Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

Originally Posted by ENT

The original windows were replaced with blast-resistant windows nearly two inches thick.

At least he's finally admitting proof why the windows didn't shatter - because they were blast resistant and 2 inches thick.

.... of course, he'll have forgotten this in the next 20 minutes and rally's on about "what about the windows?!?" by tomorrow...

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

LD and Daffy -

So you reckon the pentagon was well hard . So hard that the wings obliterated to nothing, yet the nose went through like butter.

dumb and dumber you two.

Physics and math aren't your strong points, are they?

... so, what's your educational and professional background? (Directed at ENT as well)

It's a simple question, but I have a feeling it's the kind that both of you will refuse to answer or acknowledge).

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

regarding the time differences - once I started explaining myself scientistically, using numbers and stuff,

Like now, he's claiming that two structures, constructed 180 degrees differently, are somehow supposed to act identically to being hit by planes. Yeah, right - WTC = glass and steel trusses; Pentagon = reinforced, blast-proof concrete.



Just remind him of the time difference and demand he explain it!!

So you explain yourself "scientistically, using numbers and stuff", eh?

I would have been more scientific about it, actually, but you do say that;

"two structures, constructed 180 degrees differently" makes sense to you because;

" I have a pretty solid structural engineering background, but I know for a fact that a wall of concrete will act differently than a network of suspended steel trusses, for example. I also know that bricks did not structurally feature in either building.'

Where did you get your education? Karachi?

How much time do you have to wait for you to be heard by the person you're contacting on a phone?

A week? A day? Five minutes? Five seconds? A split second? Real time?

Guess the right answer, shit for brains
.

...do the math. I gave you all the numbers and stuff.

It takes enough time to cause a blue screened video to be out of sync.

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

Physics and math aren't your strong points, are they?

Nope, and real life's not yours.

Jog on son.

And what the fuck is math??

It's math's or mathematics you ignorant hick septic fuck.

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Columns or equivalent.
And no need to be mannerless, Albert. I edit a lot, but have never ONCE, EVER edited to get out of saying something after someone has replied and pointed out something silly I've said

Your a shit-headed little hypocrite.

You've been hurling insults since day one you prick.

I'd like to point out that YOU are the one hurling the most insults, and that I, for example, have never thrown insults at you - yet you continually do so. When this was pointed out to you, you replied that you are somehow entitled to it (???).

Insults of the kind you are throwing around are known as the very last bastion of the incompetent, and a sure sign that you feel cornered, and have no vald arguments in support. That HarryBarracuda guy is no different - he's out of his league, and all he does is hurl insults as "arguments". Friend of your's? Same group therapy?

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

And what the fuck is math??

It's math's or mathematics you ignorant hick septic fuck.

Please refer to my points about insults being the last recourse of the incompetent - you illustrate well.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Have you read about IEDs ? Improvised explosive devices ? How do you think they penetrate the armour on modern tanks ? A hole gets punched right through.
.
.
.

Hang on, I thought you said it was a plane.. now you think it's an IED?

What you are presenting as facts is actually disinformation. There WERE wing marks and damage on the walls either side. It created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide

First of all, there were numerous witnesses who saw a 737 smash into the building. CNN's coverage of 9/11 live were interviewing witnesses who saw a plane hit the Pentagon.

Second, there is a relatively decent question: why are there no marks where the plane wings hit the building?

The answer is also relatively simple. An airliner, even one like a 737, is comprised of relatively strong, yet also lightweight and thin metal, for the purposes of being able to fly. The idea is to get the strongest body with the least amount of weight. The less the plane weighs, the more passengers you can carry, and the more $$ you can make.

When the plane hit the reinforced concrete walls of the Pentagon, which are quite thick and many times heavier and stronger than the plane body itself, the wings would immediately be sheared off, since the force of the plane's momentum would be spread out over the entire length of the wing, as well as the wall where it hit. Simply put, the wall, being many times more massive, would stay in place, whereas the much less massive wing would be pulverized by the force of the impact. Thus, there would be no wing "marks" on the walls of the Pentagon, in terms of an actual hole or indentation in the side of the building.

How about the hole that the plane fuselage made? Well, again, the wall would still be many times stronger and more massive than the plane itself, however, this time all of the force of the plane's momentum (its mass coupled with the high velocity it was traveling) would all be focused on a relatively small portion of the wall (the circular area that the plane nose hit). In this case, the massive amount of force centered on a very small area caused the wall in that section to give way, allowing for the plane to enter the building as it did.

As I said before, after the nose entered, the plane would advance forward into the building until it was deep enough in that the wings would make contact with the outer walls of the Pentagon. At that point, there would be, in essence, a second "collision" only this time it would the long edge of the wing hitting against a long section of wall. As I explained earlier, the relatively lightweight wing would easily be torn off of the fuselage and destroyed by the force of the impact.

Want to test this simply principle of physics? Here's what you do:

First, punch a wall as hard as you can.

Next, pick up a 2X4 that is about 3 feet long, hold it parallel to the wall, and with the same amount of force, slap it against the wall with the 2X4, making sure that the entire length of the 2X4 makes contact with the length of the wall.

Let me save you some time. Assuming you don't hit a stud and break your forearm with the punch, you'll probably have a nice hole in the drywall where your fist went through, but what you WILL NOT have is a three foot long hole where the piece of 2X4 went through, because it would not.

Not only would the force experienced by every square inch of the wall impacted by the 2X4 be insufficient to cause it to break, but there would also be other wall studs which would absorb the blow and also stop any penetration by the 2X4.

Same principle applies to the Pentagon and the plane wing.

The wing did not exert anywhere near enough force per square inch to cause the Pentagon wall to give way where it hit. It was too spread out over a large area (a 737 wing is LONG) to penetrate the wall.

Having said all that, the plane also exploded on impact, which also explains the lack of a cookie cutter 737 shape in the side of the Pentagon. Go watch the video of the planes hitting the trade centers if you need visual evidence of what a 737 loaded with fuel does when it hits a building.

Taking all of this into account, it is not remarkable at all that there was only a circular hole in the building and no holes where the wings hit.

FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide—not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.

Intact Windows

Claim: Many Pentagon windows remained in one piece—even those just above the point of impact from the Boeing 757 passenger plane. Pentagonstrike.co.uk, an online animation widely circulated in the United States and Europe, claims that photographs showing "intact windows" directly above the crash site prove "a missile" or "a craft much smaller than a 757" struck the Pentagon.

FACT: Some windows near the impact area did indeed survive the crash. But that's what the windows were supposed to do—they're blast-resistant.

"A blast-resistant window must be designed to resist a force significantly higher than a hurricane that's hitting instantaneously," says Ken Hays, executive vice president of Masonry Arts, the Bessemer, Ala., company that designed, manufactured and installed the Pentagon windows. Some were knocked out of the walls by the crash and the outer ring's later collapse. "They were not designed to receive wracking seismic force," Hays notes. "They were designed to take in inward pressure from a blast event, which apparently they did: [Before the collapse] the blinds were still stacked neatly behind the window glass."

Flight 77 Debris

Claim: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"

Aftermath: Wreckage from Flight 77 on the Pentagon's lawn—proof that a passenger plane, not a missile, hit the building. (Photograph by AP/Wide World Photos)

FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

You trying to wind me up, Albert ? I did not say an IED hit the pentagon. Read my post or piss off. The plane BEHAVED like an IED....

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

Hang on, I thought you said it was a plane.. now you think it's an IED?

You're right, LD, it's like dealing with a group of special-education, autistic children.

Albert, he was providing an illustrative example - something similar, but not the same, in order to help you understand.

You appear to have quite some problems, regularly, with "figurative language".

Why is that? Let me guess:

https://teakdoor.com/the-teakdoor-lou...ml#post2139725

Additionally, people with Aspergers have difficulty with:

Figurative language
Sarcasm
Facial expressions
Body language
Metaphor and simile

People with Asperger's Syndrome typically are very interested in specific subjects and like to learn lots of details about them. They can become obsessed with obscure subjects and enjoy talking in great detail about them, taking them very seriously.

[quote=Latindancer;2141249]There WERE wing marks and damage on the walls either side.
Show me a picture of this please


there were numerous witnesses who saw a 737 smash into the building.
Link to interview footage please


The rest of your cut and paste post is irrelevant drivel so let's just stick to the two above thanks.

The Azari C-130 Crash

Example of Debris from the Collision of a Large Aircraft with a Building

On December 5, 2005, a C-130 military transport plane crashed into a 10-story apartment building in Azari, Iran, a suburb of Tehran. All 10 crew members and 84 passengers on board were killed, as were 21 people in the building. Most of the passengers were Iranian radio and television journalists. 1
The photographs on this page show the crash site. It is noteworthy that none of the photographs show large pieces of aircraft.
The idea that the Pentagon was not struck by a jetliner on 9/11/01 is often asserted on the basis that there was insufficient aircraft debris in front of the Pentagon following the attack. The Azari crash is one of several examples that show crashes of large aircraft into buildings do not necessarily leave large recognizable pieces of aircraft. A C-130 is a four-engine turboprop aircraft similar in weight to a Boeing 757. The fact that the C-130's pilot was attempting to land contrasts with the fact that the Pentagon attack plane approached at about double landing speed, and makes the paucity of rubble in the Azari crash more surprising than in the Pentagon crash.
Crashes of large aricraft into buildings are rare, but there are numerous cases of large aircraft such as jetliners crashing into terrain and leaving little if any recognizable debris. This collection of photographs of jetliner crashes shows the degree to which aircraft are destroyed by common types of crashes.
These photos show the scene of the crash of the C-130.

[quote=Albert Shagnastier;2141268]

Originally Posted by Latindancer

There WERE wing marks and damage on the walls either side.
Show me a picture of this please


there were numerous witnesses who saw a 737 smash into the building.
Link to interview footage please


The rest of your cut and paste post is irrelevant drivel so let's just stick to the two above thanks.

Albert, I'm not going to run around at your beck and call. As I have already mentioned once, I think you are actually ENT; either a multi-nic of his, or a close friend of his, here to simply troll.

And if you think that the rest of my cut and paste is irrelevant drivel, you are even more of an uneducated peasant than I thought. It is precise and to the point.

YOU still haven't said much _AT ALL_. You haven't presented any kind of debate in your own words. If you cannot, then piss off and stop wasting other peoples' time.

Apparently, in the Wile E. Coyote vs. Roadrunner world of Albert and ENT, objects will *always* leave a cartoon outline in a wall, when they hit a building.



Ironically, and hilariously enough, the above illustrative picture came from this website and article entitled "Truthers and Looney Tunes Physics"

How appropriate is that, huh?

Great excerpts from the article - in fact, I love the last paragraph:

For some reason, I spend time debating with Truthers about 9/11. One of their points of contention is the Pentagon and that it was not hit by a plane. One of the primary reasons they claim this is that there is no wing hole in the wall of the pentagon and only the fuselage seemed to make any damage to the wall.

I tell them, usually, their knowledge of physics should not be based off of cartoons. In a cartoon, if Wile E Coyote hit a wall, this happened:



But this is not reality. When a plane hits a wall, it will not look like this:



Why you ask? Makes sense doesn't it? There are wings, they should leave an impression right? Quite simply, planes are meant to travel through the air, not concrete. The mass of a plane is in the fuselage, so when it hit the pentagon you aren't going to see holes in the wall where they hit.

But we saw them on the WTC towers. And? The WTC's front face was a facade - very thin. When the plane hit the steel supports, the planes disintegrated, as you'd expect. Purdue University has a great series of pictures on what happened to Flight 77 when it hit the pentagon.

It makes for great reading. Unless you are Daffy Duck and want to believe the Looney Tunes are a true representation of reality.

But, I have a feeling that the truth and the Truthers do not intersect too often, so this is the only image we'll see of them:

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

People with Asperger's Syndrome like myself are typically are very interested in specific subjects and like to learn lots of details about them. They can become obsessed with obscure subjects and enjoy talking in great detail about them, taking them very seriously.

Thanks for the explanation daffy ya window licker. Although we're all well aware, it's jolly kind of you to spell it out.

We're proud of you daffy - you're coming along in leaps and bounds - keep up the good work!

[QUOTE=Albert Shagnastier;2141268]

Originally Posted by Latindancer

There WERE wing marks and damage on the walls either side.
Show me a picture of this please


there were numerous witnesses who saw a 737 smash into the building.
Link to interview footage please


The rest of your cut and paste post is irrelevant drivel so let's just stick to the two above thanks.

Both this information had already been provided in earlier links in this thread - in fact, within the dense.com article I posted much earlier, which (I have no doubt) you never read.

To recap:

Marks where the wings hit the building:

Part 13: Analysis Of Eyewitness Stmts on 9/11 AA F77 Crash into Pentagon, by Penny Schoner, 12/03-2/04



Look on both sides of the central impact, and you will see the outlines of partial wing impacts and disintegrations on both sides of the impact point.

Hardly "pristine and untouched" Pentagon façade as you and ENT keep implying.

Oh, and this same link also includes an interview with an eyewitness:

COMPILED FROM EMAIL INTERVIEW
Conducted 020311

"I am sorry to rain on your parade, but I saw the plane hit the building. It did not hit the ground first... It did not hit the roof first... It hit dead center on the edge... I was close enough (about 100 feet or so) that I could see the "American Airlines" logo on the tail as it headed towards the building... It was not completely level, but it was not going straight down, kind of like it was landing with no gear down... It knocked over a few light poles on its way... I did not see any smoke or debris coming from the plane. I clearly saw the "AA" logo with the eagle in the middle... I don't really remember the engine configuration, but it did have those turbine engines on the wing... and yes, it did impact the Pentagon... There was none of this hitting-the-ground first crap I keep hearing... It was definitely an American Airlines jet... There is no doubt about that... When I got to work I checked it out."

Steve Riskus
SteveRiskus[at]aol[dot]com

Riskus, Steve
I took these pictures less then 1 minutes after I watched the american airlines 757 airplane crash into the pentagon on september 11 2001. I left shortly after the picture were taken in fear of further attacks.
Feel free to contact me anytime if you have questions about my pictures.
I did acctually see the plane impact the building.
Steve Riskus
steveriskus[at]aol[dot]com
AIM: youthenraged
703.856.1855 (nextel)
703.333.6507 (work)
703.313.9209 (home)

There was a woman at her desk in the Pentagon, who saw the nose of the plane push through her office wall, and filed an eyewitness report about it.

How about them apples?

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

In your little picture daffy (which is excellent by the way), see those two large hulking fucking rolls royce engines hanging from the "super vaporizing" wings either side?

Did they vapourize too?

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

Apples and oranges you say?

Why are you showing an orange when talking about an apple?

Let's have a look at the marks BEFORE the building collapsed you streak of disinformative piss.

Great work Cthulhu. Unfortunately Albert dismisses solid reasoning offhandedly, as he is not a genuine seeker after the truth of the matter. I believe he is actually here to troll....he probably gets kicks out of asking for all sorts of links and evidence, then after people have spent a lot of time providing them, dismissing them with a few words offhandedly. Probably thinks it's funny he can control people like puppets.

And he has not yet provided _ANY_ reasoned debate. Here we are looking at 9/11 evidence, but all the evidence here on TD points to Albert = troll.
.
.
.