9/11 and conspiracy theories

[Beto]

Alrighty then... as I suggested in another thread, this one will be just to chat about 9/11 and other conspiracy theories. With so many websites solely devoted to them, I don't think addressing the issue here is "dangerous" to anyone.

So, to get things started I'll mention the "peculiarities" I find in the 9/11 event that I don't feel are sufficiently addressed by the government. I'm particularly interested in some incontrovertible images and sounds, since anything else implies trusting the mainstream media and the accused party.

First off, about the WTC 7. The NIST recently released a report blaming the fires for the collapse of the building. I'm no engineer so I can't really judge. Though looking at how the building falls it seems like a bunch of bs to me. More relevant is Silverstein's statement. During an interview, Silverstein claimed to have decided, in conjunction with the Fire Commander to "pull" the building. Now, it's often claimed he meant pull the firefighters out, but his exact phrase was "pull it". The transcript goes like:

"I said 'you know we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse."



People say it comes down to what we want to hear. For the life of me, and despite definitely not wanting to hear what I do, I can't see how this could relate to pull people out. Also relevant was the fact that no firefighters were in the building at this time. They were outside walking away from the building, fact caught on amateur video:

"It's blowin' boy." ... "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon." ... "The building is about to blow up, move it back." ... "Here we are walking back. There's a building, about to blow up..."



"Blow up"? It's hard to believe the firefighters were expecting a steel framed building to collapse because of internal fires, when later it's considered a "freak accident", and totally unexpected.

OK, that's enough about WTC 7. Now something about Flight 93.



Leaving aside the "feel" of the clip, and whether or not the "scar" was there before 9/11, this is NOT a plane crash site. Scattered debris here and there don't make a plane crash site. The bulk of the fuselage should be right there, where nothing can be seen. Show me another crash site even remotely similar to that one.

That's enough for now, I guess.

[Beto]

Are you absolutely, positively, 100% sure, that the hole is consistent with ""plane mash" going through the wall? Shape non-withstanding, the left side doesn't seem very consistent with something punching through from the inside. Heck, look at how the bricks are lined up at the left. How can you keep a straight face and tell me this was caused by "plane mash"?

[Furrowed Brow]

That's not true.

Hmmm.

You say one piece of physical evidence is likely, I say it isn't, and that's pretty much all we have to show for.

That is not the nature of the dialogue. Point by point I’ve offered an analysis and put forward physical principles which explain why the scenes will look like it does in the pictures and I think you are now kind of accepting as being relevant, but then you retreat to your general position asserting by your disagreeement without offering any real counter to the analysis other maybe than to point to government behavior etc. Where you have offered an alternative, e.g. comparison to other crash scenes, the film ofthe plane crashing etc., I have been pretty thorough in making sure you have been rebutted, at which point you retreat to an "I disagree position" which is not supported by any further analysis.

I don't think that piece of fuselage in the lawn is consistent with the crash, you think it is.

Why?

I have adumbrated why and how a 757 will have entered the Pentagon and combined with a reduced volume explosion the result is going to be far more devastating to the integrity of the plane than the kind of crashes you seem to have been consideringg. Please identify by what criteria you do not find the 757 analysis convincing…pics of open area crashes? An analysis of a possible crash based on …..?

OK on the assumption a 757 travelling at around 400-500mph struck the Pentagon as the official line has it…why would you expect the pictures to look different? In broad terms what physics do you think will be at play that might leave more debris outside the Pentagon and in a better condition than seen in the pictures?

I don't think the exit-hole is consisted with a "plane mash" that hit it, you think it is. But unfortunately, these opinions will remain just that.

I’ve offered an explanation so now you need to pull my explanation apart and offer your own analysis…this is what I mean by coming back at me.

But if you're implying bias on my part, because of any type of belief, I can argue the same.

I’m saying you just need to offer a fuller analysis of what is in the pictures and refute the 757 explanation.

All we have are interpretations of the same observation, not "evidence" as we would both like to have and present. Again, I would like to have evidence to prove what you see, but I don't.

Not really. We have the pictures and we can list the physical forces consistent with a 757. I have explained how and why the majority of the plane will have ended up inside the Pentagon and be subject to a reduced volume explosion. Please list the reasons why you think these forces cannot generate the debris field you see in the pictures. Then we can take your points one by one.

You mean arguments for a non-existence of Flight 77, or an actual aircraft?

I mean your analysis of what you see in the pictures be that the lawn without evidence of engine impact, the location of debris and fuel of a 400-500mph crash, be that the point aluminum does not burn, be that the failure to factor in the consequence of a reduced volume explosion.

The argument for missing data are questions external to the physics that created what we see in the pictures.

The indications pointing to the likelihood of a 757 can also be interpreted as detrimental to that case, thus supporting any alternative.

Again not really. The major point against the missile hypothesis is the size of the object that appears briefly in the cctv footage. It’s just too big. Crickey here is a point that if you could come back at me on. Does close attention to that footage show an object equal in size to a missile or considerably larger.

Questions regarding the exit hole then just reinforce the missile theory is no better an explanation than a 757, except for when we look at the debris and the cctv we see evidence of a plane not a missile. Hence we discount a missile.
This is not bias, it is just a straight analysis of what we see in the pictures.

It may be bias to assume what we see in the pictures is not planted or doctored, but that is not the point. As I keep trying to point out the pictures show a plane crash, and are consistent with a plane crash. If so then the conspiracy theory cannot cite the pictures as evidence of a conspiracy. You disagree with my analysis then analyze back...don't retreat to a place of "nah I don't buy it!". Saying the hole looks to geomtetic is an opinion. I've made a stab at explainging why it looks that way, now unpick what I have said...show me why it is unlikley and we can take it point by point.

If some people look at that exit-hole, for instance, and see something too "geometrical" to be caused by a "plane mash", explosives are a likely alternative.

If a plane mash did could not cause the hole or it is unlikely it caused the hole then explosives are a likely alternative. But it is your turn to give an analysis that shows why it is unlikely that plane mash caused the round hole, and as I say we can take it point by point.

But I don't claim this is anything more than intuition, and I doubt you have anything more substantial than your own.

No not intuition. Look again the picture you supplied. Check this page out
Pic Link
the linked page has several pictures, some showing plane deris. I'm saying that is the mash that hit the wall.

OK you favor explosives as an explanation, why? Yes the hole is round, but why not plane mash? Why does a round hole negate a 757?

Should the difficulty in coming up with the exact scenario influence our intuitive perspective on the damage?

Crikey yes…. the official account does offer an exact scenario… and one you have failed to show how the pictures contradict; while your account is vague we cannot see if the pictures deny your interpretation because you are not saying anything other than airing your skepticism regarding the US government and making some very general points that can’t be refuted until you say something more specific. For example exactly how was the Pentagon blown up? How much explosives would have been needed? Where was it planted? But before you answer that a more detailed analysis of why plane mash is the unlikely cause of the exit hole would be a start.

[Furrowed Brow]

Are you absolutely, positively, 100% sure, that the hole is consistent with ""plane mash" going through the wall?

I’d say 97%, but enough to be pretty darn sure.

Shape non-withstanding, the left side doesn't seem very consistent with something punching through from the inside.

This time I’m putting the boot on the other foot: please give a fuller analysis of why you think think the condition of the wall is inconsistent with being hit by plane mash. Point by point.

Heck, look at how the bricks are lined up at the left. How can you keep a straight face and tell me this was caused by "plane mash"?

Yes: and one furrowed in disbelief that you can see anything else.

[Furrowed Brow]

I'm waiting for your take on the cable spools. The argument here, suggesting the absense of Flight 77, is how the cable spools remain sitting in the path of a 757's jetwash. Again, intuitively, I don't see these objects having the necessary mass to remain anywhere close to where they were.





A typical response is that the spools aren't as close to the building as some pictures might suggest. Disregarding the fact that there are multiple pictures with better perspectives to reafirm how close they were, I don't see how this is relevant given the alleged distance the plane flew near to the ground.

First: check out the fireman in the foreground. Those spools look to be a minimum of 2m tall. Link 1
Check out the link. This is the kind of size or spool I think you are seeing outside the pentagon. In fact the spools look very similar. Which suggests those spools are made of steel. The ones outside the pentagon are also wound with cable.
These pics show the spools near fully wound. So before you reach your conclusion what weight of spool and cable are you assuming. One ton, two ton…?

[Beto]

This time I’m putting the boot on the other foot: please give a fuller analysis of why you think think the condition of the wall is inconsistent with being hit by plane mash. Point by point.

Alright. Not only that, I'll go over previous points and try to sum things up, already taking your arguments into account.

[Beto]

Among so much being written in between arguments strictly pertaining the pictures this is quite a daunting task. I would therefore ask that you tell me which arguments you gave that weren't just unsupported opinion, and that I failed to address. Could be easier that way. For now, I'll revisit a few points.

First, about some of the airplane parts allegedly found.

As far as I know, the parts found (rotor, landing gear, primers...) they could all be from a 757, even if some people bothered to investigate that more deeply and have objections. To lil'ol me, these parts are an indication that an airplane hit the Pentagon. It would be silly to state otherwise, and I feel you try to pin that on me, when all I do is question the credibility and quality of the evidence, in turn supporting the scenario of "planted" evidence. I don't think either of us is qualified to judge from the pics whether or not they're 757 parts, though that would increase their significance.

The claim that the photos you provided show "charred human remains" is preposterous, and I challenge you to draw some circles around them. I think this is clear indication of bias on your part.

CCTV footage (does this count as "pictures"?):

Okay, there are two cameras. I looked at them a few times again. One shows the tip of an object approaching. I see no resemblance to the nose of a 757, and I don't think you supported that with anything substantial. I honestly think the second one is edited, as I see overlapping of the object over the box blocking the view. Don't bite my head off, I see it. compare the frames before and after the object allegedly passed behind the box.

C-ring exit hole:

Your claim is that "plane mash" created that hole. Apparently the ASCE claims it was the landing gear, and not fuselage. Unless you think a landing gear can be described as "plane mash", I would ask you to review that claim. You have nothing to demonstrate a landing gear could cause a hole like that, and in your own words, "one furrowed in disbelief that you can see anything else" than wall breaching explosives. Particularly on the left you have a VERY neat line of bricks with a plaque or sheet of some material that wasn't completely destroyed by whatever allegedly punched through from the inside, while STILL managing to create that clean cut on the bricks on the outside. I call this a physical impossibility.

[Furrowed Brow]

Among so much being written in between arguments strictly pertaining the pictures this is quite a daunting task. I would therefore ask that you tell me which arguments you gave that weren't just unsupported opinion, and that I failed to address. Could be easier that way. For now, I'll revisit a few points.

• 1/ Aluminium does not burn, therefore we should not expect to see burn marks on the piece of plane wreckage on the lawn of the pentagon.
  2/ The official account means we should not expect to see sign of engine impact on the lawn of the Pentagon if the official account is correct.
  3/ The vast majority of plane and fuel will have hit and entered the Pentagon.
  4/ The entry hole is consistent with a plane the size of a 757 hitting the Pentagon.
  5/ The video footage of a plane crash you supplied shows a delay between crash impact and fuel exploding. A similar delay would be sufficient to place a plane inside the Pentagon before it actually exploded.
  5/ The photographic evidence shows only mashed plane parts external to the exit hole.
  6/ The plane would have hit the building and its pieces captured by the building structure, thus any debris will not be spread out.
  7/ Any explosion from inside the Pentagon would be a reduced volume explosion, and thus we cannot directly compare pictures of other open area plane crash sites (other than the twin towers)to the crash site and debris at the Pentagon.

To lil'ol me, these parts are an indication that an airplane hit the Pentagon. It would be silly to state otherwise,

But if you accept a plane hit the pentagon then why an “exit hole� blown by explosives?

when all I do is question the credibility and quality of the evidence, in turn supporting the scenario of "planted" evidence.

Did a jet plane hit the pentagon or not hit the pentagon? Are those plane parts crash debris or planted? You seem to be stretched over two stools. If you still think they are planted then what can you see in the pictures that suggest this, and what arguments do you have to support this? Presently I’m not thinking you have any other than an argument in the form “in my opinion the exit hole looks like it was blown".

Point by point the quality of the picture evidence is consistent with a plane striking the pentagon…as you have conceded…yes?….I’m not sure where you now stand…, but if no you have failed to make any telling reason why what we see in the pictures cannot be a 757. When we started this dialogue you very much seemed to be arguing from the point of view that the pictures showed a conspiracy. I think we may be close to a point where you are admitting that there is nothing in the pictures themselves that show this.

I don't think either of us is qualified to judge from the pics whether or not they're 757 parts, though that would increase their significance.

They show plane parts. That much I can say. And that the pictures show plane parts is pretty much the smoking gun that a plane hit the Pentagon. I think you are now possibly agreeing a plane hit the pentagon in which case you’d expect to see plane parts.

The claim that the photos you provided show "charred human remains" is preposterous, and I challenge you to draw some circles around them. I think this is clear indication of bias on your part.

Sorry Beto, did the links I supplied not work? I just clicked on them again and they did not go to the pictures I had in mind. Go here

Okay, there are two cameras. I looked at them a few times again. One shows the tip of an object approaching. I see no resemblance to the nose of a 757, and I don't think you supported that with anything substantial.

Look at the size of the object and compare it to the Pentagon building that is 71ft. The object is too big to be anything other than a plane. I’ll post a pic later if I can that makes this point graphic.

However I never meant the “resembles a 757 nose� to be a serious argument…check my wording…I was just being playful. (Maybe I should have posted an emoticon too). However I did say the grey/white appearance of object was consistent with a united airlines 757 and I made the point it was obvious that what can be seen is too big to be a missile. I made that estimate by a comparison of the size of the object to the height of the pentagon. You’ve never done anything to challenge the point in the way of making your own counter analysis. Okay…I’ll put some pics together. But why am I having to bring food to your table when you are the one challenging the official account. Where is you analysis showing it cannot be a plane, and specifically it cannot be a 757. Why can't that object in the CCTV footage be a plane and specifically why can't it be a 757?

I honestly think the second one is edited, as I see overlapping of the object over the box blocking the view. Don't bite my head off, I see it. compare the frames before and after the object allegedly passed behind the box.

It might be edited. I’d have to give that several hours attention to form an opinion. But lets just go on what we do have.

Your claim is that "plane mash" created that hole.

Yes.

Apparently the ASCE claims it was the landing gear, and not fuselage. Unless you think a landing gear can be described as "plane mash",

Okay first point: this is a semantic quibble. If you like plane mash = disintegrated plane = plane parts in any condition, some recognizable and some unrecognizable. I’d include the recognizable rotar blade as belonging to plane mash and stuff that is not obviously regognisable as mashed. I use the word mash to mean the plane is no longer a single intact object.

Moreover multiple objects when revealing a speed and under pressure, like bolders falling down a mountain, behave like a liquid. So when I’m envisaging plane mash I saying there is assorted plane debris in various states of disintegration that are acting together much like a liquid.

I would ask you to review that claim.

The claim was that plane mash made the hole.

You have nothing to demonstrate a landing gear could cause a hole like that,

That was not specifically my claim.

and in your own words, "one furrowed in disbelief that you can see anything else" than wall breaching explosives.

Yes in my words plane mash caused the hole. I give the link again scroll down to the pic with the firemen in yellow centre. I’d call most of what you see on the ground mash.

If eye witnesses say they saw parts of the landing gear I’d include that as plane mash. But if you click on the link and review the pics and look again at the pic you supplied more than just landing gear came through that hole. Maybe it took on object with the mass of landing gear to first punch through, but after the initial punch out the wall is severely weakened. The eventual size and geometry of the hole shaped by all the mashed debris. However no debris came through that pillar shown on the left side of the exit hole. If you look closely it is only the outer layer of lighter grey bricks that suggest an oval shape. The bricks fell away due to the energy of impact passing through the concrete pillar. The outer layer of lighter bricks showing a larger area of damage because they have no where to pass the energy on to. More red bricks are kept in place because the shock wave passes through and on to the outer layer of bricks. The straight edge of the red bricks possibly a result of how the wall was built.

How would explosive cause that damage signature?

[Furrowed Brow]

Regarding the size of the object in the CCTV footage.


The projection in this picture does not take into account the angle of the the path taken by the object relative to the camera, or the exact impact point. However it should still be obvious that relative to the height of the Pentagon the object is too big to be a missile. Actually I make the object a couple of pixels too big to be a 757. but given I have not been truly rigorous, I'd say that falls within a reasonable margin of error.

What think you Beto?

[Beto]

1/ Aluminium does not burn, therefore we should not expect to see burn marks on the piece of plane wreckage on the lawn of the pentagon.

AFAIK, aluminium alloys with magnesium, copper, etc, do, in fact, burn, and change color in a very distinguishable way.

2/ The official account means we should not expect to see sign of engine impact on the lawn of the Pentagon if the official account is correct.

Personally, I can't really be sure what the official account is anymore. But if the engine hit the lawn it should be observable, if it didn't it shouldn't. Simple as that. If I was assuming the 757 was a reality, and someone said the engine hit the lawn at a place where nothing can be seen, I wouldn't believe it, and that's all I'm saying.

3/ The vast majority of plane and fuel will have hit and entered the Pentagon.

Totally unsupported opinion, since you have neither sufficient airplane (or at least a reasonable amount of plane debris distinguishable from the Pentagon debris) or fuel fire damage to account for it. The few pieces allegedly belonging to a 757 do not corroborate that assumption.

4/ The entry hole is consistent with a plane the size of a 757 hitting the Pentagon.

Plane body, perhaps. I don't think it is consistent with the body, a vertical stabilizer, and a couple of engines.

5/ The video footage of a plane crash you supplied shows a delay between crash impact and fuel exploding. A similar delay would be sufficient to place a plane inside the Pentagon before it actually exploded.

That was relevant to the impact of an engine to the ground, not to the impact against the facade. An airliner engine is likely to cause considerable damage to a lawn just by touching it.

5/ The photographic evidence shows only mashed plane parts external to the exit hole.

They most definitely do not. Allegedly, there are a couple of "primers" among the exit-hole rubble, that I personally can't identify as such. As far as opinions go, that's as unsupported as they get.

6/ The plane would have hit the building and its pieces captured by the building structure, thus any debris will not be spread out.

But a big one managed to end up isolated remarkably far way. Either way, the wings kill this argument. Either they went through, in which case they would leave the appropriate markings, or they wouldn't go past the facade and their debris would be readily observable.

7/ Any explosion from inside the Pentagon would be a reduced volume explosion, and thus we cannot directly compare pictures of other open area plane crash sites (other than the twin towers)to the crash site and debris at the Pentagon.

No, we can't. Neither can we compare an engine that DIDN'T explode on contact with the facade to, say, a buried stick of dynamite. I don't see how they're supposed to just explode like bombs on the inside. Fact remains, the engines are the most sturdy parts of the plane, and neither made it past c-ring.

But if you accept a plane hit the pentagon then why an “exit hole� blown by explosives?

I didn't say I accepted that. The rest of the quote, that you posted next, explains why.

Did a jet plane hit the pentagon or not hit the pentagon?

I think not.

Are those plane parts crash debris or planted?

I think planted.

You seem to be stretched over two stools. If you still think they are planted then what can you see in the pictures that suggest this, and what arguments do you have to support this? Presently I’m not thinking you have any other than an argument in the form “in my opinion the exit hole looks like it was blown".

What I asked from you in the previous post was supported opinions that contradict mine, and you haven't presented them. I'm not presuming to have a lot more than opinion, and intuition, but you've repeatedly claimed to have something more, some form of tangible evidence (excluding plane parts) and I'm not seeing it.

Point by point the quality of the picture evidence is consistent with a plane striking the pentagon…as you have conceded…yes?

No, the quality (poor) is consistent with planted evidence.

I’m not sure where you now stand…, but if no you have failed to make any telling reason why what we see in the pictures cannot be a 757. When we started this dialogue you very much seemed to be arguing from the point of view that the pictures showed a conspiracy. I think we may be close to a point where you are admitting that there is nothing in the pictures themselves that show this.

Far from it. I fear you're seriously misrepresenting my latest posts. Either that, or I'm not expressing myself adequately.

They show plane parts. That much I can say. And that the pictures show plane parts is pretty much the smoking gun that a plane hit the Pentagon. I think you are now possibly agreeing a plane hit the pentagon in which case you’d expect to see plane parts.

Nope.

Sorry Beto, did the links I supplied not work? I just clicked on them again and they did not go to the pictures I had in mind. Go here

You can't seriously expect me to simply accept pictures that conveniently turn up in 2006 for the Moussaoui trial.

Look at the size of the object and compare it to the Pentagon building that is 71ft. The object is too big to be anything other than a plane. I’ll post a pic later if I can that makes this point graphic.

I've seen plenty of montages with the plane much bigger than that, in the alleged correct proportions, and supporting calculations.

However I never meant the “resembles a 757 nose� to be a serious argument…check my wording…I was just being playful. (Maybe I should have posted an emoticon too). However I did say the grey/white appearance of object was consistent with a united airlines 757 and I made the point it was obvious that what can be seen is too big to be a missile. I made that estimate by a comparison of the size of the object to the height of the pentagon.

I may have mistaken footages here.

You’ve never done anything to challenge the point in the way of making your own counter analysis.

The matter of ascertaining the right proportions of everything in the footage is too complex for me to work it out here. I don't just want to link to other pages that I know make these calculations. All I can honestly say regarding the footage (other than the obvious convenience of being 2 of 84 as of yet unreleased tapes) is that the one with the nose, doesn't seem like a nose, and the other seems edited. I won't say that I see things if I don't.

Okay…I’ll put some pics together. But why am I having to bring food to your table when you are the one challenging the official account.

You certainly don't have to, and if you think I don't want to be convinced, perhaps it's not worth your time and effort. I would understand that.

Where is you analysis showing it cannot be a plane, and specifically it cannot be a 757. Why can't that object in the CCTV footage be a plane and specifically why can't it be a 757?

I don't think I ever said the footage was good evidence for the conspiracy. Of course, in my mind, it wouldn't be released otherwise. The point that it's not nearly as good as it should be, or as other apprehended footage probably is, is almost as important.

It might be edited. I’d have to give that several hours attention to form an opinion. But lets just go on what we do have.

Nah, it won't take that long. There's only one frame to analyse, after all.

Okay first point: this is a semantic quibble. If you like plane mash = disintegrated plane = plane parts in any condition, some recognizable and some unrecognizable. I’d include the recognizable rotar blade as belonging to plane mash and stuff that is not obviously regognisable as mashed. I use the word mash to mean the plane is no longer a single intact object.

Granted.

Moreover multiple objects when revealing a speed and under pressure, like bolders falling down a mountain, behave like a liquid. So when I’m envisaging plane mash I saying there is assorted plane debris in various states of disintegration that are acting together much like a liquid.

Alright, this is your assumption of what happened inside the Pentagon.

The claim was that plane mash made the hole.

Remains an opinion, and unsupported claim.

If eye witnesses say they saw parts of the landing gear I’d include that as plane mash.

I think we should leave eye witnesses out of this. There's plenty to go around for both sides.

But if you click on the link and review the pics and look again at the pic you supplied more than just landing gear came through that hole.

Assumption. I see nothing I can personally distinguish as plane parts, "mashy" or otherwise.

Maybe it took on object with the mass of landing gear to first punch through, but after the initial punch out the wall is severely weakened. The eventual size and geometry of the hole shaped by all the mashed debris. However no debris came through that pillar shown on the left side of the exit hole. If you look closely it is only the outer layer of lighter grey bricks that suggest an oval shape. The bricks fell away due to the energy of impact passing through the concrete pillar. The outer layer of lighter bricks showing a larger area of damage because they have no where to pass the energy on to. More red bricks are kept in place because the shock wave passes through and on to the outer layer of bricks. The straight edge of the red bricks possibly a result of how the wall was built.

"Possibly a result of how the wall was built" is not a good argument, and I'm sure you recognize that. Freaky as the brick line is, more relevant than that is the "plaque" behind them. I simply cannot envision the wall being breached and leaving that "plaque" BEHIND the bricks.

How would explosive cause that damage signature?

Rapid wall breach kits leave a similar signature and can account for the material left on the inside of the wall. Anything from the outside is more likely than from the inside.

[Furrowed Brow]

AFAIK, aluminum alloys with magnesium, copper, etc, do, in fact, burn, and change color in a very distinguishable way.

Okay aluminum alloy burns….but what does that mean? Check out these picture of a burning passenger plane.
Burning plane
If you look closely much of the plane shows no sign of burning at all. Also it is difficult to distinguish burnt metal from metal covered in soot. But yes there is real sign of burning too. However parts of the plane were very close to fire yet are burn free. Only those parts that had direct contact with the fire for an extended period show burning. Take a special note of the hole in the top of the plane. Burn marks are limited to the edges only….and then unburnt fuselage inches away. And this is a stationary plane exposed to the fire for some period of time .

Why would we then expect a piece of 757 flung clear of an explosion to show signs of burning? An event which meant the piece was in contact with flame for fractions of a second.

Totally unsupported opinion,

No. If the plane was traveling at some 500mph, and heading straight at the Pentagon, there is only one direction the plane debris and fuel is going to go. The support for this opinion is the result of the speed and momentum of the plane. To counter that point you are going to have to give some example and arguments against. Otherwise you do not have a point.

Since you have neither sufficient airplane (or at least a reasonable amount of plane debris distinguishable from the Pentagon debris) or fuel fire damage to account for it. The few pieces allegedly belonging to a 757 do not corroborate that assumption.

No. That is not the point and I think you are missing the thrust of my argument. You originally brought up the point about the debris field and suggested we should expect to see either a far greater debris field external to the pentagon with far greater evidence of fuel spillage or large plane fragments in view. I’m arguing against that point. You can’t use the fact there is limited recognizable debris as an argument against why there should be limited recognizable plane debris, or say it fails to corroborate that point, because it exactly corroborates that point. C-nub has already done some calculations in this thread regarding energies involved, and that the explosion is a reduce volume is a fact. These are not opinions. And I really do not see it as an opinion to say we should expect to see mashed debris, given these facts, and the fact what we see in the pictures is mashed debris.

But a big one managed to end up isolated remarkably far way. Either way, the wings kill this argument. Either they went through, in which case they would leave the appropriate markings, or they wouldn't go past the facade and their debris would be readily observable.

I though we killed this. Okay let’s go over it again point by point.

That was relevant to the impact of an engine to the ground, not to the impact against the facade. An airliner engine is likely to cause considerable damage to a lawn just by touching it.

Yes …but…it is now a long thread so maybe the point has got lost. The official account as per your post somewhere back there in time said the engine hit the ground as the nose of the plane hit the pentagon. That put the engine inside that shadow line and not on the part of lawn shown in clear sunlight in the pictures we have seen.

5/ the photographic evidence shows only mashed plane parts external to the exit hole.

They most definitely do not. Allegedly, there are a couple of "primers" among the exit-hole rubble, that I personally can't identify as such. As far as opinions go, that's as unsupported as they get..

I’ll give you the semantic quibble. There are pics that show stuff that could be plane mash, one pic shows a wheel rim. But yes what you see is pretty much unrecognizable mash, at least from observing pics from the comfort of my chair. But given everything I have said why does this not corroborate a 757, and why does it contradict a 757? My point was that the mash was external to the hole.

]Moreover multiple objects when revealing a speed and under pressure, like boulders falling down a mountain, behave like a liquid. So when I’m envisaging plane mash I saying there is assorted plane debris in various states of disintegration that are acting together much like a liquid.

Alright, this is your assumption of what happened inside the Pentagon.

No it’s the physics of what happens if you have multiple objects traveling together. You may think the premise of a plane or specifically a 757 is an assumption, but the sceince shows tsolid objects when travelling at speed and en mass work together like a liquid. It is the same principle that explains avalanches. So on the assumption that a plane struck the pentagon at around 500mph and disintegrated as a result, the disintegrated plane parts will continue to travel in a forward motion and behave like a liquid until they come to rest. Why would we not expect this?

Assumption. I see nothing I can personally distinguish as plane parts, "mashy" or otherwise.

You avoid the point. The point is: all the mash that came through that hole contoured the shape of that hole.

"Possibly a result of how the wall was built" is not a good argument, and I'm sure you recognize that. Freaky as the brick line is, more relevant than that is the "plaque" behind them. I simply cannot envision the wall being breached and leaving that "plaque" BEHIND the bricks.

Beto you know arguments of personal incredulity bear no weight.

Rapid wall breach kits leave a similar signature and can account for the material left on the inside of the wall. Anything from the outside is more likely than from the inside.

Okay that is your alternative now how about arguing for it. Let’s take it point by point. Where was the explosive planted? How much was needed to make hole. Why mash outside the exit hole? What about the smoke mark on far wall etc? And how does the demolition explantion exaplin that straight line?

It is not possible to argue against your position until you clearly state what it is with some details. I could say the hole looks like a huge big boulder just rolled through the wall, and what I see is consistent with a boulder roll, and add no more. Give me something to get my teeth into.

You can't seriously expect me to simply accept pictures that conveniently turn up in 2006 for the Moussaoui trial.

Err….yes. They are picture and as such they are evidence….of something. The picture show what they …. which is bodies. Unless you are starting from a position of government presumed guilty of crime, you have to accept the pictures as evidence. So where do these doubts come from….not the pictures? What is in the pictures that contradicts a 757 or shows the pictures to be fakes? I'm particularly thinking of the pics with bodies in situ.

What I asked from you in the previous post was supported opinions that contradict mine, and you haven't presented them. I'm not presuming to have a lot more than opinion, and intuition, but you've repeatedly claimed to have something more, some form of tangible evidence (excluding plane parts) and I'm not seeing it.

The following are not opinions (I feel myself repeating the same points) and they are based on physical principles. And it is not an opinion that they apply if a 757 struck the Pentagon.

• 1/ A reduced volume explosion are massively more devastating that an open air explosion.
  2/ A plane flying at around 500mph has an enormous momentum. C-nub’s already done some math on this. If it strikes a solid object full on then far more of that momentum is converted into energy than say a plane bouncing over a large area of ground in an open area crash.
  3/ Any debris from an impact will carry remaining momentum forward in direction of travel.
  4/ Any object like a building will capture any forward traveling debris.
  5/ Physical objects traveling at speed and under pressure, as a collective behave much like a liquid.

Maybe I misunderstand you. I think these points are so obvious and the principles so plain, they need no further support. But if you want to see the physics just say and I’ll go dig up some links.

• Inference: Given 1 to 5 majority of debris will end up inside the Pentagon, and will be considerably more damaged than the kind of damage seen in open area plane crashes.

This inference is not an opinion, it is a safe inference. However it is not safe to doubt the debris scenario as it’s pictured based on pictures of any other plane crash that does not exhibit the same basic characteristics. Neither is it safe to expect things to looks different without clearly stating why 1 to 5 cannot generate the debris scenario as it is pictured.

Which bit of the argument as stated is false or invalid or just does not gel?
Lets be very about what we do have.
We have in pictures:

• 1/ pictures that show plane parts that include, fuselage, engine rotor, landing gear, some damage debris that looks very much like engine casing, and we have plenty of mash: and that is what we see in pictures available on the internet. We have nothing in the way of forensic examination of the unrecognizable mash….which if the US government produced a report on you would not believe anyway on point of principle.
  2/ the exit hole mash/debris field is consistent with the mash coming through the hole. Which means the pictures are consistent with the mash being carried with directed momentum. A demolition explosion cannot explain this, unless a cannon was used, or you assume the debris was planted, but again what in the pictures suggests the debris was planted.
  3/ We have CCTV footage together shows an object way too big to be a missile, and can only be a plane.

This is the picture evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon. Okay you want to doubt the veracity of the evidence, which you are welcome to do…the whole thrust of what I have been saying is that there is everything we do see corroborates a plane strike, and nothing contradicts it. And though you may of failed to notice I’m offering more than just opinions here.

However, if and where we come down to one opinion against the other for lack of further evidence or expertise, this just means you have failed to make a telling point against official line, and have nothing of substance to support a conspiracy theory. And if that is what is all hangs on the what you got…not very much at all.

Okay I’ve posited some physical processes that led to the “plaque affect�. This is more than an unsupported opinion because it give you an opportunity to dismantle what I say by showing I’ve made up bogus physical principles, or that they don’t apply, or that I misunderstand them, or that ‘ve missed something. So I’ll repeat the point, the grey and red bricks on the left of the hole are the result of mash hitting the concrete pillar, and passing on a sufficient shock wave to dislodge the bricks. The sandwiched red bricks able to pass on the energy wave to the outer layer of grey bricks, thus registering less damage as a result.