9/11

notimpressed · Jun 28, 2010

Kyuubi said:
Somehow I don't even think you know what the "official story" as you call it even is. Beating around the Bush [no pun intended] and ignoring issues to avoid having to discuss these issues head on is really doing you no service. I thought the whole thing was about a hijacked commercial aircraft being intentionally rammed into a symbol of American military power, what exactly did you think it was?

So what is it again that's wrong when somebody concludes you don't think there's evidence to substantiate the account, or for that matter a commercial jet was a culprit? Or is there a version of this "official story" that nobody here has heard of yet?

I'm wondering what "sources" I'm going to get if I ask...

This is more of the same. descridit and attack character, more the same Fox News playbook. It certialy doesnt proove any story.

Ther eis a picture,I think even on this thread. It shows a NTSB flight path estimate for the plane. The Policmen were in a postion that if that was the true path. They woulld have never seen the plane. They said they saw it. So there is no error at all. They are liars or they arent.

Kyuubi · Jun 28, 2010

notimpressed said:
This is more of the same. descridit and attack character, more the same Fox News playbook. It certialy doesnt proove any story.

You don't know what an ad hominem is either. It's an attack against the arguer instead of the argument. I'd appreciate it if you can clarify what "official story" you heard because based on your objections it appears to be significantly different than what anybody else in this thread has heard. That was not a personal attack against you, it was a question. Please reserve your baseless accusations for after you clarify.

notimpressed said:
There is a picture, I think even on this thread. It shows a NTSB flight path estimate for the plane. The Policmen were in a postion that if that was the true path. They woulld have never seen the plane. They said they saw it. So there is no error at all. They are liars or they arent.

What do you think of the traffic light poles that were knocked over, the cab driver whos car was impacted by one of these, and the DNA identification of the passengers of the plane's radar data, and the accounts of firefighters who were involved in putting out the fires?

notimpressed · Jun 28, 2010

You don't know what an ad hominem is either.

Just more of the same attacks.

I have seen downed poles. Which ones are the question and no pictures indicate clearly which ones. I finnaly after all these years saw this Cab. But again in no geograhical context. DNA and radar is meaningless, Its a claim of the goverment and I will not accept evidence from a orgnazation that has selictivly chosen what to use as evidence supressed other evidence, and destroy the rest of it.

Oh yeah and Firegighters. Peoeple iside the building have allot of different claims. Many saw nothing in the way of the plane. Some saw "debris" goverment claims they found landing gear and a chair. Nothing that can conclusivley proove a type of plane.

Kyuubi · Jun 28, 2010

notimpressed said:
But again in no geograhical context.

I think we call this grasping at straws

notimpressed said:
DNA and radar is meaningless, Its a claim of the goverment

Poisoning the well is not evidence. Claiming this is an insult to your character is not evidence. Repeating the same unsupported assertions is not evidence. I don't care what you think of the government, it's an incompetent piece of crap bureaocracy, showing it so is not evidence of fakery. I want to know what evidence you have that the DNA evidence is falsified... that the fight radar data is falsified, not a blanket rejection based on nothing more than your hatred and fear of some block entity.

EDIT: And before you go claiming "ZOMG I didn't say they faked it!!ONE!" Then support the claim whether it deals with flying unicorns or pigs with wings.

Three pages and at most you've cited oat most one website and a video, none of which had anything to do with the claim being discussed. What sites would recommend that explains your argument and supports it?

And like I said:

notimpressed said:
Nothing that can conclusivley proove a type of plane.

notimpressed said:
Nothing said by anybody ever can conclusivly confirm the type of plane.

notimpressed said:
Nothing found was definitively an aircraft of type claimed by the Government.

Exactly "what" you think the evidence points to is beyond me... You specify nothing more than you don't think the evidence points to a commercial aircraft carrying passengers. It's not an assumtion; it's exactly what you're telling me.

notimpressed · Jun 28, 2010

Your spending far to much time attacking me to be very convincing. And you keep saying I said things I have not.

reading further witnesses on several sites it makes even more sense for the Police to be correct. Many said they heard the plane powering up. Qutie a few mention Columbia Pike road, so they are consistant with the police report. This path makes far more sence if the statements of power up wich even come from a timmermann a Pilot, are to be belived.

notimpressed · Jun 28, 2010

oh yeah, forgot about the cab. There are three poles behind it standing. Given the menions of cloumbia pike, It was where the cops said it was or there was more then one event here.

Kyuubi · Jun 28, 2010

notimpressed said:
Your spending far to much time attacking me to be very convincing.

Can you kindly point out where I am attacking you. I'm awfully confused as to what you're considering an attack, or an argument that you adamantly do not want to substantiate.

notimpressed said:
reading further witnesses on several sites, it makes even more sense for the Police to be correct.

What sites? links?

notimpressed said:
oh yeah, forgot about the cab. There are three poles behind it standing. Given the menions of cloumbia pike, It was where the cops said it was or there was more then one event here.

I'm not following. Can you be more specific?

notimpressed said:
And you keep saying I said things I have not.

You've claimed an American airlines 737 can't fit through a "16 foot hole" and you also claim that no evidence has been found to substantiate the type of plane use. You've been pretty clear. Id like to know where you said otherwise. If you know where, by all mean point me. Highlight it if you got to.

Kyuubi · Jun 28, 2010

Question... you've spent three pages accusing me of insulting, attacking, scripting, and putting words in your mouth. When will you substantiate a single claim you have made in this thread. Is such a task too time consuming for you? Or am I asking of too much?

notimpressed · Jun 28, 2010

I havent made any claims, I am just reading sites and watching videos, trying to figure it all out.

notimpressed · Jun 28, 2010

I never mentioned a 737

Nor have I mentioned fakery.

Never said missile anywhere either.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html heres one site, I am watching stuff on youtube right now.

Kyuubi · Jun 28, 2010

notimpressed said:
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html heres one site, I am watching stuff on youtube right now.

Ah interesting, especially in where you're coming from; Although their case for controlled demolition in the other buildings is pretty whacky, you'll be surprised to know that I truly recommend examining their Pentagon section as one of the few conspiratorial websites that actually makes a case worth merit.

notimpressed · Jun 28, 2010

Oh yes now its any page I post is conspricay this and that. Whatever. So you cheery pick what you hear to say what you want to hear then claim anybody else is doing the same. This argument has no shred of validity whatsoever.

Kyuubi · Jun 28, 2010

notimpressed said:
This argument has no shred of validity whatsoever.

Okay, let's take one of your earlier arguments:

notimpressed said:
DNA and radar is meaningless, Its a claim of the goverment

If that's how it is how would you like it if I simply dismissed your 16 foot hole theory as rubbish because it was a conspiracy theory? It would've much easier than posting a side by side comparison carefully explaining something you automatically ignored:

Kyuubi said:
The 16 foot hole "fact" is a cherry picked photograph showing the Pentagon's facade while obscuring all of the damage sustained on the first floor of the Pentagon:

Your hypocrisy is quite astounding
Also nice to see you're throwing one of your own sources under the bus now.

notimpressed · Jun 28, 2010

I havent any clue what your talking about none of this makes much sense..........................

Kyuubi · Jun 28, 2010

Not sure what what you're having trouble with. If I really thought calling something a "conspiracy" was enough to discredit something I wouldn't have even bothered taking the time to make comparison shots to show why I don't take one of your easiest claims seriously. That Pentagon hole size you keep peddling is nothing more than a misrepresentation that started with Loose Change and got peddled by WTC no-planer Jim Fetzer. The source of that claim is no mystery, nor is why it's a blatantly stupid claim. That you choose to ignore it, refuse to admit you might have been duped by one of your "non-government" sources, or outright play dumb is your responsibility, not mine.

notimpressed · Jun 28, 2010

I dont know from Loose change other then its a name used often by people. That hole in the wall is 16 feet thats not debatable. No matter what names you throw at me or anybody else like stupid, or ignorant. Its 16 feet which not that hard to figure out.

The rest of damge has no bearing on that hole as far as what the size of the object that hit it was. All those green red orange lines mean nothing as far as the SYMENTERICAL HOLE is concerned.

Penetraiton is not that difficult to figure. If I had 45 cal made of pine wood, it wouldnt go through 1.4 inch of steell, it probbly wouldt go through a 1 mm of it. The wings of that plane were no thicker then 1/8 inch. They will not sheer off like many say, nor would they penetrate. They would have shattered. Yet most accounts indicate that there was a thud, smoke then a fire and/or boom. Contrary to the movies impact is not a gurantee of explosion. Though its ultra rare to have no fire at all. The ability of people to congitively note a delay of explosions is signifigant.

The speed of the plane is estimated wildly from just over stall speed to almost 100 MPH past its maximum speed. 700 MPH

The faster it was going the less relaible accounts woud be from close up. This increases expodentialy with higher speed and closer distantce.

Also greater speed doesnt mean nescessairly mean greater penetration. The only time KE power is a even close to being the only variable is when the material of the penetrator and target is exactly the same.

The idea the plane would stay intact enoough for the nose to be intact through even two rings is near impossible

Kyuubi · Jun 28, 2010

notimpressed said:
That hole in the wall is 16 feet thats not debatable.

You can be as adamant and stubborn as you want, but you don't decide what the actual damage is on your own whim. Especially when you refuse to even respect people by backing the claim. This denial even with a full picture of the damage is why your argument deserves to be ridiculed. If you don't like the criticism then I suggest you move to the Loose change forum where I'm sure you'll be welcomed with open arms with your fellow inside job believers.

notimpressed said:
The rest of damge has no bearing on that hole as far as what the size of the object that hit it was.

Of course it does. You need a sizeable mass to take out such a large extent of the structural load bearing walls. The penetration on the first floor incidentally is consistent with the size of a passenger aircraft. Your bald assertion is worthless. You have no evidence to back your claim, you've haven't even attempted it, and you will arrogantly ignore anything you perceive to be contrary to your position. You've demonstrated this quite nicely. You're the one who entered this discussion and refused to take part in substantiating every thing you've brought up. If you don't like the abominable idea of having to do a serious discussion then clearly you shouldn't have thrust yourself into this.

notimpressed said:
Penetraiton is not that difficult to figure. If I had 45 cal made of pine wood, it wouldnt go through 1.4 inch of steell, it probbly wouldt go through a 1 mm of it. The wings of that plane were no thicker then 1/8 inch. They will not sheer off like many say, nor would they penetrate. They would have shattered. Yet most accounts indicate that there was a thud, smoke then a fire and/or boom. Contrary to the movies impact is not a gurantee of explosion. Though its ultra rare to have no fire at all. The ability of people to congitively note a delay of explosions is signifigant.

You go from claiming that the wings should not have penetrated to something about a thud. You're clearly quite confused.

notimpressed said:
Also greater speed doesnt mean nescessairly mean greater penetration. The only time KE power is a even close to being the only variable is when the material of the penetrator and target is exactly the same.

The materiality has nothing to do with kinetic energy. I think you mean density, and mass. The pentagon isn't a nuclear power plant with 6 ft thick concrete walls afterall.

notimpressed said:
The idea the plane would stay intact enoough

The condition of the plane is irrelevant. No sane person expects the plane to ram through without breaking up. Force is dictated by mass and acceleration as any high school physics student should be aware of..

Once again, you apparently can't stand criticism of the theories you support, and seem too lazy to do any responsible research. If you don't like it then don't enter a discussion you're complete unprepared for.

notimpressed · Jun 29, 2010

You can be as adamant and stubborn as you want, but you don't decide what the actual damage is on your own whim. Especially when you refuse to even respect people by backing the claim. This denial even with a full picture of the damage is why your argument deserves to be ridiculed. If you don't like the criticism then I suggest you move to the Loose change forum where I'm sure you'll be welcomed with open arms with your fellow inside job believers.

its right there on your own picture. Its labled 18, but close enough.

As far as penetration its not possible. Claim otherwise all you like. Aluminum is not hard enough to maintain form though that much concrete. Without mainting form it can not make the penetration claimed.

Mass without enough velocity wont work. If I throw a bullet at you it wont go through you.

You go from claiming that the wings should not have penetrated to something about a thud. You're clearly quite confused.

this doesnt make any sense.

The materiality has nothing to do with kinetic energy.

You have mis-used this word. IN this context it makes no sense.

Anyway Velocity is a major componet of penetration.

The condtion of the plane means everything. If the penetrator deforms it effects penetration greatly. This is all a sub section of Ballistics called terminal ballistics. It is not theory it is the laws on nature.

If a bullet enters you and bends on bone its velocity is reduced and its path is effected. Every thing the penetrator hits slows it down. Every piece broken off reduce its mass and the peices become penetrators of their own. As they are different shapes there penetrative charceristics become unique and the remaining piece of the orginal also has its charcerisitics change. It simimilar to shatter gap.

Also the Govermetn story claims that the condition of the Aircraft is paramount. As it claims the nose of the plane created this...

The rest is just more of that Fox news attacks name calling.

Kyuubi · Jun 29, 2010

notimpressed said:
its right there on your own picture. Its labled 18, but close enough.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html#facade

The portions of the Pentagon's facade punctured by the crash are easily measured by combining data from several different photographs, both before and after the collapse of the section. Several photographs by Jason Ingersoll provide detailed views of right portions of the impact zone. Other photographs show the left portions of the impact zone. Together, these photographs show that the facade was punctured over a wide swath on the first floor and a much smaller extent on the second floor.
Measuring the punctured regions shows that the facade was completely punctured for a width of 96 feet on the first floor and 18 feet on the second floor. Punctured areas were bounded by columns and floor slabs. This is natural since the columns and floor slabs were constructed of steel-reinforced concrete, whereas the window bays spanning them were brick walls reinforced with steel window frames and Kevlar mesh as part of the renovation program.
On the first floor, the primary puncture extended from column 8 to column 18. Three leaning objects in the first floor space left of the hole center are often assumed to be displaced remains of columns 15, 16, and 17. However, this analysis shows that those objects are more likely to be fallen pieces of the second floor slab than columns. Thus, it appears that the crash initially left a first floor hole that extended unobstructed for 96 feet. Surviving column 18 marked the rightmost extent of the hole, but to the right of it is another hole extending to column 19. Thus the total width of punctured walls on the first floor was at least 105 feet.
On the second floor, the puncture extended from column 13 to column 15. Photographs show a hanging object in the position of column 14. This appears to consist in part of remains of the steel reinforcements that were part of column 14.

notimpressed said:
Aluminum is not hard enough to maintain form though that much concrete. Without mainting form it can not make the penetration claimed.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html#facade

Summary

Proponents of the no-Boeing theory have made the following claims about damage to the Pentagon's interior:

The C-Ring punchout hole could not have been made by a jetliner's nose

The C-Ring punchout hole could not have been made by a jetliner

Claim 1 may be true but is entirely irrelevant because the nose of a jetliner is just the front end of the fuselage. The fuselage, and particularly its lower half, is the most massive part of a jetliner, and in a collision its force would be concentrated in a small frontal profile, much like a battering ram.
Most variants of Claim 2 incorrectly assume that there are ground level masonry walls between the C- and D-Rings, and D- and E-Rings.

notimpressed said:
You have mis-used this word. IN this context it makes no sense.

No not misused. Forces is calculated using mass and velocity. A 100 ton mass is a 100 ton mass regardless of it's material. See above excerpt & link for an explanation detailing this particular case.

notimpressed said:
Also the Govermetn story claims that the condition of the Aircraft is paramount. As it claims the nose of the plane created this...

C-Ring Punch-Out Hole Is in Path of Most Aircraft Mass

Many observers find the size of the punch-out hole peculiar because it is small relative to a 757. Measuring about 9 feet in diameter, it is much less than the 12.5-foot diameter of a 757's fuselage.
However, the mass of a jetliner is not uniformly distributed throughout its shape. The fuselage of a 757 comprises only about a quarter of the area of its frontal profile, but makes up well over half of its mass. The distribution of the mass within the fuselage is far from uniform. Most of the structure is located in the lower third of the fuselage, as are the heavy components such as the landing gear.
In a high-speed collision with a building, only the parts of the aircraft with the greatest density and total mass, such as the lower third of the fuselage, could be expected to penetrate far into the building. That part also has a small frontal profile -- approximately the size of the punch-out hole.

Again see above excerpt & link

And this time read the entire article. There's a reason I linked it. He's done all he work of documenting the damage in one page.

notimpressed said:
The rest is just more of that Fox news attacks name calling.

It's not an attack. It's a statement of truth. If you cannot back your claims you should not have entered the discussion to begin with. You've expressed the same behavior in several threads throughout the forum, this isn't something people are going to babysit you on, or agree with you for the sake of agreeing. If you want that go to Loose Change's forum. This is not a playground

notimpressed · Jun 29, 2010

It's not an attack. It's a statement of truth

thats the last thing it is.

I dont know loose change I have no desire or need to listen to that organzation or whatever it is.

Simply saying no your wrong then complaing about reciving the same isnt an argument that will convince anybody. I have made no claims so far. There is nothing you have said that is verifiable or in anyway fact. A picture that has been drawn on prooves absolutley nothing. Thats all you got. Its meaningless. Mass means nothing without rigidity. The material is of monumental importance. Thats a basic of terminal balissitics.

You can throw a 100 ton water ballon at that buidling its not going to go through several walls spaced, steel reinforced concrete.

csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=pX...ook_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA

"shatter gap" typicaly used in context of, but not exclusively limtid to, Military armor.

Start there.

Which reminded me of something else. If these planes could rip through all that concrete how come they jsut toppled over the light poles and made a dent.

You claim material doesnt matter. Then those things should be ripped in two. They arent.

9/11

Similar threads