ASCE Report: Consistent with damage from missile & fighter jet.

[Abe Linkman]

The ASCE Report's charter was a "Building Damage Assessement" Report, so it makes no mention of the "white smoke" (on of the few things that cna be seen clearly) in the famous video images taken from the parking lot camera at the Pentagon. Neither does it mention that the tail of the aircraft in the image is black or dark gray (the color of far more military attack jets than AA B757s).

The above notwithstanding; it seems to me that the ASCE Report is NOT inconsistent at all with the idea that a fighter jet fired a missile into the Pentagon, then followed it into the Building.

In fact, it makes far more sense than trying to reconcile the damage pattern with the Official Story Conspiracy Theory, with the added advantage of not having to explain the total disappearance of a huge 757 engine.

[pretzel4gore]

1. strangely, this is like opening a can of worms!

or pandora's box....it's not as if it was a publicized disaster involving public property and public monies that caused a change of political policy affecting the public or anything....911 was a private event that's best sorted out by those privately concerned, the bush admin. and bush media....

[Warpy]

2. So what did they do with the passengers?

The crew? The plane?

Spare me.

[BarbinMD]

3. Agreed

...including Ted Olsen's wife.

[frylock]

4. witness protection program..

who can say what could have happened, but suffice it to say that they are not walking this earth.

I honestly don't know where I stand on the Pentagon, because I could really go either way. Simply releasing video tape of the 757 hitting the building would go a long way to dispel any talk of a missile hit. One picture of a commercial airliner is not asking too much, is it?

One thing I am certain of, is that there is no way humanly possible that the person we are led to believe alledgedly flew that aircraft into the Pentagon was who they say it was. Someone who couldn't even fly a crop duster could not pull off Top-Gun maneuvers in a commercial airliner. So that leaves:

A) Remote controlled aircraft flown into the Pentagon.

B) Pilot was a trained military flier.

C) Missile hit.

My theories, in that order.

[Abe Linkman]

6. Not even the worst evildoers can release a video tape "of the 757...

hitting the building", if a 757 didn't hit the building. And, guess what? Just in case you've been distracted: no such video exists.

[Abe Linkman]

5. THINK. It might be a new experience.

However, if you tend to shy away from hard work, then TODAY is your lucky day, because "By The Power Vested In Me, I Hereby Declare That
'Warpy' Person Is For All Intent And Purposes...Spared". Go Thou.

[Wilms]

8. Try GlobalHawk n/t

[Sweet Pea]

9. And what about the Global hawk?

I posted this elsewhere when someone brought up the possibility that Global Hawk had been used in the Pentagon attack:

Could you provide a link to back up your statement that Global Hawk carries ordnance, specifically a missile-firing capability, and exactly what missile are you talking about? This particular UAV is optimized for high altitude, high-resolution intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance imagery. I was never designed to fire missiles at targets and to my knowledge has never been modified, used, nor evaluated as a power-projection platform. Predator was, but if you drop down and say that it was a Predator painted in United livery that caused the damage at the Pentagon, you should be laughed out of here. Stating that Global Hawk *could* carry ordnance is just about as laughable - a Volkswagen Van could modified to carry a hellfire missile, but it has never been done and I would dispute such a claim if it were ever made.

<snip>

Lastly, painting a Global Hawk in United colors and expecting the VAST majority of people to mistake a 25,000 lb, 44 foot long, 69 foot wingspan UAV for a 255,000 lb, 155 ft long, 124 foot wingspan 757 is not only crazy but insane.

<end cut and paste>

I'd ask to see some evidence, not just idle conjecture that a Global Hawk could have possibly done this, but it just ain't there. It ain't big enough, ain't powerful enough, the damage inside the Pentagon was obviously made by a large mass of rapidly moving debris rather than the detonation of a missile (and I'm still waiting to see what sort of missile will be proposed here, a "missile" that no-one claimed they saw) and it looks in NO WAY like an airliner no matter how much you paint up that pig.

If you are going to suggest and provide alternative scenarios, please make them plausible.

[Abe Linkman]

10. What about that missile smoke trail & the color of the small jet's tail?

You can support and promote the Official Conspiracy Theory ("Caveman Did It"), but if you claim that it's the truth, then you've got to contend with the available evidence which does NOT support the OCT.

* Where did the missile smoke/trail on the video images come from, if not from a missile?

* How do you account for the fact that the aircraft in the Pentagon video is waaaaaaaaay too small to be a 757?

* How do you explain the fact that the tail of the small jet in the video is dark gray or black, NOT the colors it would be if it were an AA B757/

If you are going to come on this forum to suggest and try to intimidate people into believing your consipiracy theories, please address the evidence which refutes their plausibility. THEN, your claims might be taken seriously.

[Wilms]

11. More the Hawk technology than a specific aircraft.

Flying a plane by remote is doable.

Just google.

[Sweet Pea]

7. What kind of missile, Abe?

n/t

[vincent_vega_lives]

12. He has no clue

Nor does he know the difference between a low order fuel explosion and a high explosive one.

[Abe Linkman]

13. Do YOU know what kind it is? Tell us.

Aren't you the gentleman(?) who used to pose as a military person? If so, then perhaps you can tell us what kind of missile was used.

BTW - while you're at it, try answering the questions I posed. AND, tell us, oh formerly banned one - for reasons best not disclosed - WHAT KIND OF phone did Barby Olson call Ted on?

[Sweet Pea]

16. T'wern't no missile

is what I believe, so to speculate on "what kind of missile it is" is moot. The damage inside the Pentagon was not blast damage from any sort of missile but was from a fast moving mass of former 757 mixed with various and sundry building parts, office equipment, furniture and anything else located there. If anyone who seriously educates themselves on what sort of damage was inside (and outside) the building they would know in an instant that no missile could have caused that sort of damage.

[Abe Linkman]

21. No missile hit the Pentagon? Then do tell: Wherdy GO?

You too, seem to want to avoid the evidence that has been repeatedly brought to your attention, on the unproven, unlikely assumption that you aren't intimately aware of and acquainted with it.

Nevertheless, there it is...right in the video from the Pentagon's parking lot.

[Sweet Pea]

29. WHAT Evidence?

You point to a fuzzy parking lot series of pictures - its not even a video, its a surveillance cctv camera with a frame rate of 10-15 fps) - and claim some high level extraordinary expertise at divining what exactly is going on there. You claim, with no evidence whatsoever, that a small aircraft impacted the building yet you provide no explanation how a "small" aircraft could cause such damage. You claim a "missile" was fired at the building, yet you offer no example of what type of missile that might have been nor any of the other dynamics that would involve a valid missile-firing scenario (warhead? size?). You ignore the fact that the damage inside the building was *not* blast damage as would have been expected from a missile, but was rather the accumulated mass of 220,000 lbs of former airliner moving initially at 450 knots. You clamor for "mush" as proof, when in actuality it is the height of sick to ask for photos of burned and torn-apart body parts as evidence of a crash. You disregard documented photos of aircraft parts, displaying your lack of knowledge (and that is a generous way of saying that) of how high-bypass jet engines are made. You refuse to provide any documented analysis of any respectable scientist, engineer, mechanic, janitor, farmer or whatever to provide any sort of academic or scientific strength to your claims. Others claim fire trucks COULD NOT get into the center courtyard but firetrucks WERE PUMPING WATER from the center courtyard shortly after noon of 9/11. People say Hanjour could not fly an airplane. If 7-yr old Jessica Dubroff could fly a freaking Cessna, however-old-he-was Hani Hanjour could *point the nose of a airliner* where he wanted it to go and the damn thing would go there. People who say flying a jet is hard have never done it and they know not of what they speak.

I could go on.......

WHAT evidence?

James Michener, in his book "Space", I believe it was, was writing about the Dark Ages. I paraphrase, but "They did not call them the Dark Ages because they could not see, but rather because they choose NOT to see."

[Abe Linkman]

30. Have YOU done any research on what kind of missile it was?

Given the likely size of the attack jet etc., it probably wouldn't be too hard to come up with a list of possibilities. If you'd like to do a little research, that would be great.

[MercutioATC]

33. I haven't. I also haven't researched which galaxy the aliens came from...

...both lines of inquiry are silly.

[Abe Linkman]

38. The aliens you support came from caves right here on Earth.

You are concerned that a little research will yield three or four kinds of missiles that could have fired at the Pentagon. That's what is making you nervous and causing you to try & change the subject. You don't like the thought of having to argue over WHICH KIND of missile, so your way of trying to prevent having to do so, is to denigrate the idea of researching to find out which kinds of missiles would be the most likely candidates.

The Cavalry is closing in & the Cave People Loyalists are getting nervous.

[MercutioATC]

39. I'M concerned? Hardly.

"You are concerned that a little research will yield three or four kinds of missiles that could have fired at the Pentagon."

It's your theory...tell me which missiles.

[AZCat]

34. A good source is the Global Security site

I used to use the Federation of American Scientists site, but they have handed over the role to Global Security - the FAS site is out of date (last info is ~1998).

The Global Security missile info for the USA has several missiles listed for air-to-ground use, but a few of them are still in development. The Tomahawk is the one used in the http://www.physics911.net/missingwings.htm">missing wings study on the www.physics911.net site, but that is a ship launched, not an air launched weapon.

Specs for BGM-109 Tomahawk: (selected info)
Length: 18 feet 3 inches (5.56 meters); with booster: 20 feet 6 inches (6.25 meters)
Weight: 2,900 pounds (1,315.44 kg); 3,500 pounds (1,587.6 kg) with booster
Diameter: 20.4 inches (51.81 cm)
Wing Span: 8 feet 9 inches (2.67 meters)
Speed: Subsonic - about 550 mph (880 km/h)
Warheads: Block II TLAM-N – W80 nuclear warhead
Block III TLAM-C and Block IV TLAM-E - 1,000 pound class unitary warhead
Block III TLAM-D - conventional submunitions dispenser with combined effect bomblets


The listed air-to-ground missiles on the Global Security site are:
2.75" APKWS
2.75" Hydra-70
5.0" Zuni
AGM-12 Bullpup
AGM-45 Shrike
AGM-53 Condor
AGM-62 Walleye
AGM-65 Maverick
AGM-78 Standard ARM
AGM-84 Harpoon
AGM-86 CALCM
AGM-88 HARM
AGM-114 Hellfire
AGM-122 Sidearm
AGM-123 Skipper
AGM-130
AGM-136 TACIT RAINBOW
AGM-137 TSSAM
AGM-142 HAVE NAP
AGM-154 JSOW
AGM-158 JASSM
Joint Common Missile
HyStrike
HyTech
JSSCM
RATTLRS
SHOC

That's quite a list...

[demodewd]

32. Where's your evidence?

You claim a "missile" was fired at the building, yet you offer no example of what type of missile that might have been nor any of the other dynamics that would involve a valid missile-firing scenario (warhead? size?).

How do you explain that huge hole leading into the A-E Drive? It certainly wasn't blown out by the level of airplane parts and building material strewn across the floor. Have you seen the photo that shows the number of walls and columns that the nose-fuselage would have had to penetrate to reach the C-ring outer wall? Do you realize that the nose-fuselage would not have only penetrated the first floor but would have been sliced into by the ceiling? Are you aware that the plane or whatever it was exploded upon impact and yet there is no evidence of bodies outside the building when Barbara Olsen stated that the passengers had been herded to the back of the cabin?

You ignore the fact that the damage inside the building was *not* blast damage as would have been expected from a missile, but was rather the accumulated mass of 220,000 lbs of former airliner moving initially at 450 knots.



And where to do you get your "facts"? How do you explain the bright light yellow/off white coloration of the initial impact? This is a telltale sign of a bomb or shaped charges.Why is there no smoke damage on the far C-ring wall where the hole was made? Why would the plane penetrate that far and not bring the force of fire and smoke with it? What stopped the fuel end of the explosion from entering the north end of the C-ring? Initial shaped charges perhaps?

If 7-yr old Jessica Dubroff could fly a freaking Cessna, however-old-he-was Hani Hanjour could *point the nose of a airliner* where he wanted it to go and the damn thing would go there. People who say flying a jet is hard have never done it and they know not of what they speak.

Hani Hanjour was a poor pilot on a Cessna..this is well documented. The level of G force to accomplish the radical 270 degree downspin turn at that speed is arguably humanly impossible. Many seasoned pilots have commented upon the expertice needed for even an ace pilot to accomplish the feat.

[AZCat]

36. What's the claimed g-force associated with the maneuver?

You state in your post that:
(quote)
The level of G force to accomplish the radical 270 degree downspin turn at that speed is arguably humanly impossible. Many seasoned pilots have commented upon the expertice needed for even an ace pilot to accomplish the feat.
(end quote)

What g-force would that be? And how was it determined?

[Sweet Pea]

43. Laws. Of. Physics.

How do you explain that huge hole leading into the A-E Drive?

I have said before that I have no problem believing that a 200,000 mass of destruction traveling at 450+ knots will wreak damage everywhere in its path, including that wall into the A-E drive. You are basing your claims of an insufficient "level of airplane parts and building material strewn across the floor" to have made the hole, and this claim is based on photographs. When, demo, were those pictures taken? Do ya think that mebbe wreckage had already been removed for better access to the inside?

yet there is no evidence of bodies outside the building when Barbara Olsen stated that the passengers had been herded to the back of the cabin?

What part of 450 knots (with regards to airspeed) and crashing into a building do you not understand? Basic physics should tell you (SHOULD) that an object traveling at 450 knots (approx 517 mph), in the Pentagon scenario, would never ever ever ever ever leave bodies, much less much else, OUTSIDE the building. If you keep using that as prime evidence of your case, you are worse off than I thought.

450 knots. 517 mph. 45,565.883 feet per second. I dare ya. Accelerate an aluminum and titanium structure filled with your choice of material up to 45,000 feet per second and aim it at a limestone and concrete structure. Tell me then, demo, how much of your "materiel" will end up on the outside and not on the inside?

Only if you suspend the laws of physics would anything remain outside. Unfortunately that isn't an option for you here.

I'll address your other points this evening.

[Abe Linkman]

44. Voodoo.

You are probably one of only three people here (and that isn't certain, since use of multiple personalities isn't unknown) who would join in supporting that line. Note, I didn't use the word "believe", because some of you, sometimes, come across as though you know that we know how silly it is.

[LARED]

45. It is clear that the realm of phyics

seems like Voodoo to some.

[Abe Linkman]

46. Apparently the realm of Voodoo ...

seems like logic to some.

[vincent_vega_lives]

64. And the realm of Voodoo seems like...

to others.

[AZCat]

47. Shoot - some seems like Voodoo to me

I remember really struggling with the whole relativity thing for several weeks before getting it, and now it's lost again.

That and the whole quantum thing really are Voodoo to me.

[Abe Linkman]

48. Sounds like a personal problem.

n/t

[AZCat]

51. Actually it wasn't that unusual

It was the consensus among the group of people that I was with in those classes - but that may have been because most of us were not focusing on those two topics. We were in a hurry to get to the "good stuff" (or so we believed).

[Sweet Pea]

49. "Voodoo"

GREAT debate tactic!

[stickdog]

40. Exactly. WHAT evidence?

You point to nothing - no video, no debris, no physical evidence -- even through there are surely dozens of surveillance cameras trained on the Pentagon -- including the ones from the gas station and hotel that we know were confiscated by the Feds. You claim, with no evidence whatsoever, that a 757 impacted the building yet you provide no explanation how a 757 could cause such damage and then mysteriously disappear. You ignore the fact that the damage inside the building -- as reported -- is *not* a pattern of damage one would have expected from a 757, and there's SIMPLY NO POSSIBLE WAY that an amateur pilot who couldn't even fly a Cessna at altitude could keep control of a 757 going 450 knots just a few yards above the ground, knocking over lamp posts with it hither and yon. You excuse the complete lack of any official analysis of the physical evidence of the victims even though it's a standard component of every NTSB aviation fatality investigation.

You claim that photos of "aircraft parts" are "documented," displaying your lack of knowledge (and that is a generous way of saying that) of the standards of evidence that would apply to anyone with a shred of investigative objectivity. Instead you turn the pursuit of truth into an Orwellian semantical game in which any evidence certified by a historically deceitful party (the US federal government) is "documented evidence" and any scientist, engineer, mechanic, janitor, farmer or observer of any kind who questions this evidence is less than respectable. You make a ridiculous assertion that Hanjour -- who reportedly COULD NOT fly a Cessna -- could easily perform feats beyond the abilities of Hollywood stunt pilots with a jumbo jet based solely on the fact that a completely unrelated youngster can fly a Cessna. That's like saying that you know George Bush can teach quantum physics because James Clark Maxwell published his first scientific paper at 14. People who say breaking lamp posts with a jet airplane flying 450 knots 15 feet off the ground is an easy take obviously have never done it, and they know not of what they speak.

I could go on.......

WHAT evidence?

[AZCat]

41. I disagree with several of your points

I am interested in how you reached the conclusion that "the damage inside the building -- as reported -- is *not* a pattern of damage one would have expected form a 757". What modelling have you done to determine this? Perhaps you used a FEA program (ANSYS, MSC.Dytran, etc), or are you working with something more simple (yet effective)?

I have posted before my disagreement about your assessment of Hanjour's piloting ability concerning the alledged maneuvers of Flight 77 prior to hitting the Pentagon, and I think this is the last time I will post about it. I think you are jumping to a conclusion that is based on flimsy evidence, and certainly not worth the phrase "simply no possible way". But if you are going to label any disagreement regarding this as "ridiculous assertion"(s), then I think we are past any point of discussion.


Oh - and relevant to our "Jimmy Scientist Goes to Washington" discussion here, I present the web site of S.P.I.N.E., a group investigating September 11th. The members of the group are from various professions, but most (if not all) of them have relevant experience/schooling. While I don't agree with all their conclusions, they do represent what I was describing in the other thread.

[vincent_vega_lives]

42. You always ask the wrong questions Abe

and do you mean pose or post? and what do you mean "used to"?

No missile hit the Pentagon...

and what on earth does "-for reasons best not disclosed -" supposed to mean abe?

[MercutioATC]

14. No, it simply does not.

...all from

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

(the ASCE report)

"The width of the severe damage to the west facade of the Pentagon was approximately 120 ft (from column lines 8 to 20)."

What is the wingspan of an F-16? 31 feet. I challenge you to find a "fighter" with a wingspan even close to 120 feet. This being the case, what caused 120 feet of damage to the facade?

"Obvious visible damage extended only over the lowest two floors, to approximately 25 ft above grade."

What is the height of an F-16? 16 feet, 5.2 inches. Where did the extra 9 feet of damage come from if a fighter was used?

"A study of the locations of fatalities also yields insight into the breakup of the aircraft and, therefore its influence on the structure. The remains of most of the passengers on the aircraft were found near the end of the travel of the aircraft debris. The front landing gear (a relatively solid and heavy object) and the flight data recorder (which had been located near the rear of the aircraft) were also found nearly 300 ft into the structure. By contrast, the remains of a few individuals (the hijacking suspects), who most likely were near the front of the aircraft, were found relatively close to the aircraft’s point of impact with the building. These data suggest that the front of the aircraft disintegrated essentially upon impact but, in the process, opened up a hole allowing the trailing portions of the fuselage to pass into the building."

Where did the remains and the debris come from if a fighter and/or missile was/were used?


What portions of the report do you claim support your fighter/missile theory? I don't see ANY.

[Abe Linkman]

15. A plane with a wingspan of 120 feet or more couldn't fit thru the hole.

The width of damage could have been caused by several possibilities:
* explosions from shaped charges, missile hit and/or fighter jet hit.

* remains of murdered Pentagon workers that weren't incinerated were found & that isn't in issue.

* debris came from explosions, missile, and attack plane.

That ASCE Report is a real boon to those who know that the Official "Cavemen Did It" Conspiracy Theory is ca-ca.

Not one portion of it explains the missile smoke trail or the fact that the plane in the video couldn't possibly be large enough to be a 757 --
but IT IS the right size and even the color on the tail is consistent with a fighter jet.

The ASCE Report is much more consistent with the damage at the Pentagon having been inflicted by a combination of missile, fighter jet, and shaped charge explosion(s).

And to think, I wouldn't even have fooled with it if you hadn't brought it to our attention.

Thanks for doing so.

[MercutioATC]

17. That's the most bizarre interpretation of the ACSE report I've heard yet.

There was 120' of damage to the facade. At a maximum, a fighter would have caused about 40' of it. Are you trying to tell us that a missile or shaped charges created 80 feet of damage, in a straight line, that damaged the facade but didn't breach the wall itself?

I agree, the remains of Pentagon workers aren't an issue. The remains of AAL77 passengers and crew are. The ASCE report specifically references these remains.

The landing gear strut and black boxes didn't come from any fighter or missile. Again, the gear strut and black boxes are directly referenced in the ASCE report.

The "missile smoke trail" and the size of the blur in the 5 frames of your video aren't even addressed in the ASCE report. How does that show that the ASCE report is "consistent" with anything you're claiming? The report doesn't even deal with that issue.




YOUR claim was: "ASCE Report: Consistent with damage from missile & fighter jet." That's simply false. The ASCE report shows nothing of the kind. In fact, the evidence it describes refutes that possibility.

[Abe Linkman]

18. You're entitled to your opinion. It's a peculiar one, but it's YOURS.

No one should give any credence to a conspiracy theory about the attack on the Pentagon unless that conspiracy theory effectively speaks to the issues raised by critical evidence which undermines it.

In the case of the Pentagon, the parking lot video images clearly undermine the theory that a large commercial airliner crashed at the Pentagon. The ASCE report doesn't speak to them, and unless YOU or one of your cohorts can explaiin them, your theories should be ignored forthwith.

The missile smoke trail simply can't be ignored in any discussion that includes the argument that it was a 757 which crashed into the Pentagon.

The small jet (which appears in the Pentagon attack video) whose tail was dark gray or black likewise cannot be ignored.

So, we know that a 757 didn't crash at the Pentagon, and we know that a small jet DID. And, we know that a missile probably did, also.

According to the building damage assessment report (ASCE), it's obvious that the building's interior damage IS consistent with the above. That is, a small jet, very likely a missile, and most probably, shaped charge explosions in the interior of the building.

We don't even have to deal with the silly notion of flying confetti being able to go thru five (?) walls.

[AZCat]

19. Your use of the phrase "we know" is incorrect

In your post, you say:
(quote)
So, we know that a 757 didn't crash at the Pentagon, and we know that a small jet DID. And, we know that a missile probably did, also.
(end quote)

We don't know that at all - it's what you claim. There is a significant difference between the two.

[MercutioATC]

20. Actually, It's also the opinion of professional civil engineers...

...who specialize in damage to reinforced concrete structures...

...and examined the site firsthand.


"Peculiar" bunch, these professionals...

...and that reliance on physics? I just find it annoying.

:eyes:

[Abe Linkman]

22. Yep, those professionals may have been doing work for Uncle, but...

unfortunately for YOU, the ASCE report is worthless to YOUR conspiracy theory, because it fails to account for critical evidence which clearly undermines the notion of a 757 crash.

True, the ASCE report isn't supposed to cover the evidence that undermines the 757 theory. Unless YOU can adquately refute that evidence, then logically, the ASCE report lends no weight at all to YOUR conspiracy theory.

However; as I said - I, for one, do thank you for bringing it to our attention. Like the Warren Commission Report, despite the fact that it's main purpose was to be a cover-up, it too, contained information valuable to the notion that LHO was only a Patsy. Just like Osama.

[MercutioATC]

23. The damage was to the PENTAGON. ANY report would have been done

by people "working for the government". The government is the only entity authorized to commission a report dealing with the Pentagon. They COULD have used military engineers. They didn't. They used civilian engineers.

Abe, I never claimed that the ASCE report proved that AAL77 crashed at the Pentagon. It does, however, do a great job of dispelling some of the myths disseminated here by our more "enthusiastic" CTists.

[Abe Linkman]

26. The ASCE report doesn't prove a fighter jet crashed, but its findings...

are consistent with a combination of fighter jet, missile, and shaped charge explosions.

[MercutioATC]

35. You have yet to show how.

Want to try again?

[Abe Linkman]

37. You have tried to hijack the ASCE report & that dog won't hunt, bubba.

Your conspiracy theory invovles a 757 crash, but the evidence shows a smaller jet & a missile. The damage at the Pentagon was assessed & reported on in the ASCE report. That assessment is consistent with the evidence that proves that a small jet, a missile, and shaped charge explosions caused the damage.

[MercutioATC]

50. Well, the people who wrote the ASCE report don't agree with you.

Again, if you have qualifications that give you a better understanding of the mechanics involved in a plane crash into a reinforced concrete structure, please share.

[demodewd]

52. before you knock the other guy...

What qualifications do you possess that puts you above the crowd here? We should be inclined to agree with your positions because of the scientific and analytical expertise that you possess? Is it enough to support the Bushteam version and then lambaste and ridicule opposing viewpoints? This is your modus operandi.

Your posts offer scant scientific analysis and nothing substantiatial in regards to photographic evidence. The ASCE analysis is nothing more than a physical description of the Pentagon's interior, post crash, based on the assumption that it was a result of Flight 77 as declared by fiat by the Administration.

There are other physical manuifestations of the crash that you need to explain for you to have a legitimate case. The bright flash initiating the blast. The lack of a 757 in the released footage. The A-E drive hole.The lack of apparent scarring of the flooring on the first floor. The lack of bodies outside the building(remember Barbara Olsen said they were all forced to the rear of the plane). The scant amount of plane parts. The dubious identification of the engine as claimed to be that of a 757. Where is the other engine?

[Sweet Pea]

54. Again?

The lack of bodies outside the building(remember Barbara Olsen said they were all forced to the rear of the plane)

Why do you keep asking about this? How difficult can it be to understand that an aircraft going over 500 miles per hour is NOT going to leave anything outside the building!

450 knots. 517 mph. 45,565.883 feet per second. I dare ya. Accelerate an aluminum and titanium structure filled with your choice of material up to 45,000 feet per second and aim it at a limestone and concrete structure. Tell me then, demo, how much of your "materiel" will end up on the outside and not on the inside?

Man.

[Abe Linkman]

55. No bodies, No MUSH, No 757 engines = No 757 crash. Anything else?

Man. If I didn't know any better, I'd swear this stuff comes from a disinfo agent. I know that YOU and M-atc are only trying to be "helpful" (to YOUR cause), but honestly.

[MercutioATC]

61. There WERE bodies...

They were in little pieces, like the rest of AAL77. Why do you keep insisting there were no bodies?

As for the "MUSH", I'm assuming that you're referring to bodies...which is sort of confusing because you're repeating yourselves. Regardless...same answer for the "MUSH". It was there and it was identified.

[Abe Linkman]

63. Fifth grade logic is out of place here.

There were bodies in ImaPoleece Criminal, Ohio, too. Some have reached an advanced state of decomposition. And, according to the logic of a certain alleged atc employee...that PROVES Fl 77 crashed at the Pentagon. Voodoo action, in action right there in Murlyville.

[MercutioATC]

67. Another bizarre post...I'm becoming concerned.

"ImaPoleece Criminal, Ohio"???


"Murlyville"??


Is finding DNA from passengers evidence that AAL77 crashed at the Pentagon? Yes, I believe it is.

You're right, even a fifth-grader should be able to draw that conclusion.

[Abe Linkman]

77. No one has proven that ANY AAL77 DNA was found FIRST at the Pentagon

How could they? FL77 wasn't even scheduled to fly on 9/11 & according to the Government department that keeps track of such things, that particular aircraft wasn't destroyed until February of 2002.

So, why are you even talking about it crashing ANYWHERE, in 2001?

[MercutioATC]

81. Ahhh. You're switching to database arguments now.

Let's just resolve the ASCE thing first, shall we? The ASCE report does NOT prove that AAL77 crashed at the Pentagon. It does, however, provide evidence that the damage to the Pentagon is consistent with a 757 crash.

Would you agree with this summation or not?

[Abe Linkman]

82. It's a totally irrelevamt argument to the main issue of 9/11

Indeed, let's do resolve the ASCE "thing" first. The main issue on THIS forum concerns the events of 9/11. With regards to the Pentagon, the main issue is whether or not a B757 crashed into there. Observations and measurements concerning damage to the building are not probative in determining whether AA FL77 crashed there, and that is what and all the ASCE report is about: building damage assessment.

What you are trying to do is no different than saying: "A team of DNA experts issued a 'DNA Location' Report which explains exactly where at the Pentagon DNA was found. The Report says that DNA was found in an area that is consistent with where DNA would be found if people were killed at the Pentagon on 9/11."

But, the above hypothetical is irrelevant to the main argument, and that raises the question of what purpose is served by bringing up an irrelevant matter.

Anyone who is familiar with the tactics used by people who are not objective researchers here, knows exactly why. It's the same kind of tactic used over and over: focus on a diversion & hope that the rubes and those who are easily fooled won't realize what you're doing.

[MercutioATC]

93. Was that a yes or a no?

Do you agree with the summation I provided or not?

[Abe Linkman]

96. YES - totally irrelevant to the issue of whether FL 77 crashed.

It's like saying that "there were people who allegedly boarded the plane known as AAFL 77 & were never heard from again" ... AND THAT is consistent with a B757 crashing at the Pentagon.

It may or may not be true that some people who boarded an airliner are missing, but that claim is totally irrelevant to the issue of what crashed at the Pentagon.

You are doing what any defense lawyer would do, and that is to come up with something...ANYTHING that will allow a weak-minded juror to use as an excuse to rationalize voting in the jury room in favor of your client, despite all of the evidence to the contrary. You just won't come out and say that.


Since the available evidence is overwhelmingly INconsistent with your claim that a B757 crashed, that raises the question of what kind of plane DID crash (if any plane crashed), and the ASCE Report is consistent with a small jet crash at the Pentagon.

THEREFORE, it is entirely reasonable to cite the ASCE Report if anyone disputes the claim that a small jet crashed there.

Do YOU dispute the claims that damage at the Pentagon is INconsistent
with a small jet having crashed there?

[MercutioATC]

100. We're getting somewhere.

You agree that the ASCE report does not prove that AAL77 crashed at the Pentagon, but it does provide evidence that the damage to the Pentagon was consistent with a 757 crash. You call this "irrelevant". I don't agree. Numerous claims have been made here that the damage was INconsistent with a 757 crash. It's a step forward to have you admit otherwise.

Do I dispute claims that the damage at the Pentagon is INconsistent with a small jet having crashed there? I neither claim that the evidence is consistent or inconsistent. I've seen no report that examines how a small jet would have damaged the Pentagon. Perhaps a small jet would not have had the necessary mass to cause that degree of damege, perhaps it would have. I have no way of knowing.

I know the ASCE report says that the damage is consistent with a 757 crash. The report doesn't specify how its findings would apply to a smaller plane.

[Abe Linkman]

102. No, you're still using an irrelevancy to try to fool people.

"We" aren't getting anywhere, but those of us who are here to find out the truth about what really happened, have made tremendous progress, despite the efforts of truth suppressors and the hidden agenda crowd.

[MercutioATC]

105. And we were SO close....

Well, at least we reached agreement on ONE issue.

[Abe Linkman]

106. Speaking of that, what's the last thread you started? I don't recall any.

n/t

[MercutioATC]

114. Well, here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=17231

You don't recall the FAA Database thread?


I'm hurt...

:cry:

[AZCat]

116. Ooooh, that was a classic!

Maybe I should kick it, just for old times sake? :)

[MercutioATC]

117. I was planning to kick it when the issue was raised again, but

it seems to have done its job and cleared up the matter. I haven't seen any database issues here for a while.

[MercutioATC]

92. .

.

[demodewd]

56. it didn't all stay in the building...no matter what

The plane that hit the building exploded upon impact. The Pentagon footage gives evidence of this. The location of the main inferno is at the very front of the facade of the building. The whitish color of the blasts initial phase gives evidence of planted explosives either in the building or on the plane or both.

Even if the plane were to enter the building in its entirety,the force of the blast would carry debris to areas outside the building. And it did,raining down like "confetti".As noted,much of the first floor facade was blown out.

[Sweet Pea]

119. Whitish color of the blast

Far be it from me to dispute this, so the below screen shot from an mpeg (linked to below) with its "whitish color of the blast" *must* have been planted explosives:



But wait! What was this from? A B-52 crash during an airshow practice (meaning it wasn't carrying any bombs)?:



Whitish color of an explosion means nothing when such large amounts of fuel are included in catastrophic crashes.

Full mpeg at:

http://www.aviationexplorer.com/movies/AirplaneCrashB52MilitaryPlane.mpeg

And of course since there were no "wing pieces" present on the ground and no "recognizable engine parts", this crash never happened.

[Abe Linkman]

122. That doesn't explain the white trail of missile smoke in the video image.

Take a look at the video images released in 2002 that shows the small jet firing a missile into the Pentagon.

Why some people still insist that small jet is a B757, I can't explain.
Must be something in the cool-aid they drink. Peculiar, to say the least.

[AZCat]

124. I don't understand about the "missile smoke"

I have several questions about this. First, why would there be a white trail of missile smoke? Missiles (or at least the kind we're talking about) use the same kind of engines that a Boeing 757 would use - a turbofan engine - and that doesn't leave any visible smoke trail. Secondly, why would the plane fire the missile so close to the target? Missiles have safety measures that prevent them from detonating close to the parent craft, and it seems that the distance between the Pentagon and the alleged jet would be within that safety distance.

[tngledwebb]

57. Total crap. And so on...

Give it a rest. But for those who came in three years late-

The 'plane' known as FLIGHT 77, HIT the only one (out of five) walls of the Pentagon, ( yes THAT Pentagon, HQ for the most powerful miltary the world has ever seen,) recently under renovation to withstand a bomb blast and the like, at just above ground level, then crawled through a window sized hole, perhaps up to 18 foot wide, followed by both wings and their huge steel jet engines, apparently folded and greased straight the way back, like Wolfie's jive hair-do, and then the tail itself DUCKED all the way way down, so as not to further disturb the facade.

And then this whole damn thing rattled without resistance to penetrate three whole rings (six entire walls if anyone is counting) of concrete, glass and steel.

( Btw, for an interesting comparison a Purdue U 'study' shows a fuselage and wings shredded by what appear to be dozens of upright columns inside the building, like a piece of cheap proceessed cheese. Grateful if anyone could post the graphic.)

Now, a bunker-busting missile might be able to do some of these tricks, but not a Boeing jetliner, not in the real world.

Unless - well, why not try on one of these for size-:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:!

[Abe Linkman]

53. You are trying to imply something that is false. Why?

You have used the ASCE report to try and fool naive people. The ASCE report does not prove that a 757 crashed. It's a report that has nothing to do with the issue within which context you cite it.

It's the kind of trick that DUers do not deserve to be subjected to, and why you continue to try and fool people, I don't know...but if you can speculate about the value of the ASCE report, others SHOULD be allowed to speculate about why you're doing it. And they can...in the privacy of their homes.

[MercutioATC]

60. Abe, do you even read my posts?

I've specifically stated numerous times that the ASCE report doesn't prove that a 757 crashed. It DOES, however, rebut the claim made by some that the crash damage was not consistent with a 757. That's the context in which I use it.

To claim I do otherwise is patently false.

[Abe Linkman]

65. More fifth grade logic. Trying to fool the innocent & dumb.

The ASCE report's assessment as it relates to FL 77 is worthless and you should go back to junior college if you don't realize how silly your continued use of it is. Get that AA degree and then go to Police University and study REAL logic: "you know -- if they wasn't crymuhnuls, we wouldn't of been kickin' um upside they head".

As your allegedly more-educated sidekick would say: Crappola. Three years of it. You haven't advanced in your knowledge or ability to use logic. I think the reason why is because you are trying to sell a fairy tale as truth, and you know it - just as well as we do.

[MercutioATC]

69. Well, what do you expect from a professional "disinfo agent"?

:tinfoilhat:

The ASCE report isn't "worthless". If nothing else, it answers your question about how "confetti" damages concrete. In fact, it explains quite a few things, if one bothers to read it.

Thanks again for the employment suggestions, but I'm actually pretty happy with air traffic control.

[pretzel4gore]

24. check out KAL 007

hahaha...it was entirely a media operation...in 1983, done with russian ss complicity...a fully equiped modern 747 with KAL's best pilots at controls inexplicably flew 300 miles off course over period of hours into the most lethal airspace on earth (KAL 007 was 2nd korean airliner to do so...in carter years another KAL airliner also strayed into soviet airspace, but the missile that hit it never blew, and pilot somehow flew it to murmansk safely)...KAL 007 actually spent an hour flying over kamchatka, and was only a few minutes from returning to inter'nl airpace when a sovirt fighter shot it down. The US media went nuts, reagan admin put nuke forces on red alert and the hullabaloo continued for couple weeks...seymore hersh wrote a hurried book that said the US was 'testing' soviet radar, or some damn thing; the point being that dozens of military ac were buzzing around at same time KAL 007 was in mortal danger...no one told KAL 007 she was way off course....not Alaska AC, Japan AC or the russians themselves....the KAL 007 was only case until 911 that the NTSB did not do an investigation...the outrage effectively silenced opposition to reagan military spending, which took off from that date and has never stopped rising until today USA spends nearly 1/2 entire planet's military budget...in the fall of 2003 the 20th anniversary of the murder of 300 people on KAL 007 passed w/out any reference to it by mediawhores...it simply didn't make sense that it could happen, esp. not after KAL (which is operated by the korean cia) had nearly lost a jetful of dupes before! perhaps the reason no one mentions KAL 007 is that it obviously was involved in some US political scheme, w/out its knowing....like at the pentagon, the crew/passengers almost certainly had been gassed and plane was run by remote control....
if you want a real unbelievable story the public has been earnestly fed, look at building #7 of the wtc!....the guy in charge of wtc even said 'we must do a demolition...'....blah blah blah...
:)

[MercutioATC]

25. And this has WHAT to do with 9/11?

[Abe Linkman]

27. No NTSB investigation of 9/11.

Do you recall what excuse was given for that? Or, given your situation, are you of the opinion that just as the U.S. Solicitor General wouldn't lie, and neither would any politician, therefore it's inappropriate to even conjecture that an "excuse" was given. One wasn't needed! It's the GOVERNMENT. They just want to be helpful...to the elite interests they're hired to serve.

[pretzel4gore]

28. it's the pattern of deception the ruling class piggy uses

to get us to hush....why they don't just distribute placebo's (see maggie simpson) and stop embarassing themselves; this way must be more fun (see rush limbah-humbug) 911 was a planned/staged domestic terror op, kal 007 was planned/staged, as was much of the oj simpson hulabaloo, the reagan 'assasination' boondoggle, the anthrax murders, the rfk murder, wellstone murder, gary webb, james hatfield, abby hoffman, mel carnahan etc.....
you get the pitcher?

[Abe Linkman]

31. Bingo!

Almost all terrorism is state sponsored. Osama didn't gain anything from 9/11 (or any of the other events attributed to him), except a bigger target on his forehead.

[FogerRox]

58. Light poles downed on I-395 ........ how?

By what ? A missle? Not happnin dude. Think an F-16 could take down that many poles and not break up?

Alum. burns @ about 850 degrees-- jet fuel @ about 1000.

Why would there much to see after the fire---DOH.

[Abe Linkman]

59. Brilliant. More, more.

You are one cunning fox. Tell us more. And, why aren't you on the TeeVee helping the naive public better understand the Official Conspiracy Theory? You've got the science down cold, and you know how to ask the tough questions that make even smart people have to THINK twice.

Next time somebody tries to tell me that a missle (sic) downed some light poles, I'm gonna cite what the "FogerRox" has to say about that: "Not happnin (sic) dude".

[MercutioATC]

62. Some believe they were dumped out of a truck. "Planted"...

:tinfoilhat:

[Abe Linkman]

66. "Some believe there's no such thing as an honest disinfo agent"

You know. One whose REAL job is telling the truth in a way that the murican sheeple will buy it.

[MercutioATC]

68. And the light poles, Abe? We know your views on "disinfo agents".

I've offered to take you on a tour of my facility. You don't seem interested.


That aside, wasn't the topic light poles?

[FogerRox]

70. Did Bush let 9-11 happen--yeah sure--but the french guy had his book out

in like 3 months---SOurced and vetted by the Publisher----DOH

Typical CIA shit--dis/misinformation already for consumtion.
TO soon too pretty--seee HOndoras 1967....

Now all of us are tin foil hatters--

HOw about the bumps in the under side of the 757--- in the pics ??????What are those? HUH

[MercutioATC]

71. Was there a response to light poles in there somewhere?

:shrug:

[Abe Linkman]

72. Pentagon photos that raise serious questions about the OCT.

I don't know how to paste photos here, but use the link below, and just go down the left side of the page til you get to "Pentagon". There, you will see some very interesting photographs...including some lamp poles that are still standing, but wouldn't have been if the Official Conspiracy Theory wasn't a fairy tale.

PREDICTION: Although the photo that includes the magic lamp poles is NOT one of the key photos, I predict that the OCT sales reps will focus on IT primarily. What kind of Voodoo will they use to "explain" how a 757 could have crashed at the Pentagon WITHOUT hitting those poles? Truth seekers will be interested in ALL of the photos, and maybe one of the more aggressive OCT supporters will try to explain away them all.
Let's see. This should be fun.


http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte.htm

[MercutioATC]

73. I looked at the pole photo. Had the plane hit at a 90-degree angle,

you'd have a point. Since it hit at a 42-degree angle, however, the poles in the photo wouldn't have been touched. Again SCIENCE (in this case, geometry), not voodoo.

However, the funniest photo caption was this one:

http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/plate39.htm

"circumcised marks"?

Funny stuff...

[Abe Linkman]

74. Oh, NO. M-atc avoided the most damning photos. Imagine THAT!

A.L. Prediction: 100% accurate

OCT supporter rebuttal: Punt.

Next OCT supporter? C'mon, one down & two (or is it "three" to go).

[MercutioATC]

75. YOU referred to the pole picture and asked for an explanation:

"What kind of Voodoo will they use to "explain" how a 757 could have crashed at the Pentagon WITHOUT hitting those poles?"

I answered.

[Abe Linkman]

76. I predicted accurately how you would try to avoid the issues & I was right

You are easy to figure out, M-atc.

Don't worry - the same prediction would have applied no matter which one of you had responded. I confess though, that I thought the distinguished Drexel alumni would have been the first to make everybody in Ms. Smith's fifth grade class snicker.
You just happened to be the first to respond.

[MercutioATC]

80. That's right...I avoided the issue by answering your question.

Ooooh! How sneaky of me!

[Abe Linkman]

83. Sneaky isn't the word that comes to mind whenever you avoid facts.

Intentional efforts to avoid confronting the truth is more like it.

[MercutioATC]

91. Abe, it's a discussion about light poles.

Of COURSE I addressed the light pole question.

If you want different answers, ask different questions.

[Abe Linkman]

97. M-atc, the discussion was about photos which dispute your 9/11 OCT

You don't want to discuss anything that shows how silly the Official 9/11 Fairy Tale is. You know it is too, but you won't come out and say it.

[MercutioATC]

99. Abe, I've discussed a variety of "evidence" you've presented.

A simple search will confirm that.

In this discussion, the topic was light poles. You provided a link to a website and stated:

"There, you will see some very interesting photographs...including some lamp poles that are still standing, but wouldn't have been if the Official Conspiracy Theory wasn't a fairy tale." "What kind of Voodoo will they use to "explain" how a 757 could have crashed at the Pentagon WITHOUT hitting those poles?"

The fact is that those poles were standing is in no was inconsistent with a 757 hitting the Pentagon. AAL77 allegedly hit the Pentagon at a 42-degree angle. Poles along that alleged route of flight were knocked down. The poles in the photo were not along that flight path and would not have been knocked over.


We were discussing light poles. If you want different answers, ask different questions.

[Abe Linkman]

103. You haven't discussed anything that's relevant. By your own admission..

you aren't qualified to talk about anything except ATC matters, and even there you appear to be deceptive and self-serving than anything else.

[MercutioATC]

104. Nothing relevant?

I stated that my expertise was in ATC and related systems. That means that I'm "not qualified to talk about anything" else?

By that standard, you wouldn't be qualified to talk about anything at all, would you?

[Abe Linkman]

107. Nothing relevant to finding out the truth of what really happened on 9/11.

Anyone who isn't interested in the truth is not worthy of being taken seriously. This isn't a place for Spinning Wheel tryouts and its unfortunate that all someone has to do is claim they support Kerry & thereby acquire immunity from scrutiny about their bona fides & purpose.

[MercutioATC]

115. As I recall, Abe, I've managed to answer at least one of your questions.

You were under the impression that ground stops were an unusual thing.

I posted that they were actually pretty common. Depending on the weather and traffic density, we can see six or more a day easily.

That seems to be somewhat substantive as it relates to dispelling a misconception that led some people to believe that a ground stop indicated that something was amiss.

I also started the FAA Database thread which explained how a plane's registration is removed and offered an explanation why two of the 9/11 planes are still showed as active. I did this as a response to another series of posts which claimed that the database entries proved that those planes were still flying.

"Finding the truth" is frequently accomplished by dispelling misconceptions, Abe. That's been the purpose of 90% of my posts. I'd say that was relevant.

[Sweet Pea]

79. WHAT...

"most damning photos"? Point them out specifically, please. I didn't see any "damning" photos in that website - just warped interpretations of many previously-explained photographs.

[Abe Linkman]

84. Falling into line.

Were you ever in the military?

[Abe Linkman]

85. Oh. Please cite a source for you claim.

"warped interpretations of many previously-explained photographs."

[Sweet Pea]

88. From Post 79...

"Point them out specifically, please."

Do you ever, ever, ever, ever, ever answer any direct question put to you? Ever? Can you? Is it possible? Could you please point out which photos you are refering to that are "the most damning photos"?

Please?

[Abe Linkman]

90. May I ask you a couple of questions, "s.pea"?

I don't believe bush's claims that Iraq had WMD. Do YOU?

I don't believe Saddam Hussein worked with Osama bin Laden. Do YOU?

I don't believe Saddam Hussein was a threat to the U.S.. Do YOU?

I don't believe the claim that Oswald acted alone. Do YOU?

I believe Rumsfeld was telling the truth when he said that the Pentagon had been hit by a missile on 9/11. Do YOU?

[Sweet Pea]

110. From Post 88

"Do you ever, ever, ever, ever, ever answer any direct question put to you? Ever? Can you? Is it possible? Could you please point out which photos you are referring to that are "the most damning photos"?"

I've posted I don't know how many posts and I've read I don't know how many posts where you either never answered a direct question or twisted it around to answering a question with a different question that doesn't answer the first.

For you to ask ME questions without answering any of the other's here is the height of hubris.

I understand how missing questions or how they become overcome by subsequent posts happens, but I will not submit to your inability/refusal/trite little ways of avoiding direct queries that are simply designed to find out more about what you believe.

"Could you please point out which photos you are referring to that are "the most damning photos"?"

[Abe Linkman]

111. I know that you're a progressive Democrat.

I am, too. That's why it's curious that you are being so harsh, and won't answer simple yes or no questions. I'm sure you have a good reason.

[Sweet Pea]

113. Sure do.

It is because you never answer anything - prefering to talk in mindless doublespeak rather than a rational discussion based on questions that have been asked of you.

Rather than risk any further antagonizing, I think the best think for me would be to ignore.

And you STILL haven't answered my question about the "most damning photos". I can only assume there aren't any and you are just repeating by rote something someone else said.

All the best, Abe.

[Abe Linkman]

118. Taking your toys & going home? Buh Bye.

n/t

[Sweet Pea]

126. Naw.....

Reconsidered. Realized I didn't want to miss any of your pearls of wisdom.

[Abe Linkman]

86. Pentagon photo shows small fire almost out & no bldg. collapse. See it?

The small fire is almost out and the building hasn't collapsed...so,
tell me Mr. ATC: WHERE is the B757 that you claim crashed there?

[MercutioATC]

94. And your explanation for that IS?

If you're claiming that a missile or explosive charges did the damage to the Pentagon, wouldn't the delay in the collapse make even LESS sense?

[Abe Linkman]

95. Collapse came about as the result of explosion inside the building

NOT from the attack plane or missile - although they may have contributed to some extent.

The major thing about the photo (JUST IN CASE you didn't realize it, wink, wink) is how implausible it is to claim a B757 crashed there just before the photo was taken.

[MercutioATC]

101. When did this explosion occurr?

30 minutes after the crash? I don't recall reports of explosions any time after the initial crash.

I don't understand what you're getting at in your second paragraph. Why do you think it's implausible that the picture was taken immediately after the crash? Why do you assume that the photo was taken IMMEDIATELY after the crash, anyway?

[AZCat]

78. You're not exactly "pasting" images...

For future reference, all you do is get the URL for the image itself and paste it in the post. For example, at the web site you provided a link for the image under the sub-link labeled "Pentagon Satellite Photo" is



All I did was go to the link and right-click on the picture. My browswer (and most browswers) should give you the option to "Copy Image Location" or something like that. Just paste that string into your post like I did above.

Now this doesn't actually "paste" the photo - it still stays on the site where it is - it just downloads the image using the link above. Some sites won't let you siphon pictures like this, because it's stealing their bandwidth. There are image-hosting sites out there that you can use if you have images of your own you would like to display.


Any questions?

[Abe Linkman]

87. Thanks. I tried that last night, but it didn't work.

And, I just tried it again, to no avail. So, I must be doing something wrong. I went to the web site, right-clicked on the image I wanted brother ATC to squirm over, but I couldn't copy it into the message I posted a few minutes ago.

Doesn't really matter, because the OCT supporters have a different mission here than the folks who are wanting to know the truth about 9/11, and THEY will use the link I provided & take a look at the photos on the web site. The sales reps for the OCT are always going to stay "on message" and use whatever tactics they can come up with to try and suppress the truth and divert attention.

[FogerRox]

89. Does anybody know what those bumps on the underside

of the 757 are the ones in the pics from the video?

[AZCat]

98. Weird...

:shrug:

Well, I guess you can get by without it - like you said, you can still post the links to the websites instead.

[MercutioATC]

120. Here's another way to do it, Abe:

right-click on the pic, select "properties", copy the URL and paste it into your post.

That should work.

[Bolo Boffin]

108. Blatently misleading thread title, Abe

In case you're unaware, the format you've used attributes the position after the colon to the entity in front of the colon. In other words, your title is saying that the ASCE report states that the damage to the Pentagon is consistent with a missile and fighter jet hypothesis.

Nothing could be further from the truth, which even a cursory examination of the report makes clear. You don't even believe that, because you immediately scurry back to the position that "it seems to that the ASCE Report is NOT inconsistent" with the missile/fighter jet hypothesis.

So the thread would be more appropriately titled:

Abe Linkman: ASCE Report Consistent with damage from missile & fighter jet.

Further, you make an interesting statement:

In fact, it makes far more sense than trying to reconcile the damage pattern with the Official Story Conspiracy Theory, with the added advantage of not having to explain the total disappearance of a huge 757 engine.

Hmm. How much larger is a fighter jet and missile than a single 757 engine? It seems to me that you have just as much explaining to do as to how a much larger fighter jet "totally disappeared" than anyone else does in explaining what happened to an engine.

The ASCE Report shows clearly how the damage to the Pentagon is consistent only with the crash of a large 757 jetliner. Which is exactly what happened.

[Abe Linkman]

109. You forgot two things, bolo. Here's a hint: Wherdy Go?

They each weigh somewhere between 12,000-20,000 pounds each (be glad for you to look it up & report back the exact weight of one).

Two great big 757 engines, bolo. WHERDY GO?

[Bolo Boffin]

112. Wherdy Fighter Jet Go, Abe?

How much does a fighter jet weigh, Abe?

Wherdy go?

[Abe Linkman]

121. Fighter jet entered right BEHIND the missile.

Remember? One seat was found, parts of one engine were found.

If you want to know how much "a fighter jet" weighs...looky up.

[MercutioATC]

123. How did that fighter jet cause 120' of damage to the facade, Abe?

Hmmmm?

[Bolo Boffin]

125. But I don't see any wreckage consistent with a fighter jet...

...on the PentaLawn!

You're telling me that a missile exploded and the amazing Pentalawn resisted all fire and jet wreckage?

Gwan, pull the other one.