heres some shit....

[albed]

i never said a word about engine-out.

You mentioned "both engines are Mathematically identical" as if it was a difference.

the altitude the hijacker(s) flew is next to impossible considering the airspeed.

What altitude and airspeed?

at that altitude and with that airspeed the cars on the freeway should have experienced jet wash

Jet wash - the rearward moving air from the jet engines.
The engine exhaust would have to be pointed at the ground somehow and it would have little to do with airspeed...or rather it would have to be going ridiculously slow with the nose high to do that.

[legion]

Originally Posted by albed

You mentioned "both engines are Mathematically identical" as if it was a difference.

What altitude and airspeed?

Jet wash - the rearward moving air from the jet engines.
The engine exhaust would have to be pointed at the ground somehow and it would have little to do with airspeed...or rather it would have to be going ridiculously slow with the nose high to do that.

Okay, last post on this subject.

The mathematically identical engines had something to do with flight simulator where both engines give the same amount of thrust. In R.L. no two engines give/generate the exact same amount of thrust which makes it a lot harder to keep a 757 on course

What altitude? In order to hit the pentagon the way they did, they had to fly extremely low.

It has little to do with airspeed? I take it we are talking about the airspeed of the aircraft right? In order to hit a building at great speeds I think both engines had to be up and running at full throttle wouldn’t you say ??
The jet wash will fan out in a conical shape and an 757 creates more than enough of it to knock a few cars over

[albed]

the altitude the hijacker(s) flew is next to impossible considering the airspeed.

Altitude would be in feet and airspeed in knots. When you proclaimed an altitude is "next to impossible considering the airspeed" I expected you knew what you were talking about but you must have just been parroting another ignorant person.

Is that what passes as knowledge to you? People who actually know what they are talking about must puzzle you because you assume everyone has your level of understanding and just decide to have a different opinion.

At what rate would you say the jet wash "fans out"? Some simple math tells you that doubling the size of a circle quadruples it's area so as the jet wash fans out it loses velocity at 4 times the rate of expansion. That's ignoring the large forward speed of the engine and the exhausts interaction with the surrounding (static) air. It goes down really quickly.

Anyway, the woods I play in are an air national guard training area and I've watched their jets skim the treetops with little effect and once had an A-10 scream directly overhead at about 100 feet when I was on my mountain bike and just about shit myself and I didn't feel the slightest breeze. Never heard it coming either so it was moving fast.

So that's the way I form my opinions, with actual knowledge, experience and reasoning and all the people who can't understand how to do that are just brainless parrots to me; squawking whatever the other parrots squawk.

[legion]

Last time i promise.



Primary Function A-10 -- close air support, OA-10 - airborne forward air control
Contractor Fairchild Republic Co.
Power Plant Two General Electric TF34-GE-100 turbofans
Thrust 9,065 pounds each engine
Length 53 feet, 4 inches (16.16 meters)
Height 14 feet, 8 inches (4.42 meters)
Wingspan 57 feet, 6 inches (17.42 meters)
Speed 420 miles per hour (Mach 0.56)
Ceiling 45,000 feet (13,636 meters)
Maximum Takeoff Weight 51,000 pounds (22,950 kilograms)
Range 800 miles (695 nautical miles)


757

Passengers
Typical 2-class configuration
Typical 1-class configuration

243
280
Cargo 2,370 cu ft (67.1 cu m)
Engines
maximum thrust

Rolls-Royce RB211-535E4B
43,500 lb (193.5 kN)

Pratt & Whitney PW2037
36,600 lb (162.8 kN)

Pratt & Whitney PW2040
40,100 (178.4kN)

Pratt & Whitney PW2043
42,600 lb (189.4 kN)
Maximum Fuel Capacity 11,466 gal (43,400 l)
Maximum Takeoff Weight 272,500 lb (123,600 kg)
Maximum Range 3,395 nautical miles (6,287 km)
Cruise Speed Mach 0.80



1) note the difference in thrust rate
2) you failed your last physical didn't you? if you don't hear an A10 coming you must have some sort of a hearing problem. Planes don't come more sub sonic than the A-10

[Ramona_A_Stone]

• One 757, with a wingspan of 124 ft 10 in, a length of 178 ft 7 in, a height 44 ft 6 in and a weight of 255,000 pounds going 530 MPH about 20 feet off the ground: About $80 million.

• Punching a neat hole in the Pentagon with no visible sign of plane wreckage: priceless.

• One A10, with a wingspan of 57 ft 6 in, a length of 53 ft 4 in, a height of 14 ft 8 in, and a weight of 47,400 pounds with a maximum speed of 449 MPH at sea level: About $13 million.

• A deaf and learning impaired dirt biker playing in the woods with crap in his diaper claiming he can extrapolate the effects of a 757 twenty feet off the ground from a dubiously reckoned 100 foot encounter with an A10: worthless.

About as worthless as the link you googled up to support your claim that there are "sworn eyewitness testimonies" in the 911 Commission Report, which turns out to be a link to nothing more than an outline anyway. Maybe you were too busy looking up "information" and "jet wash" on google to actually view and comprehend your own link. One has to wonder if you've ever actually read it at any time.

Here's the full report (on its "official" website, not the random copy you googled up) and guess what? There's not a single sworn testimony by an eyewitness to the Pentagon attack in the entire document. In fact, sections 1.1 and 9.3, which are the only sections dealing with flight 77 and the attack on the Pentagon, are fairly cursory and paraphrased encapsulations (the least extensively analyzed of the flights in fact) utterly devoid of any mention of reports of anyone on the ground who saw the impact occur. There is one mention of a pilot attempting pursuit who said "looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon sir." (page 25-26) In context this is in the form of a deduction, not the reporting of direct observation. And then on page 33 you'll clearly notice on the timeline a gap of more than an hour between losing track of the craft altogether and confirming that this lost craft was the same that hit the Pentagon.

Guess you were just lying your way through yet another attempt to appear informed, bolstered by your excellent grasp of search engines to compensate for your abject lack of comprehension, throwing around numbers like "160 witnesses" to attempt to gloss over your preferential, emotionally invested position of choosing to believe the "official view"--which you deny even exists.

(And again, if posting a link to the 911 Commission Report wasn't supposed to be an invocation of an "official view," then what is the point? You claim there's no such thing as an "official view" but refer to this document with the apparent belief that everyone who reads it should consider it absolute gospel truth, claiming it has sworn eyewitness accounts.)

Maybe you should actually watch the link esteeaz provided which actually does have references from no less than 12 eyewitnesses which raise some interesting albeit vague and thoroughly inconclusive questions. On the basis of your emphasis of the importance of eyewitness testimony alone it would seem it might carry more weight to you than a document which you claimed included eyewitness accounts, but that in reality does not.

At least it's an interesting trick that you were apparently able to reconstruct the entire event perfectly in your little head on the basis of eyewitness testimonies that don't even exist according to an official view that you deny exists but were able to link people to even though you didn't read it yourself...

I'm thinking perhaps you only recently learned to read and understand English, this might account for your profound lack of understanding of the ordinary usage of words which deviate slightly from the rote dictionary definitions. For instance "sound" does not always indicate an audible vibration or voice. In practice, written material may "sound" intelligent or moronic. You see, people who are more interested in the larger meaning of things often use a kind of inferential language around other adults, it's simply more expedient than trying to explain everything as if you're talking to an ADD four-year-old, which can get awfully nauseating after a while.

Perhaps you should get some friends and try going out on a Saturday night instead of hanging around your mom's house googling words like a pimply little geek, and you might learn something about normal human communications.

Also, it's pretty funny that apparently you actually believed me when I said that I saved your picture, even though I was lying and I am a clearly disreputable 'crackpot source.' Just goes to show that you're not quite as good at detecting truth and lies as you claim to be, but then frankly we all already knew that. In this case, as in most others, it seems your vanity and enormous ego got in the way of your preternaturally acute detective abilities.

At any rate, I'm sure this will all go 100 feet over your head like a squealing A10, but I really don't care, nor do I care what sounds you will subsequently make about it. The only reason I reply to your gurgling at all is that I admittedly get a bit of a sadistic kick out of watching you mock yourself with your hilarious little intellectual pretensions.

Questions aren't information. All I asked for was examples of information with an inconclusive aspect and all you give are questions.

You're so Mensa. That reminds me a little of the Monty Python skit where the guy invents the joke that's so funny he dies laughing and they have to translate it into German one word at a time so as not to kill the translators so they can use it as a secret weapon against the Germans.


Carry on.

[Nicobie]

Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone

•





You're so Mensa. That reminds me a little of the Monty Python skit where the guy invents the joke that's so funny he dies laughing and they have to translate it into German one word at a time so as not to kill the translators so they can use it as a secret weapon against the Germans.


Carry on.

But did they have a blue finger?

[albed]

Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone

• Punching a neat hole in the Pentagon with no visible sign of plane wreckage: priceless.

There's wreckage visible in the pic miss_silver posted. Pop your head out of your ass and take a peek.

Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone

• A deaf and learning impaired dirt biker playing in the woods with crap in his diaper claiming he can extrapolate the effects of a 757 twenty feet off the ground from a dubiously reckoned 100 foot encounter with an A10: worthless.

Just packed the lies into this one. Hearing's fine, learning ability's fine, a dirt bike isn't a mountain bike (I'll chalk that one up to ignorance from someone whose knowledge of the world ends at the inner lining of his colon), never claimed to extrapolate anything-(another lie). Can't you argue with the truth Ramona? If your any good at twisting it you can still come to your desired false conclusion.

Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone

About as worthless as the link you googled up to support your claim that there are "sworn eyewitness testimonies" in the 911 Commission Report,

You mean "160 witnesses testified under oath". A little more subtle but still you're lying again Ramona. My words are right here for everyone to see so you can't play the vicious, slandering gossip role.

Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone

which turns out to be a link to nothing more than an outline anyway. Maybe you were too busy looking up "information" and "jet wash" on google to actually view and comprehend your own link. One has to wonder if you've ever actually read it at any time.

It was for you to read since you asked for it, remember?


Ho-hum, eyewitness, eyewitness, eyewitness. A lie repeated often enough....

Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone

Also, it's pretty funny that apparently you actually believed me when I said that I saved your picture, even though I was lying and I am a clearly disreputable 'crackpot source.' Just goes to show that you're not quite as good at detecting truth and lies as you claim to be, but then frankly we all already knew that. In this case, as in most others, it seems your vanity and enormous ego got in the way of your preternaturally acute detective abilities.

Did you really think I thought you were telling the truth? "but why did you go back looking again after the thread sunk off the page?" doesn't sound like suspicion? especially when you didn't give an answer. I don't even believe you now when you say you were lying. You aren't as good as you think; like repeating "eyewitness" over and over would fool people, right.

Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone

At any rate, I'm sure this will all go 100 feet over your head like a squealing A10, but I really don't care, nor do I care what sounds you will subsequently make about it. The only reason I reply to your gurgling at all is that I admittedly get a bit of a sadistic kick out of watching you mock yourself with your hilarious little intellectual pretensions.

You certainly don't do it to uncover the truth, debunk lies, or even express your own opinion. But if it brings a little pleasure into your empty, meaningless life then that's all the reason you need.

[albed]

Originally Posted by toy boy

Last time i promise.



Primary Function A-10 -- close air support, OA-10 - airborne forward air control
Contractor Fairchild Republic Co.
Power Plant Two General Electric TF34-GE-100 turbofans
Thrust 9,065 pounds each engine
Length 53 feet, 4 inches (16.16 meters)
Height 14 feet, 8 inches (4.42 meters)
Wingspan 57 feet, 6 inches (17.42 meters)
Speed 420 miles per hour (Mach 0.56)
Ceiling 45,000 feet (13,636 meters)
Maximum Takeoff Weight 51,000 pounds (22,950 kilograms)
Range 800 miles (695 nautical miles)


757

Passengers
Typical 2-class configuration
Typical 1-class configuration

243
280
Cargo 2,370 cu ft (67.1 cu m)
Engines
maximum thrust

Rolls-Royce RB211-535E4B
43,500 lb (193.5 kN)

Pratt & Whitney PW2037
36,600 lb (162.8 kN)

Pratt & Whitney PW2040
40,100 (178.4kN)

Pratt & Whitney PW2043
42,600 lb (189.4 kN)
Maximum Fuel Capacity 11,466 gal (43,400 l)
Maximum Takeoff Weight 272,500 lb (123,600 kg)
Maximum Range 3,395 nautical miles (6,287 km)
Cruise Speed Mach 0.80



1) note the difference in thrust rate

Five times zero is still zero. A plane that's diving actually has it's exhaust pointed upward. Have any figures for that fanning cone? Summary: it's perfectly reasonable to have no jet wash hitting the ground.

Originally Posted by toy boy

2) you failed your last physical didn't you? if you don't hear an A10 coming you must have some sort of a hearing problem. Planes don't come more sub sonic than the A-10

My hearing's fine, that's just the way it is for whatever reason. I was on deck in the Mediterranean once and three A-4 Skyhawks (I think) in tight formation screamed overhead at about 50 feet and I nearly jumped overboard. Damn Italians! Never heard them coming either.

Common sense tells me the exhaust noise is heading rearward and fanning out, and with nothing to reflect it forward it won't be heard from the front.

Anyone else have experience in this sort of thing?

[miss_silver]

RAS

Don't even bother with this troll anymore, he lives on it, the attention span I ment.

I'm done feeding it

BTW, before putting you on my ignore list albed, you didn't even have the balls to put a name to the other user phrase you took as example. Why is that? Afraid that wolfie will bite your ass off like the time you trashed his favorite member?

Anyway, have a nice life.

[albed]

Yeah, I'm terrified of something that never happened except in your imagination.



The important thing is YOU REMEMBERED. You actually have a functioning brain cell.

[miss_silver]

hummm

[Sinner]

Jimmy Walter, a sugar daddy with poison pills

Recent weeks have seen a lot of new and substantive developments in terms of 9/11 skepticism receiving coverage in mainstream media. Many 9/11 activists have expressed excitement about the appearances by Jimmy Walter, a millionaire who has financed his own advertising campaign in the NYC area calling for a new investigation of 9/11, on CNN's Anderson Cooper show, matched up against the notorious Gerald "lone nut" Posner. I don't share in the excitement.

For starters, the significance of the associated CNN online poll with 89% of respondents expressing belief in a "9/11 cover-up" is somewhat overplayed. The question is too broad, encompassing a wide range of ideas that have nothing to do with official complicity and/or "inside job" on 9/11 which have already been actively promoted in mainstream media, such as a cover up on the part of intel officials supposedly engaging in bureaucratic ass-covering over their "incompetence" and "failures", a notion of "cover up" which still completely supports all of the important official assumptions and myths about 9/11 and the "War on Terror". So in this regard, the high percentage, while encouraging, is not the great breakthrough it appears to be, sorry to say. After all, even Posner himself alludes to a cover-up of sorts in his writings alleging that the 9/11 Commission failed to properly investigate connections between the Bush Administration and Saudi royals, a position also representative of a larger pattern of official "get the Saudis" media spin which has long been pegged by many 9/11 researchers as a carefully targeted "limited hang out".

The truly serious matter, however, is that Walter has set about promoting some of the most dubious and questionable claims that have emerged of late — many of which are already denounced by a wide range of 9/11 activists as obvious disinfo — and he has also shown himself to be reckless and inaccurate in his handling of the evidence.

At his new site, Walter gives top billing on his "books and DVDs" page to the dubious 911 In Plane Site: http://reopen911.org/books_dvds.htm

A film that is hotly disputed by a great many 9/11 skeptics, from an already controversial source, and which is not at all representative of any broad consensus views within the 9/11 "Truth Movement", is an extremely poor choice for top billing. The annotations added on the promotional page reveal a hornet's nest of dubious claims:

'What is this "pod" attached to the bottom of "Flight 175" and why is it there?'

Debunked: http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html

'If both towers are still standing, what caused this huge explosion at the base of the WTC complex?'

DEBUNKED!!! It is horrible and unforgivable for anyone still to be promoting this widely-exposed B.S.:
http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/hoax.html

'How does a plane 125ft. wide & 155ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16ft. across?'

This is false info — the ground-level entry area (where the walls were missing and support columns were missing or severely damaged and severed) was about 90 feet wide. Only the second floor area of the hole was small. Both In Plane Site and the Pentagon Strike web movie disingenuously use selective photos in which the 90-foot ground level hole is hidden behind smoke & water being sprayed by a firetruck, and it isn't even mentioned. But note that not all Pentagon no-757 advocates hide the real proportions of the hole in this way, which makes this misprepresentation even more egregious.

'What is this bright flash seen right before impact of both the North & South Towers?'

The flashes did not occur before the impacts; they occured precisely AT the moment of impact. This is another of the rather obvious mistakes in In Plane Site. And thus far, no one that I am aware of has shown they can conclusively rule out natural, spontaneous causes. There is some discussion at http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html#flash.

'Why is there no wreckage or crater from "Flight 77" on the lawn of the Pentagon?'

The crater issue is a red herring. And there IS wreckage, not on the lawn (another example of deceptive, selective choice of photographs) but all over the South parking lot and part of the Heliport (easily visible in the photos taken by Steve Riskus), which were in fact closer to the impact point than the area of lawn that is shown (severe telephoto foreshortening illusion makes the lawn area look close to the building). Sure, one might attempt to debate whether the existing debris field is consistent with an airliner impact, but not acknowledging its existence at all (or the existence of the ground-level 90 foot entry hole) as is the case with In Plane Site and Pentagon Strike, only serves to make 911 skeptics look like conniving liars.

'Why did an eye witness report seeing no windows on "Flight 175" a commercial United Airlines jetliner?'

This dude, the ONLY witness on record with such a claim, was watching from BROOKLYN! He also claimed to see an anomalous, non-United Airlines paint scheme that does not appear in photos of the airplane. See discussion at http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html#cargo

'How does a 757 exit the Pentagon's 3rd ring & leave a hole approximately 16ft. across with no visible wreckage?'

The C-ring exit hole is a real anomaly, but there was some apparent wreckage photographed in that area, and has been much discussed & debated. So, this is yet another misrepresentation of the evidence.

In his two appearances on CNN, Walter has done a reasonable job discussing WTC7, but there are some serious problems with his claims about the Pentagon. For example, here's one excerpt from the transcript of Walter's second interview (Nov. 11):

POSNER: The question on the Pentagon, which I am still not clear. What about the dozens of witnesses outside the Pentagon who saw the plane fly into the building? Are your saying that all those people are part of a conspiracy.

WALTER: Those dozens of witnesses said it was a commuter aircraft. We have at least four witnesses who said it wasn't big enough to be an airliner.

To see what an outrageously embarrassing misstatement this is, it is worth the time to read through this compilation of Pentagon eyewitness reports, the most comprehensive one available on the web:
http://eric-bart.net/iwpb/witness.html

Only two observers describe a "commuter" jet, and both were a considerable distance from the scene.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon.../jetliner.html

Walter is apparently just making stuff up. Or, he has been duped by someone coaching him with bogus info. It might worthwhile to investigate which "9/11 activists" have been working closely with him...

In any case, I'm really perturbed to see so many 9/11 activists rally around Walter in a knee-jerk way just because he's being picked on by Posner. Wake up folks! How much of a fool does one have to be to MAKE GERALD POSNER LOOK GOOD? Even worse, the fact that he is focusing so strongly on the WTC7 issue means that this substantive and powerful part of the 9/11 skeptic's case will be discredited by association with the faulty claims he's promoting alongside it.

I'm willing to believe that he is a well-intentioned "eccentric", but thus far, Jimmy Walter's newfound status as a figurehead of 9/11 skepticism is shaping up to be a disaster. Frankly, there are times when good intentions just aren't enough, and this is one of those times.

Ok - and Bomb-Proof Windows? I searched the net It seems they do not exsist.

[miss_silver]

Originally Posted by Sinner

Ok - and Bomb-Proof Windows? I searched the net It seems they do not exsist.

In the doco on the nationnal geographic channel, seconds from disaster they used the words "bomb proofed windows". Found it under the term "blast-resistant windows"

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by miss_silver

In the doco on the nationnal geographic channel, seconds from disaster they used the words "bomb proofed windows". Found it under the term "blast-resistant windows"

So they lied you are saying. What the hell is blast resistant? The wind shield in my car is blast resistant. How many windows are blast-resistant? All of them? One of them? I really doubt every window is, also this is a militaty building, i don't think the blue-prints or construction are public knowledge. Maybe they are, doesn't really matter, fact is the Doc is telling half-truths at best.

[miss_silver]

If you ment that the geo channel lied, I don't think so, they used a different term or word. They could have also said laminated glass.

If you're referring testimony of some of the escapee, maybe they were lucky enough to pop out one of the dammaged window, but breaking it, I seriously doubt it.

The dupont company is best suited to explain what is "blast resistant windows"
http://www.dupont.com/safetyglass/lgn/stories/2111.html

here is a snippet of info on how resistant those windows are

So resilient was the newly strengthened section of the Pentagon that a glass display case only 40 feet (12 meters) from where the plane entered the building survived without a crack.

Countless additional injuries were prevented because new windows in the renovated section were "blast-resistant" and did not explode into flying glass splinters, because new fire sprinklers operated as designed, and because alert personnel turned off power and utilities to the affected areas before evacuating...

The blast-resistant windows were nearly two inches (5 centimeters) thick. Some of them remain remarkably intact and in place adjacent the point of impact. Some were popped out of their frames by the force of the exploding jet fuel, but they fell without breaking or splintering.

Link

[Belle~]

I admit to being almost totally ignorant about this. Can someone tell me please, if the plane did not hit the Pentagon, then what is supposed to have happened to the plane & the people in it? And what is supposed to have hit the Pentagon?

[albed]

Heh-heh, they're not out to explain anything, just backstab the authority figures their twisted mentality drives them to hate. Many seem to have a touch of integrity and are reluctant to actually proclaim they really believe the rhetoric they're spouting; or more accurately, linking to. None I've seen actually have the intelligence to come up with alternate scenarios.

Plenty of websites if you search. Frankly google gives more of those stupid sites than reputable ones when you go looking for facts on your own.

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by miss_silver

they had installed "bomb proof windows"... the strangest part of this doco was, some ppl were able to escape by breaking some front windows (even tho they were bomb proofed)

Originally Posted by miss_silver

If you're referring testimony of some of the escapee, maybe they were lucky enough to pop out one of the dammaged window, but breaking it, I seriously doubt it.

Ahhh, See when you use rational thinking and look for real facts --- you can find the truth.




Couple other quotes from your links...


From nationalgeographic.com

---On September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight 77 was hijacked by terrorists who flew the plane into the Pentagon's west wall, killing 189 people. Pentagon 9-11 follows the events that led to the worst day of terrorist attacks on American soil.---

architectureweek.com -

Badly damaged by the impact of a hijacked 757 jet airplane on Tuesday, September 11, 2001 at 9:43am, in the same set of attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center in New York.

[miss_silver]

hummm

You know damn well that these are not my wiews on the subject. What you posted are the "official" views/truth according to the mainstream media. As to why you needed to post what I do not think in bold letters, only you, have the answer.

But still, I really want one of those passport that are fireproof and building demolition proof. I wonder what type of magical paper could withstand fire, a crashed building and still be intact.

See you tomorrow...

Belle

Click on malvachat link and try to draw your own conclusions. Once you get out of the mainstream media, you might not want to go back.

malvachat's link

http://911research.wtc7.net/contents.html

The WTC 7 building, the last one who fell down, is quite an interesting topic.

Like he said, you can bring a horse to water but you can't make him drink. BTW, Malvachat, I really enjoy your style of writing

[albed]

Originally Posted by miss_silver

Belle

Click on malvachat link and try to draw your own conclusions. Once you get out of the mainstream media, you might not want to go back.

Just what I mean; unwilling or unable to explain.

Always eager to recruit new converts though.

Don't think, don't criticize, just accept.