| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| Panoramic View of Crash Site; Excellent Photo Montage..from Old LC | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 16 2008, 06:56 PM (1,810 Views) | |
| Miragememories | Jan 16 2008, 06:56 PM Post #1 |
|
Passing this along. http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2007/1...-composite.html ![]() MM |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jan 17 2008, 05:45 AM Post #2 |
|
Deleted User
|
And I'll pass along what I said at the old forum: This is the graphic I always meant to do. Wow, look at that tiny sixteen foot hole! No way a 757 could fit in there! And then expand: ![]() This is a very useful graphic, but not perfect. Looking at the left side we see the first space is between column lines 8 and 9, the one with the curve. That's an angled photo slapped into a head-on view, so the curve is deformed, looking like it's pushed from the left. In fact it's pushed back and slightly to the right, consistent with the 'official' impact angle and indicating to me left wing edge elevated about 6-7 feet up. (9AA warped by the left wing), but it looks boring and deceptively straight head on, so that's cool he did it this way. To its right is column line 10 - now on line 9 that could actually be column 9A, right behind 9AA, but there are no columns on line 10 EXCEPT at the AA position up front (line 11 has a row of double columns from the facade back. So this could only be column 10AA, which the ASCE lists as gone and which I've never seen in any photos. So where he's getting this I dunno - looks almost like a highlighted section of random debris... Please note: counting from the left and 'column 10AA' to the right, note 11, 12, 13, and 14 are undeniably gone, and then we get to the area of column lines 15, 16, and 17, which 16 at least looks a bit like a column. IMO NONE of these are columns, but horizontal elements that fell at an angle, esp. #16, after losing their supports. My explanation Thanks for tolerating my nerdiness. |
|
|
| Terral | Jan 26 2008, 04:19 PM Post #3 |
|
911Truther
|
Hi PentagonRC: I will try to follow your advice and keep the posts to our good buddy Caustic Logic very small to save your scrolling finger. :0) You wrote,
The what? You are saying that the left wing of a real 100-Ton Jetliner going 533 miles per hour created this hole? :0) The most interesting thing about this fancy picture is ‘lack’ of evidence for any real 100-Ton Jetliner! The distance from the tops of those cable spools to the still-intact second floor is only about seven feet, but a real 100-Ton Jetliner is almost 50 feet tall sitting on the cotton picking tarmac. :0) The ‘second story’ hole is only 18-feet 3-inches between Column Line (CL) 13 and 15 and these 21-inch columns are on 10-feet center-to-center spacing. Do you even realize that this means? :0) Look again at the picture to realize columns #9 and #10 are still standing in the picture with #9 bent out in ‘our direction.’ If the centerline of impact is CL 14, then your port-side damage extends only to CL 10 and that is only about 50 feet. :0) Since the Official Bushie Administration cover story says Flight 77 crashed on a 45-degree angle from our right, then the 125-feet wingspan is raised to about 175 feet, and all the columns should be gone over to about CL 5 or CL 6 where windows are not even broken on the first floor. The Official Cover Story guys (heh) have a very difficult job of selling that story, when they must take these opportunities to talk about ‘hole’ sizes in light of the missing 100-Ton Jetliner. :0) GL, Terral Edited by Terral, Jan 31 2008, 05:45 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jan 27 2008, 03:57 AM Post #4 |
|
Deleted User
|
Huh... yeah, hadn't thought about it like that. Thanks. |
|
|
| Hetware | Jan 30 2008, 04:14 AM Post #5 |
|
The physical damage is fully consistent with the physics of a plane hitting the Pentagon at 540 mph. A solid sphere of aluminum 13 feet in diameter weighs ~ 100 Tons. So the "100 tons" hand-waving argument is invalid. We know that the plane would have deformed and shattered upon impact. All of the momentum of the fuselage would have been focused in a cross-sectional area less than 7 feet in radius. The vast majority of the momentum of the engines would have been concentrated in the shaft which was not very wide. It could easily have flown through a window or a relatively small hole in the wall. |
![]() |
|
| Terral | Jan 31 2008, 06:49 AM Post #6 |
|
911Truther
|
Hi Heatwave with Caustic Logic mentioned:
What physical damage are you ‘talking’ about? :0) Talk, talk, talk is ‘not’ producing one shred of evidence that a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed anywhere. Official Cover Story cronies talk, talk, talk about building damage, because they have NO EVIDENCE of a crashed 100-Ton Jetliner anywhere near the Pentagon. I consider Pentagon RC (Caustic Logic) to be one of the most adamant Official Cover Story guys to ever make a post on this Loose Change Board, and he is definitely a very intelligent and nice fellow, but even he recognizes the absence of real Jetliner debris by his response to my statements above,
The fact is that your own picture shows Column #9 and #10 still standing ‘and’ Column #9 is bent back in ‘our direction’ and NOT pushed inside the building from any ‘exterior’ impact. Careful examination of this simulation graphic says we should be looking at missing columns all the way over to Column Line (CL) #5, but CL #10 remains standing. :0) Perhaps some of you do not realize how damning this is to the Official Cover Story, which does not even address the fact that no windows are broken on the third floor and we only have an 18-feet diameter entry hole on the second floor. The massive cable spools scattered around the scene say NO 100-Ton Jetliner passed ‘over’ them to leave the second story concrete slab intact just seven feet above them. You are missing the two impact holes where the massive six-ton engines should have impacted the E-Ring limestone wall. These are only a few of the reasons that the experts and over 100 military witnesses say No 100-Ton Jetliner Crashed Here. :0) For Heatwave to simply ‘claim’ that a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed into the Pentagon going 540 miles per hour, directly opposing the testimony of all these experts and the evidence, is simply talk, talk, talk based upon nothing at all.
We what? :0) First of all, we are not talking about just a ‘plane,’ but a real 100-Ton Jetliner and Heatwave cannot even point out the location of where the massive 6-ton engines hit the Pentagon facade. That’s right. Anyone clicking on that picture sees a single entry hole and no sign of where the ‘two’ massive Rolls-Royce Engines crashed ANYWHERE. Perhaps Heatwave’s imaginary plane is made out of paper. :0) If Flight 93 shattered on impact, then where are all the pieces; not to mention the massive indestructible engines? Guess what? Senor Bushie is missing another crashed 100-Ton Jetliner. :0)
Less than a 7-feet radius? :0) Lord-Have-Mercy . . . Now a 125-feet wide and 155-feet long 100-Ton Jetliner makes only a 7-feet diameter entry hole! No sir. We have evidence of what a real Jetliner can do to a building right here and here! Look carefully at the images to realize even the wingtip impressions are very distinct all the way out to the very end on either side, because a Jetliner going these speeds has NO TIME to fold up into a little seven-feet (heh) ball. Does the North Tower show a tiny little hole like the Pentagon? No! Heatwaves “7 feet in radius” statement is based upon talk, talk, talk with no substance in reality whatsoever.
These engines are enormous and weigh about 6-tons each, which does not even take the massive 60 tons of high grade aluminum alloy frame into account.
A real 100-Ton Jetliner could do what? :0) Please forgive, partner, but the claims coming out of Heatwave have no evidentiary support in reality whatsoever. Please try to support your statements with EVIDENCE and you will not be so likely to be making these wild claims in the future . . . GL, Terral |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic » |








7:21 PM Jul 10