings could be destroyed.
The weird thing is that when I watch the six frame sequence, it looks
like a 707 tail entering the building silhouetted against the flames.
There is an unbroken point of solidity above the fuselage and below
the where the tail would have been. If indeed the silhouette we see
in three frames is a shadow of the tail.
>
>"Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and
>travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour* only damaged the outside
>of the Pentagon?"
Concrete buildings are pretty solid. Aluminum isn't. Remember, there
was a steel shortage during WW II. Therefore the Pentagon probably
uses less rebar and even more concrete than usual since then.
>"The two photographs in question 2 show the building just after the attack.
>We may observe that the aircraft only hit the ground floor."
>
>Immediately to the right of the point where the two streams of foam (which
>obscure the first floor) cross, there could very well be a 2 story high hole
>that made a mess of 3 windows. That hole would fit the fuselage.
[...]
>These people are looking at an unusual event and trying to draw conclusions
>from a biased viewpoint. It isn't surprising that they're wrong. This
>reminds me of the "M00n H0ax" folks. Much ado about nothing.
--
"If the Gods Had Meant Us to Vote They Would Have Given Us Candidates" (Jim Hightower)
Matt Miller
news:a6jv2u$f2vtk$1...@ID-123027.news.dfncis.de:
I first saw this story in another NG. The cross-posting nutter who
broughtit to my attention theorized that the pilot of flight 77 regained
control of his aircraft over the ocean, so the government had the plane
shot down. Then either a truck bomb was rushed to the scene or the charges
that had been secretly placed in the Pentagon where set off, possibly both.
This was all done so that the passangers and crew wouldn't survive to
report that the plane was not hijacked and was in fact being operated by
remote control.
--
Matt Miller
Tim Lambert
> Found this link on another NG:
>
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26777
> Opinions?
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
Tim
Greg Goss
Oh, right. I forgot that "aluminum burns eagerly" once you light it.
Keith Rickert
go...@mindlink.com wrote:
> Tim Lambert <lam...@cse.unsw.EDU.AU> wrote:
>
> >"Al Yellon" <aye...@REMOVETHIScolgatealumni.org> writes:
> >
> >> Found this link on another NG:
> >>
> >> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26777
> >> Opinions?
> >
> >http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
>
> Oh, right. I forgot that "aluminum burns eagerly" once you light it.
Um, I don't find that quote anywhere on the snopes website.
However, aluminum, while not easily ignited, when hot
enough, will react vigourously with oxygen. The thermite reaction
is basically aluminum (powdered) ripping the oxygen out of iron
oxide (rust). The resultant reaction is hot enough to melt the
iron. Note that this is oxygen which is already combined with a metal.
The reaction with oxygen gas is more energetic.
It's hard to get solid aluminum chunks to do this, but not impossible.
Keith
--
Keith Rickert | "You want the truth? You can't handle the
rick...@netaxs.com | truth! No truth-handler, you! Bah! I
keith_...@merck.com | deride your truth-handling abilities!"
(note change) | Sideshow Bob, The Simpsons
Helge Moulding
> The plane is in fact visible in the security camera photos, over on
> the right hand side of the first picture. The plane hit the ground
> first and slid into the building.
I don't intend to dipute that flight 77 did crash into the Pentagon,
but what security camera photos are you talking about?
--
Helge Moulding
mailto:hmou...@excite.com Just another guy
http://hmoulding.cjb.net/ with a weird name
Michael
It appears there was a camera on the east side of the building (the hit
was on the north side and the shot shows it on the left). In the
footage (that takes a split second), you can see the plane coming into
the ground, righ to left, with a fireball.
I don't recall seeing this until the last few days.
Michael
Helge Moulding
> It appears there was a camera on the east side of the building [...]
> I don't recall seeing this until the last few days.
I've found a link to the pictures on the snopes page someone else
helpfully posted a pointer to. I was asking initially since the
tin-foil hat site didn't have these pictures, and yet Matt Miller
referred to them in his post.
I think we've remarked on the pervasiveness of security cameras
before, when the OKC attack happened, and security cameras were
used to figure out what happened. In the case of 9-11, there were
several video cameras in use around the towers which caught the
planes hitting the towers. Amazing, really.
Some SF author suggested that at some time in the future cheap
video and wireless would make us a much safer place to live, as
people would strap on video glasses and save everything they
recorded back home. If anyone did something naughty, they'd be
caught on video, so they'd couldn't escape conviction. He
described some punk walking along and giving some old fogeys a
*look*, but being careful that his behavior wouldn't be construed
as assault since the fogeys were quite pointedly aiming their
video glasses at him.
Mike
news:rickertk-120...@dyn-43.blackbox-2.netaxs.com...
> In article <kair8ukokaj0bfm3n...@4ax.com>,
> go...@mindlink.com wrote:
>
> > Tim Lambert <lam...@cse.unsw.EDU.AU> wrote:
> >
> > >"Al Yellon" <aye...@REMOVETHIScolgatealumni.org> writes:
> > >
> > >> Found this link on another NG:
> > >>
> > >> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26777
> > >> Opinions?
> > >
> > >http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
> >
> > Oh, right. I forgot that "aluminum burns eagerly" once you light it.
>
> Um, I don't find that quote anywhere on the snopes website.
> However, aluminum, while not easily ignited, when hot
> enough, will react vigourously with oxygen. The thermite reaction
> is basically aluminum (powdered) ripping the oxygen out of iron
> oxide (rust). The resultant reaction is hot enough to melt the
> iron. Note that this is oxygen which is already combined with a metal.
> The reaction with oxygen gas is more energetic.
> It's hard to get solid aluminum chunks to do this, but not impossible.
Even without vigorous burning, aluminum melts rather easily when heated.
Drop an aluminum can onto a hot bed of coals, and it will melt pretty
quickly.
-- Mike --
Al Yellon
news:a6jt30$f01f7$1...@ID-128341.news.dfncis.de...
> Al Yellon <aye...@REMOVETHIScolgatealumni.org> wrote in message
> > Found this link on another NG:
>
> > http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26777
>
> > Opinions?
>
> Your title says it all. I have friends who were there. Trust me when I
tell you
> that the plane hit the Pentagon, or actually, hit the ground then hit the
> Pentagon. It was seen by more than one or two witnesses. FWIU, the
fireball
> torched most of the plane and everything in that section of the first
ring. I
> know a man whose office was in that exact portion of the Pentagon until
they
> started remodeling not too terribly long before 9/11 time back. He's
since
> retired from the Navy, but it spooks him out to think about it.
I didn't believe this ridiculous stuff for a moment, but I did want to see
what everyone else said here.
You could also say, that since the Pentagon crash caused a similar explosion
to the one at the WTC, then because of the large amount of jet fuel and the
huge fireball that occurred, that most of the plane and its parts were
vaporized.
Very little of the planes that crashed into the WTC has been recovered,
other than a couple of engine parts that broke off and crashed into the
street a few blocks away, which was recovered on September 11.
Michael
> You could also say, that since the Pentagon crash caused a similar explosion
> to the one at the WTC, then because of the large amount of jet fuel and the
> huge fireball that occurred, that most of the plane and its parts were
> vaporized.
>
> Very little of the planes that crashed into the WTC has been recovered,
> other than a couple of engine parts that broke off and crashed into the
> street a few blocks away, which was recovered on September 11.
Very little of *anything* from the WTC has been *recovered*. It was
reduced to a six story pile of pulverized nuttin', almost powder (with
some twisted beams). The catastrophic collapse and weight of all those
stories upon one another left little recognizable.
Since the plane that hit the Pentagon hit the ground first, that
absorbed a great deal of the impact and the Pentagon is made of good old
Indiana limestone.
Two different scenerios.
> --
> "If you're not part of the future, then get out of the way"
> -- John Mellencamp
--
Michael
I have three e-mail addresses :
mitc...@image-link.com mitc...@att.net mitc...@attbi.com
If one doesn't work, well...
JmG
<aye...@REMOVETHIScolgatealumni.org> wrote:
>|Very little of the planes that crashed into the WTC has been recovered,
>|other than a couple of engine parts that broke off and crashed into the
>|street a few blocks away, which was recovered on September 11.
Engines and the black boxes.
Still, I am curious why the wings of a fully loaded airplane did not cause any
damage to the building. If they'd sheared off there would have been debris
outside and that wasn't there.
MeadowMan2
>Can I just go beat on the french for a while?
You know what they say Bill,
Nobody surrenders like the French.
TR
(well, there was that funny"Mother of All Battles" bullshit a few years back)
Al Yellon
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 14:13:38 -0600, "Al Yellon"
> <aye...@REMOVETHIScolgatealumni.org> wrote:
>
> >|Very little of the planes that crashed into the WTC has been recovered,
> >|other than a couple of engine parts that broke off and crashed into the
> >|street a few blocks away, which was recovered on September 11.
>
> Engines and the black boxes.
The black boxes? Since when were the WTC planes' black boxes recovered? I
had not heard this anywhere.
>
> Still, I am curious why the wings of a fully loaded airplane did not cause
any
> damage to the building. If they'd sheared off there would have been debris
> outside and that wasn't there.
Perhaps they broke off on impact with the ground and were consumed in the
fireball.
Michael
I recall the wing(s) entering the building(s). Probably consumed in the
early fire, along with the plane (They were full of fuel). If not, they
were pulverized when the buildings collapsed.
My guess is that the engine(s?), under it's/their own power just kept
going and went through the other side of the building.
I have no trouble imagining the _force_ of those buildings collapsing
upon themselves. I'm surprised we've recovered anything from the
rubble. The weight of those buildings falling upon themselves left not
much of anything. *Rubble* suggests that there is more there than there
really is. It's closer to grit and dust.
> --
> "If you're not part of the future, then get out of the way"
> -- John Mellencamp
Bill Diamond
alt.fan.cecil-adams back on Tue, 12 Mar 2002 14:13:38 -0600 that ...
The Pentagon was designed and build to sustain a direct nuclear
(noo-CLE-ur) hit, as well.
Bill
Bill Diamond
alt.fan.cecil-adams back on 12 Mar 2002 21:12:27 GMT that ...
I like the French, but there are times I admit I'm tired of their
superciliousness.
Bill
Kevin Collison
included with your message, i know i recall seeing a fuselage (i recall
it was an american airlines, but perhaps it was the stripes of
united...i don't recall that) sitting outside the pentagon. it was on
cnn, though, so perhaps it was digitally superimposed..
as for why there are no wings in the pictures, remember that the wings
are the plane's gas tanks. if they were to catch fire as would happen
in a crash, they'd probably blow up, sending pieces of wing in every
direction.
if you've ever visited the pentagon, you know the walls are quite
thick. it only midly surprised me that only the first ring was damaged
by the crash.
as for why the upper floors did not collapse until later, is it perhaps
possible that the jet's fuselage in the building provided temporary
structural support?
when it comes to what the ap says in the first moments of a crisis,
remember that the united jet that crashed in pennsylvania was first
reported to have taken off from chicago. not that i don't trust the ap,
but i can understand how they might say a truck bomb was set off near/in
the pentagon instead of a jet crashing.
i cannot answer how or why the jet managed to crash into the ground
floors instead of coming in through the roof. good question.
in all, i believe that the pictures that were assembled on the web site
were chosen for their conveiently lacking any pieces of a jet. if
someone took the time to hunt down photos of the attack, i am sure they
would find pictures including a jet.
thank you,
Kevin Collison
Al Yellon wrote:
> Found this link on another NG:
>
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26777
>
> Opinions?
>
Dr H
On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Al Yellon wrote:
}Found this link on another NG:
}
}http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26777
}
}Opinions?
Looks like typical conspiracy-theory hype:
. 1. The first satellite image shows the section of the building that
. was hit by the Boeing. In the image, the second ring of the building
. is also visible. It is clear that the aircraft only hit the first
. ring. The four interior rings remain intact. They were only
. fire-damaged after the initial explosion.
.
. How can a Boeing 757-200 weighing nearly 100 tons and traveling at a
. minimum speed of 250 miles an hour only have damaged the outside of
. the Pentagon?
a) It hit the ground first, which absorbed a good deal of the momentum, and
b) the Pentagon is rather well-built, as buildings go.
. 2. The next two photographs show the building just after the attack.
. The aircraft apparently only hit the ground floor. The four upper
. floors collapsed toward 10:10 am. The building is 78 feet high.
.
. How can a plane 44.7 feet high, over 155 feet long, with a wingspan of
. almost 125 feet and a cockpit almost 12 feet high, crash into just the
. ground floor of this building?
The plane hit the ground first, then slid into the building. It was
already collapsing and deforming by the time it impacted the building.
. 3. Look at the photograph of the lawn in front of the damaged
. building.
.
. Where is the debris? Any debris! Did it all disintegrate on contact?
Pretty much. Look at the photos of the plane that hit the field in
Pennsylvania. What plane? The debris was scattered over square miles,
and they didn't find too many pieces larger than a laptop computer.
. 4. There are photographs, which show representations of a Boeing
. 757-200 superimposed on the section of the building that was hit.
.
. What happened to the wings of the aircraft? Why isn't there any wing
. damage?
a) Much of the wings were already breaking up from the impact with the
ground by the time the plane hit the building;
b) Most of the photographs don't show sufficient detail to see what
minor damage might have occured around the main impact site.
. 5. One journalist asked: "Is there anything left of the aircraft at
. all?" At a press conference the day after the tragedy, Arlington
. County Fire Chief Ed Plaugher said, "First of all, the question about
. the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the
. interior during this fire-fighting operation. I'm talking about, but
. not large sections."
.
. The follow-up question asked, "In other words, there's no fuselage
. sections and that sort of thing?"
See #3.
. Plaugher replied, "You know, I'd
. rather not comment on that. We have a lot of eyewitnesses that can
. give you better information about what actually happened with the
. aircraft as it approached. So we don't know. I don't know."
.
. Wait a minute! Time after time (Oklahoma City bombing, TWA Flight 800,
. Flight 93 et al.) we are told not to depend on eyewitnesses?
You don't /depend/ on any single source of information; that's no reason
not to seek corroboration from all available sources.
. When asked by a journalist: "Where is the jet fuel?" The chief
. responded, "We have what we believe is a puddle right there that the
. what we believe is to be the nose of the aircraft."
Don't see the problem with that. The fuel was what caused the fire that
the fire crew battled for days. Some of it was foamed by the firefighters
and didn't go up. I don't see any mystery here.
Dr H
Dr H
On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Bill Diamond wrote:
}The Pentagon was designed and build to sustain a direct nuclear
}(noo-CLE-ur) hit, as well.
That's not the way the prez pronounces it.
Dr H
Stephen Fels
"JmG" <jmgreenATbestweb.net> wrote in message
news:o2rs8u440tn64g6jm...@4ax.com...
> <aye...@REMOVETHIScolgatealumni.org> wrote:
>
> >|Very little of the planes that crashed into the WTC has been recovered,
> >|other than a couple of engine parts that broke off and crashed into the
> >|street a few blocks away, which was recovered on September 11.
>
> Engines and the black boxes.
>
> Still, I am curious why the wings of a fully loaded airplane did not cause
any
> damage to the building.
Look again. There is damage along the first floor that matches the wings'
dimensions rather neatly.
> If they'd sheared off there would have been debris
> outside and that wasn't there.
In the most paranoid scenario, sure. Aside from not comprehending the
dynamics of this crash (which isn't a big deal, considering the unusual
nature of it), you're discounting quite a number of eyewitnesses along the
highway, who saw the jet come in insanely low and crash into the Pentagon.
Stephen Fels
"Kevin Collison" <adver...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3C8E82FD...@yahoo.com...
> despite the rather telling evidence provided by the web site you
> included with your message, i know i recall seeing a fuselage (i recall
> it was an american airlines, but perhaps it was the stripes of
> united...i don't recall that) sitting outside the pentagon. it was on
> cnn, though, so perhaps it was digitally superimposed..
For what possible purpose, do you suppose?
> as for why there are no wings in the pictures, remember that the wings
> are the plane's gas tanks. if they were to catch fire as would happen
> in a crash, they'd probably blow up, sending pieces of wing in every
> direction.
...or shredding them, as the weight of the fuel travelled forward into the
structure and then incinerating what was left.
> if you've ever visited the pentagon, you know the walls are quite
> thick. it only midly surprised me that only the first ring was damaged
> by the crash.
The damage went beyond the first ring.
> as for why the upper floors did not collapse until later, is it perhaps
> possible that the jet's fuselage in the building provided temporary
> structural support?
No, the building's structural supports provided structural support, until
the fuel burning through them, the physical damage and the weight from above
combined to bring them down.
> i cannot answer how or why the jet managed to crash into the ground
> floors instead of coming in through the roof. good question.
Umm, perhaps it came in low, like the eyewitnesses said, bounced off the
ground and went in through the ground floors?
> in all, i believe that the pictures that were assembled on the web site
> were chosen for their conveiently lacking any pieces of a jet. if
> someone took the time to hunt down photos of the attack, i am sure they
> would find pictures including a jet.
Heck, even some of the pictures they chose, revealed the opposite of what
they were claiming.
JmG
wrote:
>|>Very little of the planes that crashed into the WTC has been recovered,
>|>other than a couple of engine parts that broke off and crashed into the
>|>street a few blocks away, which was recovered on September 11.
>|
>|
>|The Pentagon was designed and build to sustain a direct nuclear
>|(noo-CLE-ur) hit, as well.
Judging by that a 757 is equal to what, 1 kiloton? I think a small well aimed
nuclear missile would have blasted the entire building and everyone in it to
Philadelphia. Baltimore, at least.
John Hatpin
tags removed):
>oh yeah, this theory makes <i>a lot</i> of sense.
><p>there are more holes than my old socks.
><br><br>
>~k
><p>Matt Miller wrote:
(the rest snipped - there's nothing new).
Please don't do that again, Kevin.
--
John Hatpin
"I have been tempted to do it here, but was afraid some might consider
it rude" - Lesmond
Stephen Fels
"JmG" <jmgreenATbestweb.net> wrote in message
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 22:19:36 GMT, Bill Diamond
<bi...@nospambilldiamond.com>
> wrote:
>
> >|>Very little of the planes that crashed into the WTC has been recovered,
> >|>other than a couple of engine parts that broke off and crashed into the
> >|>street a few blocks away, which was recovered on September 11.
> >|
> >|
> >|The Pentagon was designed and build to sustain a direct nuclear
> >|(noo-CLE-ur) hit, as well.
>
> Judging by that a 757 is equal to what, 1 kiloton? I think a small well
aimed
> nuclear missile would have blasted the entire building and everyone in it
to
> Philadelphia. Baltimore, at least.
Gullible much? That section of the Pentagon was renovated with the intent of
minimizing the effects of conventional bomb blasts (one reason those upper
floors held for 30 minutes). Find just one credible cite for 'designed and
build [sic] to sustain a direct nuclear hit'.
John Hatpin
>On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 22:19:36 GMT, Bill Diamond <bi...@nospambilldiamond.com>
>wrote:
>
>>|>Very little of the planes that crashed into the WTC has been recovered,
>>|>other than a couple of engine parts that broke off and crashed into the
>>|>street a few blocks away, which was recovered on September 11.
>>|
>>|
>>|The Pentagon was designed and build to sustain a direct nuclear
>>|(noo-CLE-ur) hit, as well.
>
>Judging by that a 757 is equal to what, 1 kiloton? I think a small well aimed
>nuclear missile would have blasted the entire building and everyone in it to
>Philadelphia. Baltimore, at least.
But what about all the bits below-stairs?
From what I can gather, the bits above ground are only the tip of a
major iceberg of very highly-protected levels.
JmG
>|In the most paranoid scenario, sure. Aside from not comprehending the
>|dynamics of this crash (which isn't a big deal, considering the unusual
>|nature of it), you're discounting quite a number of eyewitnesses along the
>|highway, who saw the jet come in insanely low and crash into the Pentagon.
They are all part of the cabal.
JmG
>|> Judging by that a 757 is equal to what, 1 kiloton? I think a small well
>|aimed
>|> nuclear missile would have blasted the entire building and everyone in it
>|to
>|> Philadelphia. Baltimore, at least.
>|
>|Gullible much? That section of the Pentagon was renovated with the intent of
>|minimizing the effects of conventional bomb blasts (one reason those upper
>|floors held for 30 minutes). Find just one credible cite for 'designed and
>|build [sic] to sustain a direct nuclear hit'.
Bill said it was designed to survive a nuclear blast. I was just looking for
confirmation.
Jose Diaz
"JmG" <jmgreenATbestweb.net> wrote in message
>
> Bill said it was designed to survive a nuclear blast. I was just
looking for
> confirmation.
>
Considering ground was broken before Pearl Harbor and it was mostly
finished by 1943 it was more likely designed to resist conventional bomb
damage (by the multi-"ring" design, so fires, etc. could be sectionally
contained ) . Surely during the Cold War there was a lot of bunkering
done within and under
Bill Diamond
on Tue, 12 Mar 2002 15:44:42 -0800 that ...
Nor does Dan Rather, but I don't think it's particularly relevant.
Bill
Stephen Fels
"JmG" <jmgreenATbestweb.net> wrote in message
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 01:09:19 GMT, "Stephen Fels" <ste...@fels.cc> wrote:
>
> >|> Judging by that a 757 is equal to what, 1 kiloton? I think a small
well
> >|aimed
> >|> nuclear missile would have blasted the entire building and everyone in
it
> >|to
> >|> Philadelphia. Baltimore, at least.
> >|
> >|Gullible much? That section of the Pentagon was renovated with the
intent of
> >|minimizing the effects of conventional bomb blasts (one reason those
upper
> >|floors held for 30 minutes). Find just one credible cite for 'designed
and
> >|build [sic] to sustain a direct nuclear hit'.
>
> Bill said it was designed to survive a nuclear blast. I was just looking
for
> confirmation.
Fair enough. The answer is, it was designed and built to minimize the
effects of conventional bomb blasts. There are almost certainly bunkers
under the complex designed and built with nukes in mind, but they aren't
mentioned on the Pentagon homepage.
Greg Goss
>> Oh, right. I forgot that "aluminum burns eagerly" once you light it.
>
>Um, I don't find that quote anywhere on the snopes website.
>However, aluminum, while not easily ignited, when hot
>enough, will react vigourously with oxygen. The thermite reaction
>is basically aluminum (powdered) ripping the oxygen out of iron
>oxide (rust). The resultant reaction is hot enough to melt the
>iron. Note that this is oxygen which is already combined with a metal.
>The reaction with oxygen gas is more energetic.
>It's hard to get solid aluminum chunks to do this, but not impossible.
They mentioned "debris burned" or something like that, and I suddenly
remembered watching aluminum siding burn back when I was 15.
--
"If the Gods Had Meant Us to Vote They Would Have Given Us Candidates" (Jim Hightower)
Greg Goss
>when it comes to what the ap says in the first moments of a crisis,
>remember that the united jet that crashed in pennsylvania was first
>reported to have taken off from chicago. not that i don't trust the ap,
>but i can understand how they might say a truck bomb was set off near/in
>the pentagon instead of a jet crashing.
My wife is a travel agent. Her agency was saying that the fourth
plane was down somewhere further west (I forget where, perhaps
Arizona) well into the afternoon.
I wonder if they got that position by extending the flight until the
crash time?
>i cannot answer how or why the jet managed to crash into the ground
>floors instead of coming in through the roof. good question.
>
>in all, i believe that the pictures that were assembled on the web site
>were chosen for their conveiently lacking any pieces of a jet. if
>someone took the time to hunt down photos of the attack, i am sure they
>would find pictures including a jet.
--
Bill Diamond
alt.fan.cecil-adams back on Wed, 13 Mar 2002 01:09:19 GMT that ...
I suppose you could go look at their museum which describes the
methods and why it was built that way.
Ever been there? I've trolled their hallways for many a year now.
Bill
Bill Diamond
alt.fan.cecil-adams back on Wed, 13 Mar 2002 03:26:26 GMT that ...
Now, Stephen. If you were them would you put that on the home page?
Isn't that a bit of baiting.
Please, be a bit more sensible.
Bill
Stephen Fels
"Bill Diamond" <bi...@nospambilldiamond.com> wrote in message
news:bujt8uog8adi9vp2g...@4ax.com...
So, you're saying the museum exhibit actually claims that the above ground
portion of the Pentagon was designed and built to _withstand_ a _direct_ hit
by a _nuclear_ weapon? They've certainly backed off from that claim since
9/11. They don't even make that claim for the renovation. There are several
acres of glass on the exterior walls. Inches thick glass is impressive, but
not when there's an ICBM landing on the building.
Stephen Fels
?
I said "but they aren't mentioned on the home page". IOW "they aren't
advertising".
Bill Diamond
>> Ever been there? I've trolled their hallways for many a year now.
>
>So, you're saying the museum exhibit actually claims that the above ground
>portion of the Pentagon was designed and built to _withstand_ a _direct_ hit
>by a _nuclear_ weapon? They've certainly backed off from that claim since
>9/11. They don't even make that claim for the renovation. There are several
>acres of glass on the exterior walls. Inches thick glass is impressive, but
>not when there's an ICBM landing on the building.
They show how the building was designed, and that yes - the complex
was designed to survive a direct hit. There's a number of very good
documentaries on the construction of the Pentagon that discuss this as
well.
But I do agree that looking out the window and seeing any large
explosive object aimed in your direction is highly disconcerting. The
amount of damage is large, but not in comparison with the overall size
of the complex.
Bill
Bill Diamond
back on Tue, 12 Mar 2002 19:48:26 -0500 that ...
>On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 22:19:36 GMT, Bill Diamond <bi...@nospambilldiamond.com>
>wrote:
>
>>|>Very little of the planes that crashed into the WTC has been recovered,
>>|>other than a couple of engine parts that broke off and crashed into the
>>|>street a few blocks away, which was recovered on September 11.
>>|
>>|
>>|The Pentagon was designed and build to sustain a direct nuclear
>>|(noo-CLE-ur) hit, as well.
>
>Judging by that a 757 is equal to what, 1 kiloton? I think a small well aimed
>nuclear missile would have blasted the entire building and everyone in it to
>Philadelphia. Baltimore, at least.
>
>J
Nah, a KT is a measure of explosive force, not of weight. Since the
plane hit the ground a couple of hundred yards from the Pentagon and
then slammed into it, most of the force had been expended.
The building's design is very unusual. Heck, in the summer they have
an open air cafe in the center. It's called the Ground Zero.
Bill
Stephen Fels
Here's some of what is being said now...
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-091601pentagon.story
Stephen Fels
> Good old JmG <jmgreenATbestweb.net> wrote in alt.fan.cecil-adams
> back on Tue, 12 Mar 2002 19:48:26 -0500 that ...
> >On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 22:19:36 GMT, Bill Diamond
<bi...@nospambilldiamond.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>|>Very little of the planes that crashed into the WTC has been
recovered,
> >>|>other than a couple of engine parts that broke off and crashed into
the
> >>|>street a few blocks away, which was recovered on September 11.
> >>|
> >>|
> >>|The Pentagon was designed and build to sustain a direct nuclear
> >>|(noo-CLE-ur) hit, as well.
> >
> >Judging by that a 757 is equal to what, 1 kiloton? I think a small well
aimed
> >nuclear missile would have blasted the entire building and everyone in it
to
> >Philadelphia. Baltimore, at least.
> >
> >J
>
> Nah, a KT is a measure of explosive force, not of weight.
True, but an explosion does send out a shockwave of air, compressed denser
than steel, at the speed of sound. The wave would present more of a 'blunt'
force than the airliner, but I certainly wouldn't be jockeying for that
corner office.
> Since the
> plane hit the ground a couple of hundred yards from the Pentagon and
> then slammed into it, most of the force had been expended.
It struck a glancing blow on the earthen berm that 'ramps' up to the first
floor. Most of the force was vectored toward the building, not downward.
Some of the energy was spent on the ground, but the vast majority carried
the jet into the Pentagon.
> The building's design is very unusual. Heck, in the summer they have
> an open air cafe in the center. It's called the Ground Zero.
I wonder if anyone there toyed with the idea of painting Skeeball scores on
the rings...
Gary S. Callison
: meado...@aol.commonsense (MeadowMan2) wrote:
: >>Bill Diamond asks:
: >>Can I just go beat on the french for a while?
: I like the French, but there are times I admit I'm tired of their
: superciliousness.
Well, sometimes this group gets pretty silly too.
--
Huey "...super silly, sometimes" Callison
Gary S. Callison
: <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
: <html>
: oh yeah, this theory makes <i>a lot</i> of sense.
: <p>there are more holes than my old socks.
: <br><br>
: ~k
: <p>Matt Miller wrote:
: <br>news:a6jv2u$f2vtk$1...@ID-123027.news.dfncis.de:
We haven't had any entries in "WHAT the HELL was THAT?" lately...
--
Huey
Jason Quick
> The Pentagon was designed and build to sustain a direct nuclear
> (noo-CLE-ur) hit, as well.
As it was designed and built a bit before the Manhattan Project came to
fruition, that is unlikely. It was designed to withstand bombardment,
however.
In later years, it may have been modified to withstand a nuke, but it
weren't built that way.
Jason
The AFCA Kid
>Good old "Stephen Fels" <ste...@fels.cc> wrote in
>alt.fan.cecil-adams back on Wed, 13 Mar 2002 04:13:29 GMT that ...
>
>>> Ever been there? I've trolled their hallways for many a year now.
>>
>>So, you're saying the museum exhibit actually claims that the above ground
>>portion of the Pentagon was designed and built to _withstand_ a _direct_ hit
>>by a _nuclear_ weapon? They've certainly backed off from that claim since
>>9/11. They don't even make that claim for the renovation. There are several
>>acres of glass on the exterior walls. Inches thick glass is impressive, but
>>not when there's an ICBM landing on the building.
>
>
>They show how the building was designed, and that yes - the complex
>was designed to survive a direct hit.
Is he sane?
> There's a number of very good
>documentaries on the construction of the Pentagon that discuss this as
>well.
Don't you have to be, you know, underneath a mountain or something to survive
a direct hit?
>But I do agree that looking out the window and seeing any large
>explosive object aimed in your direction is highly disconcerting. The
>amount of damage is large, but not in comparison with the overall size
>of the complex.
Yeah, huh. Still, I have to think even the smallest of nuclear weapons would
effectively wope the pentagon off the face of the earth.
--
"I have been paid a lot for my work, but never everything." -Chris Adams
The AFCA Kid
Well, whoever they contracted that out to, they should stop payment on the
check.
Bob Ward
<bi...@nospambilldiamond.com> wrote:
>-:
>-:The Pentagon was designed and build to sustain a direct nuclear
>-:(noo-CLE-ur) hit, as well.
>-:
>-:Bill
Really??? Wouldn't that have been a bit premature?
--
This space left intentionally blank
Alex Karkanen
>
>> The Pentagon was designed and build to sustain a direct nuclear
>> (noo-CLE-ur) hit, as well.
>
It's hard for me to believe that the Pentagon could have been modified to
withstand a nuclear hit. AFAIK, Cheyenne Mountain (NORAD) near Colorado
Springs is one of the only facilities in the U.S. that could take that kind of
punishment (and even they aren't so sure they could withstand a direct hit from
an ICBM). Have you got a link that discusses this possibility at the Pentagon?
Cheers!
Alex
Tim Lambert
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 14:13:38 -0600, "Al Yellon"
> <aye...@REMOVETHIScolgatealumni.org> wrote:
>
> >|Very little of the planes that crashed into the WTC has been recovered,
> >|other than a couple of engine parts that broke off and crashed into the
> >|street a few blocks away, which was recovered on September 11.
>
> Engines and the black boxes.
>
> Still, I am curious why the wings of a fully loaded airplane did not cause any
> damage to the building. If they'd sheared off there would have been debris
> outside and that wasn't there.
I would imagine that they folded up and followed the fuselage into the
building.
Tim
Mike Muth
On 12-Mar-2002, Bill Diamond <bi...@nospambilldiamond.com> wrote:
> The Pentagon was designed and build to sustain a direct nuclear
> (noo-CLE-ur) hit, as well.
Design and construction (1941 - 1943) both pre-date nuclear weapons.
http://www.clickondetroit.com/sh/news/stories/archive/nat-news-archive-95638420010911-090954.html
Mike
Mike Muth
On 13-Mar-2002, Bill Diamond <bi...@nospambilldiamond.com> wrote:
> Good old "Stephen Fels" <ste...@fels.cc> wrote in
> alt.fan.cecil-adams back on Wed, 13 Mar 2002 04:13:29 GMT that ...
> >> Ever been there? I've trolled their hallways for many a year now.
> >So, you're saying the museum exhibit actually claims that the above ground
> >portion of the Pentagon was designed and built to _withstand_ a _direct_
> >hit
> >by a _nuclear_ weapon? They've certainly backed off from that claim since
> >9/11. They don't even make that claim for the renovation. There are several
> >acres of glass on the exterior walls. Inches thick glass is impressive, but
> >not when there's an ICBM landing on the building.
> They show how the building was designed, and that yes - the complex
> was designed to survive a direct hit.
I hate to say this, but the building could not possibly have been designed to
survive a nuclear blast. Construction was finished in 1943. The first
nuclear device was detonated in 1945.
Now renovations and additional construction have been done to provide
additional survivability for the headquarters elements in the Pentagon. But,
the above-ground building itself has not been upgraded to such standards.
That would have required demolishing the building and starting over.
Mike
Kim
"Gary S. Callison" <hu...@interaccess.com> wrote in message
news:wjBj8.113$oa.80638@news20...
And, of course, my name has to be in there...
Kim ~ I had nothing to do with it, I swear
*If God ever does descend from heaven to reveal His divine glory, I hope He
doesn't land in Orlando, because that place is already WAY too
touristy.(Tommy Jack)*
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> "JmG" <jmgreenATbestweb.net> wrote in message
>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 14:13:38 -0600, "Al Yellon"
>> <aye...@REMOVETHIScolgatealumni.org> wrote:
>>
>> >|Very little of the planes that crashed into the WTC has been recovered,
>> >|other than a couple of engine parts that broke off and crashed into the
>> >|street a few blocks away, which was recovered on September 11.
>>
>> Engines and the black boxes.
> The black boxes? Since when were the WTC planes' black boxes recovered? I
> had not heard this anywhere.
Carefull, there, Jeff's a New Yorker, he's quailief to talk about such
thing, while you are not....
>> Still, I am curious why the wings of a fully loaded airplane did not cause
> any
>> damage to the building. If they'd sheared off there would have been debris
>> outside and that wasn't there.
> Perhaps they broke off on impact with the ground and were consumed in the
> fireball.
Well, I don't know that pictures you're looking at, but I can see that the
wings did indeed cause some damage to the outside of the building. But
the walls are thick, and so it's not really much more than a superficial
scratch.
John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Ask me about joining the NRA.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> Good old "Al Yellon" <aye...@REMOVETHIScolgatealumni.org> wrote in
> alt.fan.cecil-adams back on Tue, 12 Mar 2002 14:13:38 -0600 that ...
>>Very little of the planes that crashed into the WTC has been recovered,
>>other than a couple of engine parts that broke off and crashed into the
>>street a few blocks away, which was recovered on September 11.
> The Pentagon was designed and build to sustain a direct nuclear
> (noo-CLE-ur) hit, as well.
Bill, you forgot to set your sarcasm tag. Now I know you're kidding, but
many of the proles may not get it.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 22:19:36 GMT, Bill Diamond <bi...@nospambilldiamond.com>
> wrote:
>>|>other than a couple of engine parts that broke off and crashed into the
>>|>street a few blocks away, which was recovered on September 11.
>>|
>>|The Pentagon was designed and build to sustain a direct nuclear
>>|(noo-CLE-ur) hit, as well.
> Judging by that a 757 is equal to what, 1 kiloton? I think a small well aimed
> nuclear missile would have blasted the entire building and everyone in it to
> Philadelphia. Baltimore, at least.
See? I told you Bill makes sure you set your sarcasm tag!
JmG
wrote:
>|>Gullible much? That section of the Pentagon was renovated with the intent of
>|>minimizing the effects of conventional bomb blasts (one reason those upper
>|>floors held for 30 minutes). Find just one credible cite for 'designed and
>|>build [sic] to sustain a direct nuclear hit'.
>|
>|I suppose you could go look at their museum which describes the
>|methods and why it was built that way.
>|
>|Ever been there? I've trolled their hallways for many a year now.
According to the graphic at
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-091601pentagon.story
it appears this one airplane did enough damage for me to think that even a
very small tactical nuke would pretty much wipe out the building. (and that's
without the full force of the plane hitting it.) Seeing that you've been
rather contrary of late you may have other information but I'm going to need
to see some more other than "it is". The evidence proves that it is not.
J
--
We now return you to the present, already in progress. [www.bongoboy.com]
JmG
>|> The black boxes? Since when were the WTC planes' black boxes recovered? I
>|> had not heard this anywhere.
>|
>|Carefull, there, Jeff's a New Yorker, he's quailief to talk about such
>|thing, while you are not....
Apparently, a few blocks away.
Still.... my tin foil hat goes on when I realize that the Feds claim to have
found them but we've never heard the tapes or read a transcript. And, that in
the destruction of what is in effect 220 acres of concrete and steel they can
find these but they can't trace anthrax back to a mailbox even if they can
find a single spore up someone's nose. Hmmm....
Michael
I'm fairly certain they have not found the black boxes from the WTC or
the Pentagon (I'm a bit unsure about the Pentagon). In fact, I believe
they've only recovered the recorder from Flight 93 (Pennsylvania).
--
Michael
I have three e-mail addresses :
mitc...@image-link.com mitc...@att.net mitc...@attbi.com
If one doesn't work, well...
ctc...@hotmail.com
>
> Here's some of what is being said now...
> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-091601pentagon.story
Fire doors that open automatically? Isn't the idea of a fire door
that it be closed during a fire, to prevent the spread?
Xho
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service
ctc...@hotmail.com
>
> Ever been there? I've trolled their hallways for many a year now.
How do you troll the hallways of the pentagon? Walk around
in a nehru vest signing "Give Peace a Chance"?
ctc...@hotmail.com
> They show how the building was designed,
Oooh, and now the architect draws another line. This time he's using
his HB pencil. Yes, folks, it is really getting interesting now.
> and that yes - the complex
> was designed to survive a direct hit.
Direct hit by what?
> But I do agree that looking out the window and seeing any large
> explosive object aimed in your direction is highly disconcerting. The
> amount of damage is large, but not in comparison with the overall size
> of the complex.
What is the complex? Are you refering to the entire industrial-military
complex, or just the pentagonal part?
Bill Diamond
>I said "but they aren't mentioned on the home page". IOW "they aren't
>advertising".
Please explain the distinction. I would personally view any mention
of it on their web site as "Hi!We're hardened against your backpack
nukes, so don't bother and have a great day!"
Bill
Stephen Fels
Maybe I misunderstood, when you seemed to imply that I was being naive for
expecting them to advertise "In case you decide to drop ICBM's on us, we'll
be hiding some of our more important military types in a secret hardened
bunker under the Pentagon. Yes, that's under the Pentagon, so get your
engineers working on that problem ASAP. But remember, this is an undisclosed
location, so don't tell anyone. Oh, by the way, the subway is a real
Achilles heel for us." etc..
Joseph Nebus
>Ever been there? I've trolled their hallways for many a year now.
Can't find the way out either, huh?
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Missed it by *that* much."
StarChaser_Tyger
Callison),
This is a pretty feeble entry, if that's what it was intended
for..."Misconfigured software" and/or "Clueless User" isn't one of the
better ones...
StarChaser "Worst Episode Ever" Tyger
--
Visit the Furry Artist InFURmation Page! Contact information, which artists
do and don't want their work posted. http://web.tampabay.rr.com/starchsr/
Address no longer munged for the inconvienence of spammers.
(Yes, this really is me.)
Hugh Jass
>Worldnetdaily is a neo-Nazi propaganda rag - well, it would be a
>rag if it were printed. These are the same people who calculated
>that not enough Jews were killed at the WTC and therefore Israel
>had advanced notice of the attacks, if it didn't actually organize
>them.
>
Which brings up a question I've had since 12 Sep...
For all the people killed in the various crashes on 11 Sep, was
anybody important (sic) killed? The WTC was arguably the temple of
western capitalism. Many big international companies had offices
there. Which captains of industry died? The Pentegon is the temple
of the western military-industrial complex. Which of the general
staff officers died? For that matter, the planes were on regularly
schedule routes going to major cities were big important shit happens
every day. Was anybody important or even semi-important on any of the
planes?
I hope I'm wrong, but the whole thing reeks of the fact that anybody
who was anybody knew where *not* to be that morning. I ain't sayin
the planes didn't crash. I'm just saying that *if* there was some
kind of consipiracy going on, for whatever reason, the people who died
were seen as expendable.
Hugh
(I wanna be in the Cabal!)
Michael
Yes, the passengers were just part of the bomb.
Jason Quick
> According to the graphic at
> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-091601pentagon.story
> it appears this one airplane did enough damage for me to think that even a
> very small tactical nuke would pretty much wipe out the building.
Well, for some value of "very small," above, say 0.5KT or so maybe? Our
smallest tactical nuke was the "Davy Crockett," a weapon of 0.02KT (20 tons
of TNT) with an effective blast radius of around 300M. (One side of the
Pentagon is approximately 300M.)
The blast radius cited above is that in which the weapon produces blast
overpressure, i.e. above standard atmospheric pressure. At 150m, the
overpressure from such a blast is about 7 psi, which will wreck most
civilian structures, but isn't likely to destroy a steel-reinforced
concrete building. In fact, in the absence of the jet fuel that was a
problem in the Pentagon attack, a small-scale nuke like that would
It's worth noting that although the direct blast effects of such weapons are
fairly minimal (for a nuke), the real danger they pose is the intense
radiation they produce. Lethal radiation levels extend to about 350
meters, and dangerous radiation levels extend out another 100m or so.
So hitting the Pentagon with a micro-nuke might not destroy the building,
but it would certainly kill a hell of a lot of people.
Jason
ctc...@hotmail.com
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 05:38:29 GMT, Lars Eighner <eig...@io.com> wrote:
>
> >Worldnetdaily is a neo-Nazi propaganda rag - well, it would be a
> >rag if it were printed. These are the same people who calculated
> >that not enough Jews were killed at the WTC and therefore Israel
> >had advanced notice of the attacks, if it didn't actually organize
> >them.
> >
>
> Which brings up a question I've had since 12 Sep...
>
> For all the people killed in the various crashes on 11 Sep, was
> anybody important (sic) killed? The WTC was arguably the temple of
> western capitalism. Many big international companies had offices
> there. Which captains of industry died?
There are no captains of industry. Maybe Bill Gates, if you consider
software to be industry.
I saw a newstory on the WTC window-washer shortly before the attacks.
Does that make him important?
> The Pentegon is the temple
> of the western military-industrial complex. Which of the general
> staff officers died?
I don't know what a general staff officer is.
> For that matter, the planes were on regularly
> schedule routes going to major cities were big important shit happens
> every day. Was anybody important or even semi-important on any of the
> planes?
Is the solicitor's general wife important, other than to him?
How about the guy who won ~"Murder in a small town"? (I don't know
if he was on a plane or in the towers)
> I hope I'm wrong, but the whole thing reeks of the fact that anybody
> who was anybody knew where *not* to be that morning.
Can you name someone you would expect to have died?
Asterbark
>
>Hugh Jass <hugh_j...@yahoo.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> For that matter, the planes were on regularly
>> schedule routes going to major cities were big important shit happens
>> every day. Was anybody important or even semi-important on any of the
>> planes?
>
>Is the solicitor's general wife important, other than to him?
>How about the guy who won ~"Murder in a small town"? (I don't know
>if he was on a plane or in the towers)
>
David Angell? He was some important TV producer or creator for "Wings" and
"Frasier," among probably other things. Imdb him.
>
>> I hope I'm wrong, but the whole thing reeks of the fact that anybody
>> who was anybody knew where *not* to be that morning.
>
>Can you name someone you would expect to have died?
>
One of the news-heads at the beginning was fearing among the tremendous (and
well over-estimated) death toll, "captains of industry" and "famous Hollywood
personalities." It's kind of shit like that, like famous people they could
scrape up like Barbara Olson (msrip), to really make a loss of this magnitude
matter in popular terms. Like if Chet Atkins or Pauline Kael had lived long
enough to be on one of those planes, would that have made it any degree as bad
as if someone you knew and loved personally were, could you just imagine if Bob
fucking Hope had been on one of those planes? Horrendous distraction from the
really important matters, yet too huge and inter-generational popular
personality to just set aside without an embarrassingly massive tribute,
additional to the scary repetition of events followed by an intensive course of
impotent analysis and streams of interviews with all the unimportant survivors
and all the unimportant relatives of victims, hoping they might just have shown
up somewhere and not been able to call home. And of course, by unimportant, I
do not mean unimportant, but I use it just to make a point.
--
"They had never seen a southern home
And they liked it, better than their UFO"
Aster
Al Yellon
news:20020313173739.052$r...@newsreader.com...
>
> > For that matter, the planes were on regularly
> > schedule routes going to major cities were big important shit happens
> > every day. Was anybody important or even semi-important on any of the
> > planes?
>
> Is the solicitor's general wife important, other than to him?
> How about the guy who won ~"Murder in a small town"? (I don't know
> if he was on a plane or in the towers)
IIRC, there was a former pro hockey player, then a scout for the LA Kings,
on one of the planes. I seem to also recall a story that a well-known movie
actor (and I can't for the life of me remember who) was *supposed* to be on
one of the flights from Boston, but finished his business there early on
Sept. 10 and flew out that night instead.
Finally, IIRC Donald Rumsfeld was in the Pentagon that morning and *had*
been in the section that was hit perhaps 20-30 minutes before, but at the
time of impact was elsewhere in the building.
--
"If you're not part of the future, then get out of the way"
-- John Mellencamp
Bill Diamond
alt.fan.cecil-adams back on Wed, 13 Mar 2002 05:18:12 GMT that ...
>Bill Diamond (bi...@nospambilldiamond.com) wrote:
>: meado...@aol.commonsense (MeadowMan2) wrote:
>: >>Bill Diamond asks:
>: >>Can I just go beat on the french for a while?
>: >Nobody surrenders like the French.
>: I like the French, but there are times I admit I'm tired of their
>: superciliousness.
>
>Well, sometimes this group gets pretty silly too.
Yeah, but we're just putty in your hands.
Bill
Bill Diamond
alt.fan.cecil-adams back on Wed, 13 Mar 2002 04:35:03 GMT that ...
>http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-091601pentagon.story
Heh. Good old Hamre. He was there at the Pentagon when I was
haunting the hallways for a number of years.
Let me tell - the security there was a big damned farce. More than a
few incidents of people walking in with ordinance. The Fat
Protective Service just did not cut the mustard.
Bill
Bill Diamond
alt.fan.cecil-adams back on Tue, 12 Mar 2002 23:24:38 -0600 that ...
>"Bill Diamond" <bi...@nospambilldiamond.com> wrote
>
>> The Pentagon was designed and build to sustain a direct nuclear
>> (noo-CLE-ur) hit, as well.
>
>As it was designed and built a bit before the Manhattan Project came to
>fruition, that is unlikely. It was designed to withstand bombardment,
>however.
>
>In later years, it may have been modified to withstand a nuke, but it
>weren't built that way.
>
>Jason
>
Hey, happy accidents all kiddo. The Manhattan Project was pretty well
underway even as they broke ground on this big old building. Ever
been there? The place is massive.
At the time they were erecting it, a 15 KT bomb seemed impossibly
huge, and could have only been delivered by something the size of a
B-29 or larger. So, yeah - the Pentagon could very well have been
designed within those parameters.
However, like any sensible defense operation - what is visible to the
eye may not be the most important part.
Bill
Bill Diamond
back on Tue, 12 Mar 2002 22:29:54 -0800 that ...
>On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 22:19:36 GMT, Bill Diamond
><bi...@nospambilldiamond.com> wrote:
>
>>-:
>>-:The Pentagon was designed and build to sustain a direct nuclear
>>-:(noo-CLE-ur) hit, as well.
>>-:
>>-:Bill
>
>
>Really??? Wouldn't that have been a bit premature?
Plan for the worst, and you can handle your spouses family with
aplomb.
Bill
Bill Diamond
13 Mar 2002 14:02:40 GMT that ...
>Bill Diamond <bi...@nospambilldiamond.com> wrote:
>> Good old "Al Yellon" <aye...@REMOVETHIScolgatealumni.org> wrote in
>> alt.fan.cecil-adams back on Tue, 12 Mar 2002 14:13:38 -0600 that ...
>>>Very little of the planes that crashed into the WTC has been recovered,
>>>other than a couple of engine parts that broke off and crashed into the
>>>street a few blocks away, which was recovered on September 11.
>
>> The Pentagon was designed and build to sustain a direct nuclear
>> (noo-CLE-ur) hit, as well.
>
>Bill, you forgot to set your sarcasm tag. Now I know you're kidding, but
>many of the proles may not get it.
>
>
>John
Sarcasm? What the hell did I do with those html tags. Oh, that's
right. It's usenet. Never mind.
Bill
Bill Diamond
>
>True, but an explosion does send out a shockwave of air, compressed denser
>than steel, at the speed of sound. The wave would present more of a 'blunt'
>force than the airliner, but I certainly wouldn't be jockeying for that
>corner office.
Dude,
Its a pentagon; there aren't any corner offices.
The way the plane hit the ground a hundred years or so from the
building indicates that most of the explosive impact was expended
right there. Ther resulting damage appears more to be from the
aircraft parts following the direction of force and whacking into the
building, with the fuel aerosolizing, combusting and setting the place
on fire.
Gruesome as hell.
Bill
Hugh Jass
>Hugh Jass <hugh_j...@yahoo.net> wrote:
>>
>> Which brings up a question I've had since 12 Sep...
>>
>> For all the people killed in the various crashes on 11 Sep, was
>> anybody important (sic) killed? The WTC was arguably the temple of
>> western capitalism. Many big international companies had offices
>> there. Which captains of industry died?
>
>There are no captains of industry. Maybe Bill Gates, if you consider
>software to be industry.
There is no mafia, and we'll kill anyone that says there is. You know
what I mean, the movers, the shakers the people who really have a say
in how much my electricity costs or what flavor of corn flakes I'm
allowed to buy this month. The CO's or important VP's of one of the
multi-national banks that had their offices there firinstance.
>I saw a newstory on the WTC window-washer shortly before the attacks.
>Does that make him important?
Important is as important does. I don't mean to demean the victims by
calling them unimportant, but as our darling Amy says "Important to
me" (or at least important to the nation as a whole.)
>> The Pentegon is the temple
>> of the western military-industrial complex. Which of the general
>> staff officers died?
>
>I don't know what a general staff officer is.
The type of military personnel who are allowed to call one of the
joint chiefs by his first name rather than "Sir". A member of the
U.S. military's cabal.
>> For that matter, the planes were on regularly
>> schedule routes going to major cities were big important shit happens
>> every day. Was anybody important or even semi-important on any of the
>> planes?
>
>Is the solicitor's general wife important, other than to him?
>How about the guy who won ~"Murder in a small town"? (I don't know
>if he was on a plane or in the towers)
If the solicitor general is a politician or appointed by one, she is
probably more important to him as a martyred wife than as a living
one. If his mistress had been killed that would be another story.
>> I hope I'm wrong, but the whole thing reeks of the fact that anybody
>> who was anybody knew where *not* to be that morning.
>
>Can you name someone you would expect to have died?
Mayor Rudy? The head officers of NationsBank? Lot's of rich,
influencial peeps used to hang out at the WTC on a regular basis, yes?
Statistically there should have been at least one of them TCB at the
WTC that day. As for the Pentegon, did anybody above the the rank of
Lt. Col die? The chiefs don't hide in the basement all the time ya
know. What would the odds be that one person above the rank of Lt.
Col would have been on that side of the building that day?
It's like, ya know, take a box and put 1000 people in it, 100 of whom
are rich, famous, and influencial. Blow up one random corner of the
box killing 100 of the occupants. One would expect around 5-10 to be
milling around the corner that was randomly destroyed. Unless it
wasn't random, and somebody whispered to the rich peeps where not to
stand. Or if the rich peeps paid somebody to do it so the box would
be less crowded or something. I ain't sayin that's what happened, I'm
just sayin it *could* happen.
I'm still waiting for the list.
Hugh
(Thangs that make you go, "Grrrrrrrr".)
Matt Miller
>
> Is the solicitor's general wife important, other than to him?
> How about the guy who won ~"Murder in a small town"? (I don't know
> if he was on a plane or in the towers)
He was one of the firefighters.
--
Matt Miller
Stephen Fels
> Good old "Stephen Fels" <ste...@fels.cc> wrote in
> alt.fan.cecil-adams back on Wed, 13 Mar 2002 04:45:02 GMT that ...
> >
> >True, but an explosion does send out a shockwave of air, compressed
denser
> >than steel, at the speed of sound. The wave would present more of a
'blunt'
> >force than the airliner, but I certainly wouldn't be jockeying for that
> >corner office.
>
>
> Dude,
> Its a pentagon; there aren't any corner offices.
Who says a corner has to be 90 degrees? :P There are corners, just 72 degree
corners.
> The way the plane hit the ground a hundred years or so from the
> building indicates that most of the explosive impact was expended
> right there.
100 years in the future, or the past?
Anyway, why do you think that? If a belly-landing expended 'most of the
explosive impact' no one would _ever_ survive one. In this case, there would
be a _huge_ divot in that berm, instead of the building. The jet was very
nearly level with the ground and coming in at a gentle angle (otherwise
people would have described it as diving into the Pentagon, instead of
coming in, insanely low, over the highway). Jets also have nice smooth
bellies and grass doesn't put up much fight when something fast, broad and
smooth goes sliding over it.
> Ther resulting damage appears more to be from the
> aircraft parts following the direction of force and whacking into the
> building, with the fuel aerosolizing, combusting and setting the place
> on fire.
I would bet (since there probably isn't a mutually respected source of such
information) that the jet was 99% intact, when the nose began to crumple
against the building.
Bob Ward
<bi...@nospambilldiamond.com> wrote:
>-:
>-:Plan for the worst, and you can handle your spouses family with
>-:aplomb.
>-:
>-:Bill
Does German sausage play a big part in your relationship?
(On second thought, I'm pretty sure I really don't want or need an
answer on that.)
As you were...
--
This space left intentionally blank
Stephen Fels
"Stephen Fels" <ste...@fels.cc> wrote in message
news:LWSj8.163880$TV4.21...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> Who says a corner has to be 90 degrees? :P There are corners, just 72
degree
> corners.
Move along, nothing to see here...
--
Stephen "Guinness is loverly, but hell on the math" Fels
JmG
>|I'm fairly certain they have not found the black boxes from the WTC or
>|the Pentagon (I'm a bit unsure about the Pentagon). In fact, I believe
>|they've only recovered the recorder from Flight 93 (Pennsylvania).
You are correct. However, considering that there was 220 acres of rubble and
that fires raged for days we did manage to find a passport from one of the
hijackers.
Uh huh.
Artie
news:f5809usgjcilhp52e...@4ax.com...
> You are correct. However, considering that there was 220 acres of rubble
and
> that fires raged for days we did manage to find a passport from one of the
> hijackers.
>
> Uh huh.
Do I detect a note of sarcasm here? Are you a Liberal? Do you aid and/or
abet Terah? What about Bill Clinton?
JmG
>|> that fires raged for days we did manage to find a passport from one of the
>|> hijackers.
>|>
>|> Uh huh.
>|
>|Do I detect a note of sarcasm here? Are you a Liberal? Do you aid and/or
>|abet Terah? What about Bill Clinton?
The AM radio tinfoil hat brigade has blamed Bill Clinton for the attacks but
their obsession with the past President borders on mental retardation.
JB
> It's like, ya know, take a box and put 1000 people in it, 100 of whom
> are rich, famous, and influencial. Blow up one random corner of the
> box killing 100 of the occupants. One would expect around 5-10 to be
> milling around the corner that was randomly destroyed. Unless it
> wasn't random, and somebody whispered to the rich peeps where not to
> stand. Or if the rich peeps paid somebody to do it so the box would
> be less crowded or something. I ain't sayin that's what happened, I'm
> just sayin it *could* happen.
So you think that 10% of the US population is rich, famous, and
influential.
It would be generous to guess that 10,000 people fit that description --
.04% of the US population.
.04% of 3500 assumed 9/11 deaths yields 1.4 statistically-expected rich,
famous, and influential deaths. The Akamai CEO was one; there may have
been more.
Plus there's the fact that few bigshots go to work before 9am, few
generals work in areas under construction, and most of the truly rich,
famous, and influential travel by private jet.
--JB
Artie
> generals work in areas under construction, and most of the truly rich,
> famous, and influential travel by private jet.
And only a few work for Odigo...;^)
>
> --JB
Bob Ward
>-:On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 10:20:11 -0500, Michael <mitc...@image-link.com> wrote:
>-:
>-:>|I'm fairly certain they have not found the black boxes from the WTC or
>-:>|the Pentagon (I'm a bit unsure about the Pentagon). In fact, I believe
>-:>|they've only recovered the recorder from Flight 93 (Pennsylvania).
>-:
>-:You are correct. However, considering that there was 220 acres of rubble and
>-:that fires raged for days we did manage to find a passport from one of the
>-:hijackers.
>-:
>-:Uh huh.
>-:
>-:J
The passport, of course, was not found in the 220 acres of rubble with
the raging fires, but rather it was found blocks away, with other
lightweight debris from the hijacked plane.
Remember - wear the shiny side on the INSIDE of the hat.
Jason Quick
>Ever been there? I've trolled their hallways for many a year now.
Punchline from an old Pentagon joke:
Guard: Ma'am, you shouldn't have come in here in that condition.
Pregnant lady: Sir, when I came in here, I wasn't.
Jason