Beto wrote: Question: After massive deceleration, shouldn't the engine be compressed and compacted to the point of it being much more likely to remain virtually intact?
If it was a solid object like a bullet yes. If the RB211-535 was a solid lump of lead that would be the comparison. Otherwise no. After a massive impact like the one in question it seems reasonable to expect a complex object to be torn apart.
The 757 is not "observed".
And in that list of observations, facts and deductions did I say that?
Actually, looking at that blast, I wouldn't rule out the possibility of nothing ever having hit the Pentagon. In fact, I'm starting to think a bomb is more likely than a missile theory. A weird white streak in the only released footage of the event has to be suspicious, and I'm reluctant to simply accept as fact that either a plane or a missile did the job, based solely on that.
You also seem reluctant to except any evidence that suggests a 757.
Did you see it before? I thought the hotel footage had never been disclosed.
Okay that video is supposed to have been taken from the Double Tree hotel which is the other side of the Pentagon to the explosion/plane strike In which case you would not expect to see a plane.
Go Here Click on the Higher resolution mpg link and watch that version of the same video. You should be able to make out the Pentagon with what look like the tops of cars moving over its roof moving left to right. I believe that is the interstate, and it is just a perspective illusion. At running time 9:34:11 you’ll see the start of the explosion above the roof, and the ball of flame never appears below the roof line. Suggesting the explosion is the other side of the building and thus no plane to be seen. A point that also confirms the video is from the DoubleTree and not the Sheraton.
In the film you linked someone has zoomed in, the cars moving left to right now look like they are moving in front of a building. But clearly they are not if you check what you are seeing with the high resolution film.
Now explain this to me. Here is a piece of film that could never show a plane hitting the Pentagon but the eerie music and captions da da da dum seems to suggest that the absence of a plane says something deeply important. Why so much spin and misrepresentation. I'm beginning to feel there really is a conspiracy here. Are the Democrats paying for this stuff.
Actually I take this to be a metaphor for the whole conspiracy shambles.
You're arguing for a far more damaging explosion that evaporates plane parts,
I have never used the word evaporate. Who says anything evaporated? I used words like mashed and mushed.
but still allows for the lack of damage observed in the previous pic I posted.
Lack of damage? ….to the engine….you’re kidding. I’m no expert but I’d say that is pretty much comprehensibly damaged. Casings shredded, and some lump of stuff unrecognizable, and one left over burnt rotor blade.
I’m pointing out to you that the energy and nature of the impact was or an order that would cause far more damage to the plane than your model of events factor in. Which way do you want it more debris or less?
Yes it is. There's a virtually intact Learjet crash you may have come across, but that's hardly enough to make conclusive comparisons.
Let’s see and thrash it out then.
You have clean white walls and intact windows. I know something has been said of those windows being exceptionally strong and "saving lives"... 125 people dying in a "reduced volume explosion" doesn't sit well with me, but regardless, we can observe a broken window that doesn't seem very reinforced. Is there a good argument that predicts the non-breaking of these windows after the mass displacement (is that right?) caused by at least 6 tons worth of engines? I know it's an "expecting to see" argument, but I think this is a good one.
Take a step back. Let’s say there is no plane, that it’s an inside job and the building was demolished by planted explosives. There was still a fireball, and there was still an explosion and there was still a fire. And those windows and walls ended up as they did even after of those events. If the pentagon was mined explained to me how the conspirators managed not to dirty the wallpaper. That question works both ways, and is not really an argument against or for anything. Unless you want to argue there was not even an explosion and the hole in the Pentagon was put there by demolishing ball.
, in which case the final approach may not be possible at all.
That is a different question. And we can get on to that. But we need to nail down what is and is not possible, and what is and what is not probable if a 757 struck the Pentagon… in terms of damage to the building and debris. As you can tell I want to take away one of the balls you are trying to juggle with.
Well, not really. I know I said that, but the official line HAS to be what it is, and the damage is claimed to fit the values necessary for complete facade penetration and debris disintegration, but it doesn't, as demonstrated by intact pillars, furniture, windows, walls, etc
Why doesn’t it. Which pillars remain in tact that should have been demolished?
Do you think it's realistic to use the absence of testimonies or peer-review against the US government as an argument against the conspiracy?
Yes….O plainly yes. And the reason is that there seems to be a headlong rush to jump to conclusions. I’ve think I’ve been able to point out to you on nearly every point we’ve so far discussed that the analysis of the pictures keeps leaving out important considerations that alter the possible conclusion that can be reached. Every argument I have so far read just seems rushed, and so far every time I’ve started to ask question or interrogated the conspiracy slant its basic assumptions are found to be flawed.
Hey there really could be a conspiracy...but if there is ...why are the arguments for it so poor?:P
It’s not that I’m here to stone wall you Beto, The questions and points I’m making should be asked and pursued by those who favor the conspiracy theory. The fact that I am not seeing these questions being asked tells me a proper peer reviewed process is needed to ever take the conspiracy seriously.
How is that piece of fuselage compatible with a massive deceleration? It's a significant extension of straight metal.
It ain’t straight
; it’s been shredded and is a couple of feet long. The photograph was apparently taken by reporter Mark Faram and it’s was the only piece of debris of any size he could find to photograph. Can you list the reasons why you think this is incompatible with a plane hitting the Pentagon?
First they said the footage didn't capture the attack, then they said the footage isn't released pending the ongoing investigation involving Zacarias Moussaoui. Interesting these pieces of evidence that don't show the attack, hey?
