The Sensible Doubt - Danish 911

Boston

Active Member
I understand you think your "rabbit" analogy is extremely clever, so much so that you repeat it over and over, long after the joke has lost its giggle.

What are you here for? Just to ask questions? Just to point out "anomalies" you see? Why do you keep telling us you don't see damage on the lawn after it's been explained to you numerous times that the plane did not hit the lawn. Why do you keep repeating yourself?

The rabbit analogy is perfect, in this case the rabbit just doesn't fit the hat let alone do we ever see it pulled out, and reassembled like in any other aircraft disaster

Someone simply stating that "the landing gear wasn't down" when no one mentioned landing gear is an entirely disingenuous argument when the question didn't involve landing gear in the first place. I believe I mentioned that the body of a 757 is about 12 feet in diameter and the engines about 7 feet in diameter with a small bit of overlap, call it a 16 maybe 17 foot tall object assuming this variant had the smaller engines on it, thats supposedly disappeared into an area about 14 feet tall, without something dragging on the ground. Just doesn't get it.

So I guess I'm here to figure out why anyone would believe such an entirely implausible magic trick. The likelihood that I'm being lied to, again, by my illustrious leaders is extremely high. Particularly likely when things like random people are seen immediately picking up and carting off the evidence, never to be seen again. except for of course a few, what appear to be carefully staged photos. Or when the security camera evidence is declared a matter of national security, and withheld from public viewing. But my fave is that the hole isn't just a little to small to fit a 757, but wildly so, particularly when there's a discrepancy of at least 4 feet in height just in the fuselage and about 25 feet in height in the craft overall. Angle or no angle that height should fit. Engines fuselage and tail section are all quite substantial and would have most definitely left at least a mark.

Why do I repeat myself, why do you repeat the governments entirely inadequate magic trick ? Why did Mick actually take the time to notice the screen shot that replaced the real view in the elephant gag ? The answer is obvious, inquiring minds want to know.
 

Boston

Active Member
So now you've switched from a rabbit to an elephant? When are you going to get to a jumbo jet? What happened to all the people on that jet? Where are they?

PS: Your story has more holes than swiss cheese.

actually I was reacting to having been shown a short video of a jet flying into the back of a massive concrete block. I figure if we're going to be ignoring the actual event and instead be shown half a video of what happens if you run a jet into a blob of concrete instead of a blast resistant chunk of 1/4 inch glass, then I could start in with the rabbits and elephants. ;-) Seemed about if not a lot more relevant.

I've sold my share of blast resistant film and bullet proof glass, no way its going to stand up to a 757 flying into it.

Oh and while I do like me some swiss cheese every once in a while, I'm not the one with the story here, I'm the guy pointing out that the story, no matter how well contrived, just doesn't fit what little physical evidence remained after the scrubbing.
 

Boston

Active Member
Boston is another in a long line of visitors who cannot point out what is obvious to him and plays coy. Or maybe it is a long line of different names with the same person behind them.

SPIT IT OUT BOSTON! What is wrong with the landing gear. I'm not drinking beer watching TV or waiting to get [ahem]. I'm going to work. What is so obvious to you that no one else can see?

post 234 in response to the photo's I was given as "proof" a 757 hit the pentagon. Clearly shows a rim that doesn't match, just count the cut outs. I was then of course shown one that did, which begs the question, just how many rim types were used on the 757 and just how many other airplanes used the same, or roughly the same type ? The engines argument is about the same. We have a few difficult to identify parts, that were whisked away asap into never never land, never to be seen again. No reconstruction, no rational explanations, its aaaaaaalllll a matter of national security.

You might also enjoy post 212

Cheers
B
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
And still no answers as to an alternative to it being the jet.

No evidence of something else, and lots of evidence including multiple eyewitnesses to it being the AA jet. I will go with what there is evidence of, instead of 'it had to be something else'.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
post 234 in response to the photo's I was given as "proof" a 757 hit the pentagon. Clearly shows a rim that doesn't match, just count the cut outs. I was then of course shown one that did, which begs the question, just how many rim types were used on the 757 and just how many other airplanes used the same, or roughly the same type ?

No it doesn't. It simply shows that the photo is consistent with a 757. It is not proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon.

The lack of furrows from the engines just mean that the engines did not hit the ground in any place that's visible on the photos you have seen.

I've given you two links that fully explain every objection you've raised so far. Yet you seem determined to ignore them.
https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/pentagon_performance-pdf.1341/

Frank Probst, 58, is a West Point graduate,
decorated Vietnam veteran, and retired army
lieutenant colonel who has worked for the
Pentagon Renovation Program Office on
information management and telecommunications
since 1995. At approximately 9:30
A.M. on September 11 he left the Wedge 1
construction site trailer, where he had been
watching live television coverage of the second
plane strike into the World Trade Center
towers. He began walking to the Modular
Office Compound, which is located
beyond the extreme north end of the Pentagon
North Parking Lot, for a meeting at 10
A.M. As he approached the heliport (figure
3.2) he noticed a plane flying low over the Annex and heading
right for him. According to the Arlington County after-action
report (Arlington County, 2002), this occurred at 9:38 a.m. The
aircraft pulled up, seemingly aiming for the first floor of the building,
and leveled off. Probst hit the ground and observed the right
wing tip pass through the portable 750 kW generator that provides
backup power to Wedge 1.The right engine took out the chainlink
fence and posts surrounding the generator. The left engine
struck an external steam vault before the fuselage entered the
building.
As the fireball from the crash moved toward him, Probst
ran toward the South Parking Lot and recalls falling down twice.
Fine pieces of wing debris floated down about him.The diesel fuel
for the portable generator ignited while he was running. He noted
only fire and smoke within the building at the point of impact
Content from External Source
pentagon_performance.pdf.jpg


3.7 SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT

The Boeing 757 approached the west wall of the Pentagon from
the southwest at approximately 780 ft/s.As it approached the Pentagon
site it was so low to the ground that it reportedly clipped an
antenna on a vehicle on an adjacent road and severed light posts.
When it was approximately 320 ft from the west wall of the building
(0.42 second before impact), it was flying nearly level, only a
few feet above the ground (figures 3.2 and 3.13, the latter an aerial
photograph modified graphically to show the approaching aircraft).
The aircraft flew over the grassy area next to the Pentagon
until its right wing struck a piece of construction equipment that
was approximately 100 to 110 ft from the face of the building (0.10
second before impact (figure 3.14). At that time the aircraft had
rolled slightly to the left, its right wing elevated.After the plane had
traveled approximately another 75 ft, the left engine struck the
ground at nearly the same instant that the nose of the aircraft
struck the west wall of the Pentagon (figure 3.15).
Impact of the
fuselage was at column line 14, at or slightly below the second floor
slab.The left wing passed below the second-floor slab, and
the right wing crossed at a shallow angle from below the second floor
slab to above the second-floor slab (figure 3.16)

Content from External Source
pentagon_performance.pdf-1.jpg


The width of the severe damage to the west facade of the Pentagon
was approximately 120 ft (from column lines 8 to 20).The
projected width, perpendicular to the path of the aircraft, was
approximately 90 ft, which is substantially less than the 125 ft
wingspan of the aircraft
(figure 6.1). An examination of the area
encompassed by extending the line of travel of the aircraft to the
face of the building shows that there are no discrete marks on the
building corresponding to the positions of the outer third of the
right wing.
The size and position of the actual opening in the
facade of the building (from column line 8 to column line 18)
indicate that no portion of the outer two-thirds of the right wing
and no portion of the outer one-third of the left wing actually
entered the building.

It is possible that less of the right wing than the left wing
entered the building because the right wing struck the facade
crossing the level of the second-floor slab.The strength of the second-
floor slab in its own plane would have severed the right wing
approximately at the location of the right engine. The left wing
did not encounter a slab, so it penetrated more easily.
In any event, the evidence suggests that the tips of both wings
did not make direct contact with the facade of the building and
that portions of the wings might have been separated from the
fuselage before the aircraft struck the building. This is consistent
with eyewitness statements that the right wing struck a large generator
before the aircraft struck the building and that the left
engine struck a ground-level, external vent structure. It is possible
that these impacts, which occurred not more than 100 ft before
the nose of the aircraft struck the building, may have damaged the
wings and caused debris to strike the Pentagon facade and the heliport
control building.

Content from External Source
pentagon_performance.pdf-2.jpg


You are just wasting time by regurgitating old stories which you could very easily debunk yourself.

Please stop, or go and do it elsewhere.
 
Last edited:

Boston

Active Member
And still no answers as to an alternative to it being the jet.

No evidence of something else, and lots of evidence including multiple eyewitnesses to it being the AA jet. I will go with what there is evidence of, instead of 'it had to be something else'.

I gotta admit its kinda interesting that you are so dead set on answers to, just like myself and a majority of others in this country, what exactly happened that day and why a proper investigation was never done. You might want to check the polls concerning just what answers some people are willing to accept and what they are not. I might also point out that fully ~50% of people polled in the US believe the US government had foreknowledge of the events and wanted the president and vice president investigated by congress if not fully impeached.

Yup we all have questions. Nothing wrong with asking questions, right ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories#United_States
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
I gotta admit its kinda interesting that you are so dead set on answers to, just like myself and a majority of others in this country, what exactly happened that day and why a proper investigation was never done. You might want to check the polls concerning just what answers some people are willing to accept and what they are not. I might also point out that fully ~50% of people polled in the US believe the US government had foreknowledge of the events and wanted the president and vice president investigated by congress if not fully impeached.

Yup we all have questions. Nothing wrong with asking questions, right ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories#United_States
People are entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts. Opinions are like..... you know the rest.
 

Boston

Active Member





I see massive problems with this diagram. First would be that the port engine is clearly below ground level, where's the furrow ? the tail section is well into the fourth floor windows, which shows absolutely zero damage, the starboard wing also would be striking an area of building that shows zero impact damage and multiple intact windows. If any or all areas of the plane in question were somehow severed before impact, where are they ?



If your position cannot tolerate an informed debate, then it must not be a very strong position.

I'll bail out if I'm not welcome, but by refusing to engage in a honest debate regarding the visible damage to the pentagon and the presumed angle of attack of the presumed airliner is highly suspicious that you in fact have inadequate answers which have proven themselves unable to rationally explain the obvious

You can bend and twist that plane till your blue in the face, it doesn't fit that hole. Particularly if you line up the one obvious hole where the gubment explanation claims the port engine entered the building, and the obvious lack of damage immediately below that hole indicating that if the engine was still on the plane, which the gubment is claiming, then it did not strike at below ground level, as the gubment is also saying. Story doesn't add up. Investigation wasn't conducted. I'll remain highly skeptical of the gubment BS
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I see massive problems with this diagram. First would be that the port engine is clearly below ground level, where's the furrow ?

Let's look into that in detail then.

Where would you expect the "furrow" to start, and why?

Can you show a photo of the area that you think the furrow should be in that lacks this furrow?
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
I gotta admit its kinda interesting that you are so dead set on answers to, just like myself and a majority of others in this country, what exactly happened that day and why a proper investigation was never done. You might want to check the polls concerning just what answers some people are willing to accept and what they are not. I might also point out that fully ~50% of people polled in the US believe the US government had foreknowledge of the events and wanted the president and vice president investigated by congress if not fully impeached.

Yup we all have questions. Nothing wrong with asking questions, right ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories#United_States


No, I know what was done. You don't seem to know. It is you whose answers I am awaiting.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Eyewitness saw the plane.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html

Steve Anderson:
Shortly after watching the second tragedy, I heard jet engines pass our building, which, being so close to the airport is very common. But I thought the airport was closed. I figured it was a plane coming in for landing. A few moments later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye. It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke.
Deb Anlauf:
Anlauf was watching TV coverage of the Trade Center burning shortly before 9:30 a.m. when she decided to return to her 14th-floor room from another part of the hotel. Once in her room, she heard a "loud roar" and looked out the window to see what was going on. "Suddenly I saw this plane right outside my window," Anlauf said during a telephone interview from her hotel room this morning. "You felt like you could touch it; it was that close. It was just incredible. "Then it shot straight across from where we are and flew right into the Pentagon. It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall (of the Pentagon). When it hit, the whole hotel shook."
Arlington police transmission:
Motor 11: There is visible smoke coming from that area...high, visible smoke.
Dispatcher: Motor 11 direct.
Motor 14: Motor 14, it was an American Airlines plane, uh, headed eastbound over the Pike (Columbia Pike highway), possibly toward the Pentagon.
Dispatcher: 10-4. Cruiser 50 direct.
David Battle:
Earlier Tuesday, Battle, an office worker at the Pentagon, was standing outside the building and just about to enter when the aircraft struck. "It was coming down head first," he said. "And when the impact hit, the cars and everything were just shaking."
Gary Bauer:
I had just passed the closest place the Pentagon is to the exit on 395 . . . when all of a sudden I heard the roar of a jet engine. I looked at the woman sitting in the car next to me. She had this startled look on her face. We were all thinking the same thing. We looked out the front of our windows to try to see the plane, and it wasn’t until a few seconds later that we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon. The blast literally rocked all of our cars. It was an incredible moment.
Maurice Bease:
Sergeant Maurice L. Bease had worked around Marine aviation long enough to know what a fly-by was, and it sounded like one as he stood outside his office near the Pentagon on Sept. 11. Turning around expecting to see a fighter jet fly over, he saw only a split-second glimpse of a white commercial airliner streaking low toward the building, and him! He did not even have time to duck before it plowed into the side of the Pentagon around the corner and about 200 yards from where he stood. Immediately, a ball of flame shot up the side of the building, followed by smoke, lots of it.
Paul Begala:
Paul Begala, a Democratic consultant, said he witnessed an explosion near the Pentagon. "It was a huge fireball, a huge, orange fireball," he said in an interview on his mobile phone.
Mickey Bell:
Bell, who had been less than 100 feet from the initial impact of the plane, was nearly struck by one of the plane´s wings as it sped by him. In shock, he got into his truck, which had been parked in the trailer compound, and sped away. He wandered around Arlington in his truck and tried to make wireless phone calls. He ended up back at Singleton´s headquarters in Gaithersburg two hours later, according to President Singleton, not remembering much. The full impact of the closeness of the crash wasn´t realized until coworkers noticed damage to Bell´s work vehicle. He had plastic and rivets from an airplane imbedded in its sheet metal, but Bell had no idea what had happened.
Susan Bergen:
Susan Bergen was sitting in a hotel room near the Pentagon on Tuesday morning, glued to TV news coverage of the World Trade Center attack. Out of the corner of her eye, she saw a plane outside the window of her 11th floor room. She turned just in time to see a big jetliner skim the treetops and slam into the side of the Pentagon, less than a half mile from her hotel room. It looked like the plane sped up just before hitting the building, she said.

Many, many others
Content from External Source
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DR. MORGAN REYNOLDS, on behalf of :The United States of America :
Plaintiff, : ECF CASEvs. :: 07 CIV 4612 (GBD)SCIENCE APPLICATIONS :INTERNATIONAL CORP., et al : January 28, 2008Defendants. :
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF NEVADA :COUNTY OF CLARK :JOHN LEAR, of full age, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
Today, someone asked whether John Lear's affidavit (referred to above) had any legal significance. It doesn't, the case was dismissed back in 2008. Which case?
SmartSelect_20211029-152758_Samsung Notes.jpg
You can look case number 1:2007cv04612 up on PACER if you register, see https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1:2007cv04612/307018 .

Or you can go to Morgan Reynolds's website where he has posted John Lear's affidavit and his own as "legal filings", and see him describe the dismissal:
Article:
On June 26, 2008, Judge George B. Daniels dismissed three 9/11 law suits with prejudice, including my “no planes crashed at the WTC” lawsuit against NIST contractors.

It didn't go anywhere.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Graham2001 Aulis article uses NASA documents to cast doubt on the reality of Apollo Conspiracy Theories 26

Related Articles

Top