Discussion:
"Leaked" Video irrelevant. A Boeing 757 Hit The Pentagon. There is NO question about it.
(too old to reply)
Black People Don't Care About George Bush
2005-09-13 00:11:31 UTC
Permalink
"James Of Tucson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

>
>>A cruise missile hit the pentagon.
>
> Forget about planes. You said yourself you don't have any evidence of
> a plane.

757.


> So you can't show evidence of a plane.


Except for part of a single engine, which doesn't appear to be from a
757.


> That's fine. But you
> can't use your *lack* of evidence of a plane as constructive evidence
> of anything else.


When you eliminate the impossible...


> No, you need to show evidence of a cruise missile.

A cruise missile is most unlikely.


> Lack of a plane, doesn't make your case for a cruise missile. You're
> not done until you come up with evidence. Like pieces of a cruise
> missle. Or a missing cruise missle. Or maybe we'd settle for open
> testimony from the commander who gave an order to fire a cruise missile
> at the Pentagon.

The unofficially released stills seem to support a missile fired from
close range by an F-16 type plane.


> Yeah, that's hard. But that is the task you have in front of you, if
> you want people to believe your theory.

Who gives a shit what people believe?

> I don't care if government coverups make your job difficult. That's
> not my problem. Bring evidence. Quit trying to put forth the lack of
> evidence of a plane as proof of something else. It's not working, and
> it's not going to ever work.

All that needs to be established is that no 757 hit the Pentagon.
http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce




Problems With the ASCE Report On The Pentagon Cast Further Doubt on 757
Story

By Jason Christie
8/8/2004


Three years after 9/11, there is still little to no evidence indicating a
757 struck the Pentagon. Indeed, there seems to have been no "official"
investigation into this topic at all. Many who claim a 757 hit the
Pentagon cite an American Society of Civil Engineers building study as
proof. I contend that the ASCE report, despite its assumptions regarding
the day in question, actually supports the belief that no 757 hit the
Pentagon.


The report, some sixty pages long, was released in January of 2003. Its
stated purpose was not to investigate the events that caused damage to
the Pentagon, but to examine the performance of the building after the
incident in question. It makes certain base assumptions regarding the
assumed presence of a 757, and works forward from there.


While there are an impressive number of PhDs behind the building
performance report, some of the logic is rather spotty, and the report
seems to include at least one falsehood. Other areas of the report openly
contradict the claims many have made in support of the 757 theory.


The most serious error in the ASCE report can be found in section 3,
"Review of Crash Information". Figure 3.3, a still frame from the
unofficial, yet released Pentagon security camera footage, incorrectly
labels the white smoke trail in the still "Approaching Aircraft". If the
many building performance experts on the panel who assembled the report
cannot tell the difference between a white, bumpy smoke trail and a 757,
their credibility is questionable, at best.


Smoke trail mislabled as 757.

Figure 3.4 clearly shows an extension of the same smoke trail reaching
all the way to the Pentagon, which would make this "757" hundreds of feet
longer than a real 757. That is, of course, ignoring the fact that this
supposed 757 lacks any wings, a tail, or any marking that would indicate
it is an airliner.


Smoke trail remains in place. Clearly, that was not a 757.


In fact, the ASCE report is the only place I have seen this bumpy,
irregular smoke trail referred to as a 757. I believe this piece of
disinformation is deliberate. If it is unintentional, then the ASCE
should correct this report in order to save their credibility. There is
nothing in the still frames that remotely resembles a 757, so it is
difficult to believe a team of engineers could make a mistake of this
magnitude.


The ASCE report also aids supporters of the 757 theory by misrepresenting
the width of the initial impact damage. While the photograph in figure
3.8 indicates that only two windows, and a single column are missing from
the second floor, the drawing placed beside it (figure 3.10) shows a
total of four missing windows. This illustration does not correspond to
any known photograph. Its inclusion is yet another reason to doubt the
veracity of the report.


Note the fencing in place, where the left wing clearly would have struck,
had a 757 hit the Pentagon.


The ambiguous presence of the two windows on the second floor are
revealed only under magnification. No columns are shown on the bottom
floor.


This is crucial, as the small size of the initial entry point, along with
the stunning lack of debris, is the main reason so many doubt the claim
that a 757 struck the Pentagon to begin with.


Careful reading of the report shows that only a single column and two
windows from the second floor were removed. This makes the width of the
damage at the top of the entry point somewhere between sixteen and twenty
feet. Of course, part of the top of the column is still evident in
photographs, which calls into question the possibility that a massive 757
inflicted the damage, yet left this piece of the building in position.

Note the lack of tail damage.
Two windows wide, with the top part of the column hanging down. Total
lack of tail damage above presumed impact area.


The damage to the first floor columns, based on photographic evidence and
the ASCE report text, shows only 5 columns were removed at that point.
However, figure 3.10, again, seems to show a much larger area of damage.
This confusion aids many 757 theorists by enabling them to claim,
falsely, that the entry hole into the Pentagon was one hundred to one
hundred and twenty feet wide. This figure, as revealed in the ASCE text
(section 6.1), actually refers to damage to the Pentagon’s façade, and
not the actual entry hole.


Deceptively, both missing and damaged columns are assigned the same
color. In the front wall, only columns 10-14 were removed, in fact.

Finally, the diagrams 6.2 and 6.3 show another fallacy of the 757 story,
and illustrate a dramatic lack of critical thinking on the part of the
report’s authors. The supposed exit point of the alleged 757 is commonly
referred to as the "AE punch-out". It was a circular hole approximately
eight feet wide in the rear wall of the Pentagon, where the remains of
the aircraft are claimed to have exited.


An amazing number of columns in front of the AE punch-out "exit hole".
Did a giant pachinko ball strike the Pentagon?


However, as diagrams 6.2 and 6.3 clearly illustrate, at least four
columns remained in place in front of the claimed exit hole. It is
difficult to imagine something with the size and mass required to create
this exit point weaving around the columns like a giant pachinko ball in
order to reach the rear wall and create this circular-shaped hole. This
facet of the damage in not questioned in the ASCE report.


Whatever made this hole couldn't have been a 757, or even a missile, due
to the columns in front of it. Probably man-made.

Furthermore, the supposed 757 engines remain unaccounted for in the
ASCE’s study. With these obvious holes in the 757 theory, and the lack of
debris, supporters of the 757 story are reduced to reliance on eyewitness
testimony. This testimony, hearsay evidence, would not even be allowed in
court unless presented by the eyewitness themselves, and certainly cannot
account for the lack of 757 debris or explain the other serious flaws in
the 757 theory.


There is an ambiguity to the World Trade Center case that allows for
endless debate on the issues involved. There is considerably less "wiggle
room" when it comes to the Pentagon, and that is probably why FEMA
neglected to study the Pentagon at all. A formal report on the cause of
the damage itself would have renewed debate, and put FEMA on the
defensive.


Unless definitive evidence indicating a 757 is uncovered, the most
logical conclusion that can be reached when studying all of the available
evidence is that no 757 hit the Pentagon, and a subsequent cover-up was
attempted. And of course, if no 757 struck the Pentagon, then all of the
events surrounding 9/11 must be questioned. I invite all interested
parties to read the ASCE report for themselves and consider the many
flaws in this building performance report.

ASCE Report Online in PDF Format:
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf
tw
2005-09-13 07:31:22 UTC
Permalink
"Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com>
wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
> "James Of Tucson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>
> >
> >>A cruise missile hit the pentagon.
> >
> > Forget about planes. You said yourself you don't have any evidence of
> > a plane.
>
> 757.
>
>
> > So you can't show evidence of a plane.
>
>
> Except for part of a single engine, which doesn't appear to be from a
> 757.

Says who?

<snip>

> The unofficially released stills seem to support a missile fired from
> close range by an F-16 type plane.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! How'd you work that out, ace?


>
> All that needs to be established is that no 757 hit the Pentagon.
> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce

Which you utterly fail to do, again..
Seethis Pass
2005-09-13 08:27:56 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 09:31:22 +0200, "tw" <***@no.com> wrote:

>
>"Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com>
>wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> "James Of Tucson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >
>> >>A cruise missile hit the pentagon.
>> >
>> > Forget about planes. You said yourself you don't have any evidence of
>> > a plane.
>>
>> 757.
>>
>>
>> > So you can't show evidence of a plane.
>>
>>
>> Except for part of a single engine, which doesn't appear to be from a
>> 757.
>
>Says who?
>
><snip>
>
>> The unofficially released stills seem to support a missile fired from
>> close range by an F-16 type plane.
>
>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! How'd you work that out, ace?
>
>
>>
>> All that needs to be established is that no 757 hit the Pentagon.
>> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>
>Which you utterly fail to do, again..
>
>
>
The official release of five frames of video are obviously false.
Find them.I will have nothing to do with where you get them.

Look at the shadow in the foreground.

It has a black outline around it.

Therefore the ONLY official versionwhich is found in these five
frames is false. since there is an outline around a shadow the frames
have been doctored.

ONLY the criminal needs to falsify and confiscate and hide evidence.
Period.
The government did that.
Therefore they are the guilty party.
m***@yahoo.com.ar
2005-09-13 08:50:50 UTC
Permalink
>The official release of five frames of video are obviously false.
>Find them.I will have nothing to do with where you get them.

>Look at the shadow in the foreground.

>It has a black outline around it.

>Therefore the ONLY official versionwhich is found in these five
>frames is false. since there is an outline around a shadow the frames
>have been doctored.

>ONLY the criminal needs to falsify and confiscate and hide evidence. Period.
>The government did that.
>Therefore they are the guilty party.

Precisely
tw
2005-09-13 13:58:58 UTC
Permalink
"Seethis Pass" <***@maxivision.net> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 09:31:22 +0200, "tw" <***@no.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com>
> >wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> "James Of Tucson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>A cruise missile hit the pentagon.
> >> >
> >> > Forget about planes. You said yourself you don't have any evidence
of
> >> > a plane.
> >>
> >> 757.
> >>
> >>
> >> > So you can't show evidence of a plane.
> >>
> >>
> >> Except for part of a single engine, which doesn't appear to be from a
> >> 757.
> >
> >Says who?
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> The unofficially released stills seem to support a missile fired from
> >> close range by an F-16 type plane.
> >
> >BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! How'd you work that out, ace?
> >
> >
> >>
> >> All that needs to be established is that no 757 hit the Pentagon.
> >> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
> >
> >Which you utterly fail to do, again..
> >
> >
> >
> The official release of five frames of video are obviously false.

..and your credentials in image processing are?

> Find them.I will have nothing to do with where you get them.
>
> Look at the shadow in the foreground.
>
> It has a black outline around it.
>
> Therefore the ONLY official versionwhich is found in these five
> frames is false. since there is an outline around a shadow the frames
> have been doctored.

..or it could be a camera artefact.

>
> ONLY the criminal needs to falsify and confiscate and hide evidence.

Just as well noones arguing tah tthe video is evidence. There is plenty of
far more compelling evidence taht a 757 hit the pentagon than this video the
konspiro-bitches are whining about.


> Period.
> The government did that.
> Therefore they are the guilty party.
>
Pooh Bear
2005-09-13 14:48:02 UTC
Permalink
tw wrote:

> Just as well noones arguing tah tthe video is evidence. There is plenty of
> far more compelling evidence taht a 757 hit the pentagon than this video the
> konspiro-bitches are whining about.

Then there's the small matter that the video actually clearly shows a 757. It's
blurry admittedly but it's there.

Of course it *has* to be there actually. Kinda QED really.

Graham
Bertie the Bunyip
2005-09-13 22:42:01 UTC
Permalink
Pooh Bear <***@hotmail.com>
sednews:***@hotmail.com:

>
> tw wrote:
>
>> Just as well noones arguing tah tthe video is evidence. There is
>> plenty of far more compelling evidence taht a 757 hit the pentagon
>> than this video the konspiro-bitches are whining about.
>
> Then there's the small matter that the video actually clearly shows a
> 757. It's blurry admittedly but it's there.
>
> Of course it *has* to be there actually. Kinda QED really.
>

Netkkkoping twat.



Bertie
Black People Don't Care About George Bush
2005-09-13 23:04:52 UTC
Permalink
Pooh Bear <***@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:***@hotmail.com:

>
> tw wrote:
>
>> Just as well noones arguing tah tthe video is evidence. There is
>> plenty of far more compelling evidence taht a 757 hit the pentagon
>> than this video the konspiro-bitches are whining about.
>
> Then there's the small matter that the video actually clearly shows a
> 757. It's blurry admittedly but it's there.


Heh. You're a liar, or a kook.

Which is it?



Or can you show us a 757?


; )


> Of course it *has* to be there actually. Kinda QED really.

Of course. The government said so.
Pooh Bear
2005-09-13 23:30:30 UTC
Permalink
Black People Don't Care About George Bush wrote:

> Pooh Bear <***@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:***@hotmail.com:
>
> >
> > tw wrote:
> >
> >> Just as well noones arguing tah tthe video is evidence. There is
> >> plenty of far more compelling evidence taht a 757 hit the pentagon
> >> than this video the konspiro-bitches are whining about.
> >
> > Then there's the small matter that the video actually clearly shows a
> > 757. It's blurry admittedly but it's there.
>
> Heh. You're a liar, or a kook.
>
> Which is it?

Actually, I'm simply someone who bothered looking without having some dumb
'agenda' distorting my vision.


> Or can you show us a 757?
>
> ; )
>

There's a white object that you nuts called the missile exhaust. It's
actually a 757 gleaming in the sun. If you look really closely you can even
make out the engine pods. If you do the sums and scale it from dimensions
in the picture ( involves some algebra ) you can even see it's the right
diameter. 14 ft IIRC.

> > Of course it *has* to be there actually. Kinda QED really.
>
> Of course. The government said so.

I wouldn't expect you believe anything so inconvenient as the truth - no.

Graham
Don Freeman
2005-09-13 23:47:15 UTC
Permalink
"Pooh Bear" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@hotmail.com...
>
> Black People Don't Care About George Bush wrote:
>
>> Pooh Bear <***@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:***@hotmail.com:
>>
>> >
>> > tw wrote:
>> >
>> >> Just as well noones arguing tah tthe video is evidence. There is
>> >> plenty of far more compelling evidence taht a 757 hit the pentagon
>> >> than this video the konspiro-bitches are whining about.
>> >
>> > Then there's the small matter that the video actually clearly shows a
>> > 757. It's blurry admittedly but it's there.
>>
>> Heh. You're a liar, or a kook.
>>
>> Which is it?
>
> Actually, I'm simply someone who bothered looking without having some dumb
> 'agenda' distorting my vision.
>
Now don't you go confusing him with actual research.
Black People Don't Care About George Bush
2005-09-14 00:52:48 UTC
Permalink
"Don Freeman" <***@sonic.net> wrote in
news:7yJVe.13524$p%***@typhoon.sonic.net:

>
> "Pooh Bear" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:***@hotmail.com...
>>
>> Black People Don't Care About George Bush wrote:
>>
>>> Pooh Bear <***@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:***@hotmail.com:
>>>
>>> >
>>> > tw wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Just as well noones arguing tah tthe video is evidence. There is
>>> >> plenty of far more compelling evidence taht a 757 hit the
>>> >> pentagon than this video the konspiro-bitches are whining about.
>>> >
>>> > Then there's the small matter that the video actually clearly
>>> > shows a 757. It's blurry admittedly but it's there.
>>>
>>> Heh. You're a liar, or a kook.
>>>
>>> Which is it?
>>
>> Actually, I'm simply someone who bothered looking without having some
>> dumb 'agenda' distorting my vision.
>>
> Now don't you go confusing him with actual research.
>
>
>

Claiming a cloud is a 757 is not research.
Black People Don't Care About George Bush
2005-09-14 00:52:26 UTC
Permalink
Pooh Bear <***@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:***@hotmail.com:

>
> Black People Don't Care About George Bush wrote:
>
>> Pooh Bear <***@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:***@hotmail.com:
>>
>> >
>> > tw wrote:
>> >
>> >> Just as well noones arguing tah tthe video is evidence. There is
>> >> plenty of far more compelling evidence taht a 757 hit the pentagon
>> >> than this video the konspiro-bitches are whining about.
>> >
>> > Then there's the small matter that the video actually clearly shows
>> > a 757. It's blurry admittedly but it's there.
>>
>> Heh. You're a liar, or a kook.
>>
>> Which is it?
>
> Actually, I'm simply someone who bothered looking without having some
> dumb 'agenda' distorting my vision.


Heh.



>> Or can you show us a 757?
>>
>> ; )
>>
>
> There's a white object that you nuts called the missile exhaust.

The bumpy, irregularly shaped cloud?


> It's
> actually a 757 gleaming in the sun. If you look really closely you can
> even make out the engine pods. If you do the sums and scale it from
> dimensions in the picture ( involves some algebra ) you can even see
> it's the right diameter. 14 ft IIRC.


Please have your eyes checked.


Cloud, Not A 757
http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce




>> > Of course it *has* to be there actually. Kinda QED really.
>>
>> Of course. The government said so.
>
> I wouldn't expect you believe anything so inconvenient as the truth -
> no.


Is everything the government claims "the truth"?
Don Freeman
2005-09-14 15:24:00 UTC
Permalink
"Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com>
wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...

<nothing of any substance>

I think it just flew up your ass.
Black People Don't Care About George Bush
2005-09-14 23:03:20 UTC
Permalink
"Don Freeman" <***@sonic.net> wrote in news:kgXVe.13581$p%3.58135
@typhoon.sonic.net:

>
> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com>
> wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
>
> <nothing of any substance>
>
> I think it just flew up your ass.


Gee, Don, your little story seems to have crumbled.

No one sees a 757 but you. Have your beady eyes checked.
Don Freeman
2005-09-14 23:14:01 UTC
Permalink
"Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com>
wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
> "Don Freeman" <***@sonic.net> wrote in news:kgXVe.13581$p%3.58135
> @typhoon.sonic.net:
>
>>
>> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com>
>> wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
>>
>> <nothing of any substance>
>>
>> I think it just flew up your ass.
>
> No one sees a 757 but you. Have your beady eyes checked.
.
Hell it was in all the news: "757 Flew Up Jason's Ass, Film at 11"..
Black People Don't Care About George Bush
2005-09-15 00:15:09 UTC
Permalink
"Don Freeman" <***@sonic.net> wrote in news:Z82We.13673$p%3.58492
@typhoon.sonic.net:

>
> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com>
> wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> "Don Freeman" <***@sonic.net> wrote in news:kgXVe.13581$p%3.58135
>> @typhoon.sonic.net:
>>
>>>
>>> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
>>>
>>> <nothing of any substance>
>>>
>>> I think it just flew up your ass.
>>
>> No one sees a 757 but you. Have your beady eyes checked.
> .
> Hell it was in all the news: "757 Flew Up Jason's Ass, Film at 11"...

Ok, you have nothing to contribute.

We get it.
tw
2005-09-16 11:33:51 UTC
Permalink
"Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com>
wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
> "Don Freeman" <***@sonic.net> wrote in news:Z82We.13673$p%3.58492
> @typhoon.sonic.net:
>
> >
> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com>
> > wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> "Don Freeman" <***@sonic.net> wrote in news:kgXVe.13581$p%3.58135
> >> @typhoon.sonic.net:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
<***@yahoo.com>
> >>> wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >>>
> >>> <nothing of any substance>
> >>>
> >>> I think it just flew up your ass.
> >>
> >> No one sees a 757 but you. Have your beady eyes checked.
> > .
> > Hell it was in all the news: "757 Flew Up Jason's Ass, Film at 11"...
>
> Ok, you have nothing to contribute.


There's significantly more evidence that the 757 flew up your arse than
there is for it not crashing into the Pentagon. You worthless, tedious
talentless pig-fucking imbecile.

>
> We get it.
>
>
Black People Don't Care About George Bush
2005-09-16 12:51:18 UTC
Permalink
"tw" <***@no.com> wrote in news:dgeaiv$tpk$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:

>
> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> "Don Freeman" <***@sonic.net> wrote in
>> news:Z82We.13673$p%3.58492 @typhoon.sonic.net:
>>
>> >
>> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> "Don Freeman" <***@sonic.net> wrote in
>> >> news:kgXVe.13581$p%3.58135 @typhoon.sonic.net:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> <***@yahoo.com>
>> >>> wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> >>>
>> >>> <nothing of any substance>
>> >>>
>> >>> I think it just flew up your ass.
>> >>
>> >> No one sees a 757 but you. Have your beady eyes checked.
>> > .
>> > Hell it was in all the news: "757 Flew Up Jason's Ass, Film at
>> > 11"...
>>
>> Ok, you have nothing to contribute.
>
>
> There's significantly more evidence that the 757 flew up your arse
> than there is for it not crashing into the Pentagon. You worthless,
> tedious talentless pig-fucking imbecile.


Is that why you're so upset, shilly?




No 757 Hit The Pentagon
http://www.bedoper.com
tw
2005-09-16 13:19:12 UTC
Permalink
"Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com>
wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in news:dgeaiv$tpk$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>
> >
> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> "Don Freeman" <***@sonic.net> wrote in
> >> news:Z82We.13673$p%3.58492 @typhoon.sonic.net:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >> "Don Freeman" <***@sonic.net> wrote in
> >> >> news:kgXVe.13581$p%3.58135 @typhoon.sonic.net:
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> > <***@yahoo.com>
> >> >>> wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >>>
> >> >>> <nothing of any substance>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I think it just flew up your ass.
> >> >>
> >> >> No one sees a 757 but you. Have your beady eyes checked.
> >> > .
> >> > Hell it was in all the news: "757 Flew Up Jason's Ass, Film at
> >> > 11"...
> >>
> >> Ok, you have nothing to contribute.
> >
> >
> > There's significantly more evidence that the 757 flew up your arse
> > than there is for it not crashing into the Pentagon. You worthless,
> > tedious talentless pig-fucking imbecile.
>
>
> Is that why you're so upset, shilly?

Am I upset that you fuck pigs? Well, maybe for the pig's sake.

>
>
>
>
> No 757 Hit The Pentagon
> http://www.bedoper.com
Black People Don't Care About George Bush
2005-09-16 13:36:42 UTC
Permalink
"tw" <***@no.com> wrote in news:dgegoh$1g2$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:

>
> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com>
> wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in news:dgeaiv$tpk$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>>
>> >
>> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> "Don Freeman" <***@sonic.net> wrote in
>> >> news:Z82We.13673$p%3.58492 @typhoon.sonic.net:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> >> "Don Freeman" <***@sonic.net> wrote in
>> >> >> news:kgXVe.13581$p%3.58135 @typhoon.sonic.net:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> > <***@yahoo.com>
>> >> >>> wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> <nothing of any substance>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I think it just flew up your ass.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No one sees a 757 but you. Have your beady eyes checked.
>> >> > .
>> >> > Hell it was in all the news: "757 Flew Up Jason's Ass, Film at
>> >> > 11"...
>> >>
>> >> Ok, you have nothing to contribute.
>> >
>> >
>> > There's significantly more evidence that the 757 flew up your arse
>> > than there is for it not crashing into the Pentagon. You worthless,
>> > tedious talentless pig-fucking imbecile.
>>
>>
>> Is that why you're so upset, shilly?
>
> Am I upset that you fuck pigs? Well, maybe for the pig's sake.


Pooh Bear says you must have no case, since you're cursing.
tw
2005-09-16 13:41:37 UTC
Permalink
"Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com>
wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in news:dgegoh$1g2$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>
> >
> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com>
> > wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in news:dgeaiv$tpk$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >> "Don Freeman" <***@sonic.net> wrote in
> >> >> news:Z82We.13673$p%3.58492 @typhoon.sonic.net:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> >> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >> >> "Don Freeman" <***@sonic.net> wrote in
> >> >> >> news:kgXVe.13581$p%3.58135 @typhoon.sonic.net:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> >> > <***@yahoo.com>
> >> >> >>> wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> <nothing of any substance>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> I think it just flew up your ass.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No one sees a 757 but you. Have your beady eyes checked.
> >> >> > .
> >> >> > Hell it was in all the news: "757 Flew Up Jason's Ass, Film at
> >> >> > 11"...
> >> >>
> >> >> Ok, you have nothing to contribute.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > There's significantly more evidence that the 757 flew up your arse
> >> > than there is for it not crashing into the Pentagon. You worthless,
> >> > tedious talentless pig-fucking imbecile.
> >>
> >>
> >> Is that why you're so upset, shilly?
> >
> > Am I upset that you fuck pigs? Well, maybe for the pig's sake.
>
>
> Pooh Bear says you must have no case, since you're cursing.
>

Well he can fuck off then.
Black People Don't Care About George Bush
2005-09-16 14:00:57 UTC
Permalink
"tw" <***@no.com> wrote in news:dgei2h$28n$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:

>
> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in news:dgegoh$1g2$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>>
>> >
>> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in
>> >> news:dgeaiv$tpk$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> >> "Don Freeman" <***@sonic.net> wrote in
>> >> >> news:Z82We.13673$p%3.58492 @typhoon.sonic.net:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> >> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> >> >> "Don Freeman" <***@sonic.net> wrote in
>> >> >> >> news:kgXVe.13581$p%3.58135 @typhoon.sonic.net:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> >> > <***@yahoo.com>
>> >> >> >>> wrote in message
>> >> >> >>> news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> <nothing of any substance>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> I think it just flew up your ass.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> No one sees a 757 but you. Have your beady eyes checked.
>> >> >> > .
>> >> >> > Hell it was in all the news: "757 Flew Up Jason's Ass, Film
>> >> >> > at 11"...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Ok, you have nothing to contribute.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > There's significantly more evidence that the 757 flew up your
>> >> > arse than there is for it not crashing into the Pentagon. You
>> >> > worthless, tedious talentless pig-fucking imbecile.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Is that why you're so upset, shilly?
>> >
>> > Am I upset that you fuck pigs? Well, maybe for the pig's sake.
>>
>>
>> Pooh Bear says you must have no case, since you're cursing.
>>
>
> Well he can fuck off then.


Okey-doke.
Pooh Bear
2005-09-15 02:53:29 UTC
Permalink
Black People Don't Care About George Bush wrote:

> No one sees a 757 but you.

Actually it seems to be more the case that loads of ppl saw a 757 but you
don't want to believe them

> Have your beady eyes checked.

I'd suggest the same for you except for the fact that you still wouldn't
recognise the simple truth even if it stood up and punched you on the nose.

Graham
Black People Don't Care About George Bush
2005-09-15 03:51:31 UTC
Permalink
Pooh Bear <***@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:***@hotmail.com:

>
> Black People Don't Care About George Bush wrote:
>
>> No one sees a 757 but you.
>
> Actually it seems to be more the case that loads of ppl saw a 757 but
> you don't want to believe them


Sure, Department of Defense people, USA Today editors, military magazine
publishers.

People who would tell you the shit in their mouths tastes great, if given
the order to do so.




You'll note, at http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce

You can see the next frame in the series. The "plane" is still present,
after the explosion.

Because it's a smoke trail, and not a plane. No wonder you want to shift
the focus so badly.


>> Have your beady eyes checked.
>
> I'd suggest the same for you except for the fact that you still
> wouldn't recognise the simple truth even if it stood up and punched
> you on the nose.


You and what army, shitdick?
Don Freeman
2005-09-15 15:23:13 UTC
Permalink
"Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com>
wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
>
> You and what army, shitdick?

Nothing more pathetic then some pimply face, neurotic, nancy-boy trying to
prove he's a manly-man on Usenet.
Black People Don't Care About George Bush
2005-09-15 21:23:47 UTC
Permalink
"Don Freeman" <***@sonic.net> wrote in
news:BlgWe.13755$p%***@typhoon.sonic.net:

>
> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:***@207.14.113.17...
>>
>> You and what army, shitdick?
>
> Nothing more pathetic then some pimply face, neurotic, nancy-boy
> trying to prove he's a manly-man on Usenet.

I agree. Tell me again about me getting punched in the face, snippy.
Don Freeman
2005-09-13 23:45:49 UTC
Permalink
"Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com>
wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
> Pooh Bear <***@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:***@hotmail.com:
>
>>
>> tw wrote:
>>
>>> Just as well noones arguing tah tthe video is evidence. There is
>>> plenty of far more compelling evidence taht a 757 hit the pentagon
>>> than this video the konspiro-bitches are whining about.
>>
>> Then there's the small matter that the video actually clearly shows a
>> 757. It's blurry admittedly but it's there.
>
>
> Heh. You're a liar, or a kook.
>
Oh, the irony...
Black People Don't Care About George Bush
2005-09-14 00:50:22 UTC
Permalink
"Don Freeman" <***@sonic.net> wrote in news:NwJVe.13523$p%3.57441
@typhoon.sonic.net:

>
> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com>
> wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> Pooh Bear <***@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:***@hotmail.com:
>>
>>>
>>> tw wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just as well noones arguing tah tthe video is evidence. There is
>>>> plenty of far more compelling evidence taht a 757 hit the pentagon
>>>> than this video the konspiro-bitches are whining about.
>>>
>>> Then there's the small matter that the video actually clearly shows a
>>> 757. It's blurry admittedly but it's there.
>>
>>
>> Heh. You're a liar, or a kook.
>>
> Oh, the irony...
>
>
>

Do you see a 757, Don?


Yes or no.
h***@aol.com
2005-09-14 20:08:50 UTC
Permalink
The video shows nothing but outward directed explosion from the wall.
Theres no plane in that picture.
unknown
2005-09-16 11:17:26 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 20:08:50 GMT, <***@aol.com> wrote:

>The video shows nothing but outward directed explosion from the wall.
>Theres no plane in that picture.

Rumsfeld referred to it as a missile.
Black People Don't Care About George Bush
2005-09-13 22:53:00 UTC
Permalink
"tw" <***@no.com> wrote in news:dg6lv3$gpl$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:

>
> "Seethis Pass" <***@maxivision.net> wrote in message
> news:***@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 09:31:22 +0200, "tw" <***@no.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> ><***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> "James Of Tucson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >> news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >>A cruise missile hit the pentagon.
>> >> >
>> >> > Forget about planes. You said yourself you don't have any
>> >> > evidence
> of
>> >> > a plane.
>> >>
>> >> 757.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > So you can't show evidence of a plane.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Except for part of a single engine, which doesn't appear to be
>> >> from a 757.
>> >
>> >Says who?
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >> The unofficially released stills seem to support a missile fired
>> >> from close range by an F-16 type plane.
>> >
>> >BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! How'd you work that out, ace?
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> All that needs to be established is that no 757 hit the Pentagon.
>> >> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>> >
>> >Which you utterly fail to do, again..
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> The official release of five frames of video are obviously false.
>
> ..and your credentials in image processing are?


Certified Photoshop Expert. And you?


>> Find them.I will have nothing to do with where you get them.
>>
>> Look at the shadow in the foreground.
>>
>> It has a black outline around it.
>>
>> Therefore the ONLY official versionwhich is found in these five
>> frames is false. since there is an outline around a shadow the frames
>> have been doctored.
>
> ..or it could be a camera artefact.


"Artifact". No, an outlined shape is never a camera artifact.

>
>>
>> ONLY the criminal needs to falsify and confiscate and hide evidence.
>
> Just as well noones arguing tah tthe video is evidence. There is
> plenty of far more compelling evidence taht a 757 hit the pentagon
> than this video the konspiro-bitches are whining about.

Thankfully, you represent the government's side.
tw
2005-09-14 07:57:32 UTC
Permalink
"Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com>
wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in news:dg6lv3$gpl$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>
> >
> > "Seethis Pass" <***@maxivision.net> wrote in message
> > news:***@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 09:31:22 +0200, "tw" <***@no.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> >> ><***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >> "James Of Tucson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> >> news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>A cruise missile hit the pentagon.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Forget about planes. You said yourself you don't have any
> >> >> > evidence
> > of
> >> >> > a plane.
> >> >>
> >> >> 757.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > So you can't show evidence of a plane.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Except for part of a single engine, which doesn't appear to be
> >> >> from a 757.
> >> >
> >> >Says who?
> >> >
> >> ><snip>
> >> >
> >> >> The unofficially released stills seem to support a missile fired
> >> >> from close range by an F-16 type plane.
> >> >
> >> >BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! How'd you work that out, ace?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> All that needs to be established is that no 757 hit the Pentagon.
> >> >> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
> >> >
> >> >Which you utterly fail to do, again..
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> The official release of five frames of video are obviously false.
> >
> > ..and your credentials in image processing are?
>
>
> Certified Photoshop Expert.


By whom? The mental health authroities, no doubt.

>And you?

I have never been certified by the mental health authorities.

>
>
> >> Find them.I will have nothing to do with where you get them.
> >>
> >> Look at the shadow in the foreground.
> >>
> >> It has a black outline around it.
> >>
> >> Therefore the ONLY official versionwhich is found in these five
> >> frames is false. since there is an outline around a shadow the frames
> >> have been doctored.
> >
> > ..or it could be a camera artefact.
>
>
> "Artifact".

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=artefact&db=*

>No, an outlined shape is never a camera artifact.

Prove it.



> >> ONLY the criminal needs to falsify and confiscate and hide evidence.
> >
> > Just as well noones arguing tah tthe video is evidence. There is
> > plenty of far more compelling evidence taht a 757 hit the pentagon
> > than this video the konspiro-bitches are whining about.
>
> Thankfully, you represent the government's side.

Nope, I represent the non-kooky, honest side.

>
Black People Don't Care About George Bush
2005-09-13 22:48:57 UTC
Permalink
"tw" <***@no.com> wrote in news:dg5v8b$2j2$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:

>
> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com>
> wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> "James Of Tucson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >
>> >>A cruise missile hit the pentagon.
>> >
>> > Forget about planes. You said yourself you don't have any evidence of
>> > a plane.
>>
>> 757.
>>
>>
>> > So you can't show evidence of a plane.
>>
>>
>> Except for part of a single engine, which doesn't appear to be from a
>> 757.
>
> Says who?


Says lots of people. Check out the research available online.



>> The unofficially released stills seem to support a missile fired from
>> close range by an F-16 type plane.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! How'd you work that out, ace?


How did what work out for me?


>> All that needs to be established is that no 757 hit the Pentagon.
>> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>
> Which you utterly fail to do, again..


Then you can debunk the article in question?
tw
2005-09-14 07:59:56 UTC
Permalink
"Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com>
wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in news:dg5v8b$2j2$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>
> >
> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com>
> > wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> "James Of Tucson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>A cruise missile hit the pentagon.
> >> >
> >> > Forget about planes. You said yourself you don't have any evidence
of
> >> > a plane.
> >>
> >> 757.
> >>
> >>
> >> > So you can't show evidence of a plane.
> >>
> >>
> >> Except for part of a single engine, which doesn't appear to be from a
> >> 757.
> >
> > Says who?
>
>
> Says lots of people. Check out the research available online.

So magic me up a cite then, bitch. Of course, it has to be from someone who
knows what they're talking about wrt airliner engines, not on eof your kook
buddies.


> >> The unofficially released stills seem to support a missile fired from
> >> close range by an F-16 type plane.
> >
> > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! How'd you work that out, ace?
>
>
> How did what work out for me?

Got alzheimers?

> >> All that needs to be established is that no 757 hit the Pentagon.
> >> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
> >
> > Which you utterly fail to do, again..
>
>
> Then you can debunk the article in question?

The article does not establish that no 757 hit the Pentagon, thus it debunks
itself quite nicely.
Black People Don't Care About George Bush
2005-09-14 11:30:09 UTC
Permalink
"tw" <***@no.com> wrote in news:dg8l9s$kef$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:

>
> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in news:dg5v8b$2j2$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>>
>> >
>> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> "James Of Tucson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >> news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >>A cruise missile hit the pentagon.
>> >> >
>> >> > Forget about planes. You said yourself you don't have any
>> >> > evidence
> of
>> >> > a plane.
>> >>
>> >> 757.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > So you can't show evidence of a plane.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Except for part of a single engine, which doesn't appear to be
>> >> from a 757.
>> >
>> > Says who?
>>
>>
>> Says lots of people. Check out the research available online.
>
> So magic me up a cite then, bitch. Of course, it has to be from
> someone who knows what they're talking about wrt airliner engines, not
> on eof your kook buddies.
>
>
>> >> The unofficially released stills seem to support a missile fired
>> >> from close range by an F-16 type plane.
>> >
>> > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! How'd you work that out, ace?
>>
>>
>> How did what work out for me?
>
> Got alzheimers?
>
>> >> All that needs to be established is that no 757 hit the Pentagon.
>> >> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>> >
>> > Which you utterly fail to do, again..
>>
>>
>> Then you can debunk the article in question?
>
> The article does not establish that no 757 hit the Pentagon, thus it
> debunks itself quite nicely.
>
>
>

You're a funny little man.
tw
2005-09-14 11:48:05 UTC
Permalink
"Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com>
wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in news:dg8l9s$kef$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>
> >
> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in news:dg5v8b$2j2$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >> "James Of Tucson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> >> news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>A cruise missile hit the pentagon.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Forget about planes. You said yourself you don't have any
> >> >> > evidence
> > of
> >> >> > a plane.
> >> >>
> >> >> 757.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > So you can't show evidence of a plane.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Except for part of a single engine, which doesn't appear to be
> >> >> from a 757.
> >> >
> >> > Says who?
> >>
> >>
> >> Says lots of people. Check out the research available online.
> >
> > So magic me up a cite then, bitch. Of course, it has to be from
> > someone who knows what they're talking about wrt airliner engines, not
> > on eof your kook buddies.

..Jason runs away. What a surprise.


> >
> >
> >> >> The unofficially released stills seem to support a missile fired
> >> >> from close range by an F-16 type plane.
> >> >
> >> > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! How'd you work that out, ace?
> >>
> >>
> >> How did what work out for me?
> >
> > Got alzheimers?

..Jason runs away. What a surprise.

> >
> >> >> All that needs to be established is that no 757 hit the Pentagon.
> >> >> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
> >> >
> >> > Which you utterly fail to do, again..
> >>
> >>
> >> Then you can debunk the article in question?
> >
> > The article does not establish that no 757 hit the Pentagon, thus it
> > debunks itself quite nicely.
> >
> >
> >
>
> You're a funny little man.

Hilarious, I know. I notice you ran away from backing up your shit again,
bitch.
Don Freeman
2005-09-14 15:19:46 UTC
Permalink
"tw" <***@no.com> wrote in message
news:dg92ll$rt8$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se...
>
> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com>
> wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
>>
>> You're a funny little man.
>
> Hilarious, I know. I notice you ran away from backing up your shit again,
> bitch.
>
Why do you even bother? You know he's just going to ignore any evidence or
effective rebuttal. Can you say troll?
Black People Don't Care About George Bush
2005-09-14 22:48:52 UTC
Permalink
"Don Freeman" <***@sonic.net> wrote in
news:mcXVe.13578$p%***@typhoon.sonic.net:

>
> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in message
> news:dg92ll$rt8$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se...
>>
>> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:***@207.14.113.17...
>>>
>>> You're a funny little man.
>>
>> Hilarious, I know. I notice you ran away from backing up your shit
>> again, bitch.
>>
> Why do you even bother? You know he's just going to ignore any
> evidence or effective rebuttal. Can you say troll?

"TW", and his everpresent catchphrase "bitch" isn't a troll, Don. He's
presented a series of seasoned, well-thought-out arguments.

That's a cute boat you two are in.


Troll this:
http://www.bedoper.com

^^^ No 757 Hit the Pentagon ^^^
Black People Don't Care About George Bush
2005-09-14 22:46:57 UTC
Permalink
"tw" <***@no.com> wrote in news:dg92ll$rt8$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:

>
> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com>
> wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in news:dg8l9s$kef$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>>
>> >
>> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in news:dg5v8b$2j2$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> >> "James Of Tucson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >> >> news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>A cruise missile hit the pentagon.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Forget about planes. You said yourself you don't have any
>> >> >> > evidence
>> > of
>> >> >> > a plane.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 757.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > So you can't show evidence of a plane.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Except for part of a single engine, which doesn't appear to be
>> >> >> from a 757.
>> >> >
>> >> > Says who?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Says lots of people. Check out the research available online.
>> >
>> > So magic me up a cite then, bitch. Of course, it has to be from
>> > someone who knows what they're talking about wrt airliner engines,
not
>> > on eof your kook buddies.
>
> ..Jason runs away. What a surprise.


So you're entirely ignorant of any such research done by anyone regarding
these engines?

The Internet: look into it.


>> >> >> The unofficially released stills seem to support a missile fired
>> >> >> from close range by an F-16 type plane.
>> >> >
>> >> > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! How'd you work that out, ace?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> How did what work out for me?
>> >
>> > Got alzheimers?
>
> ..Jason runs away. What a surprise.


How did what work out for me?


>> >> >> All that needs to be established is that no 757 hit the
Pentagon.
>> >> >> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>> >> >
>> >> > Which you utterly fail to do, again..
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Then you can debunk the article in question?
>> >
>> > The article does not establish that no 757 hit the Pentagon, thus it
>> > debunks itself quite nicely.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> You're a funny little man.
>
> Hilarious, I know. I notice you ran away from backing up your shit
again,
> bitch.


You have the social skills of a dead troll in plastic baggie.
tw
2005-09-15 11:07:40 UTC
Permalink
"Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com>
wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in news:dg92ll$rt8$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>
> >
> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com>
> > wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in news:dg8l9s$kef$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in news:dg5v8b$2j2$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> >> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >> >> "James Of Tucson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>A cruise missile hit the pentagon.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Forget about planes. You said yourself you don't have any
> >> >> >> > evidence
> >> > of
> >> >> >> > a plane.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> 757.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > So you can't show evidence of a plane.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Except for part of a single engine, which doesn't appear to be
> >> >> >> from a 757.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Says who?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Says lots of people. Check out the research available online.
> >> >
> >> > So magic me up a cite then, bitch. Of course, it has to be from
> >> > someone who knows what they're talking about wrt airliner engines,
> not
> >> > on eof your kook buddies.
> >
> > ..Jason runs away. What a surprise.
>
>
> So you're entirely ignorant of any such research done by anyone regarding
> these engines?


No, but apparently you are, seeing as you can't present up a cite from
someone who knows what they're talking about saying that those aren't RB 211
parts

>
> The Internet: look into it.

Reality - give it a try sometime!

>
>
> >> >> >> The unofficially released stills seem to support a missile fired
> >> >> >> from close range by an F-16 type plane.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! How'd you work that out, ace?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> How did what work out for me?
> >> >
> >> > Got alzheimers?
> >
> > ..Jason runs away. What a surprise.
>
>
> How did what work out for me?

Alzheimers or illiteracy - which is it?


>
>
> >> >> >> All that needs to be established is that no 757 hit the
> Pentagon.
> >> >> >> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Which you utterly fail to do, again..
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Then you can debunk the article in question?
> >> >
> >> > The article does not establish that no 757 hit the Pentagon, thus it
> >> > debunks itself quite nicely.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> You're a funny little man.
> >
> > Hilarious, I know. I notice you ran away from backing up your shit
> again,
> > bitch.
>
>
> You have the social skills of a dead troll in plastic baggie.

I notice you ran away from backing up your shit again, bitch.
Black People Don't Care About George Bush
2005-09-15 11:15:52 UTC
Permalink
"tw" <***@no.com> wrote in news:dgbkls$a9e$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:

>
> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in news:dg92ll$rt8$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>>
>> >
>> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in
>> >> news:dg8l9s$kef$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in
>> >> >> news:dg5v8b$2j2$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> >> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> >> >> "James Of Tucson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >> >> >> news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >>A cruise missile hit the pentagon.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Forget about planes. You said yourself you don't have any
>> >> >> >> > evidence
>> >> > of
>> >> >> >> > a plane.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> 757.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > So you can't show evidence of a plane.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Except for part of a single engine, which doesn't appear to
>> >> >> >> be from a 757.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Says who?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Says lots of people. Check out the research available online.
>> >> >
>> >> > So magic me up a cite then, bitch. Of course, it has to be from
>> >> > someone who knows what they're talking about wrt airliner
>> >> > engines,
>> not
>> >> > on eof your kook buddies.
>> >
>> > ..Jason runs away. What a surprise.
>>
>>
>> So you're entirely ignorant of any such research done by anyone
>> regarding these engines?
>
>
> No, but apparently you are, seeing as you can't present up a cite from
> someone who knows what they're talking about saying that those aren't
> RB 211 parts
>
>>
>> The Internet: look into it.
>
> Reality - give it a try sometime!


Please don't flaunt your ignorace.


>> >> >> >> The unofficially released stills seem to support a missile
>> >> >> >> fired from close range by an F-16 type plane.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! How'd you work that out, ace?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How did what work out for me?
>> >> >
>> >> > Got alzheimers?
>> >
>> > ..Jason runs away. What a surprise.
>>
>>
>> How did what work out for me?
>
> Alzheimers or illiteracy - which is it?


How did what work out for me, genius?


>> >> >> >> All that needs to be established is that no 757 hit the
>> Pentagon.
>> >> >> >> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Which you utterly fail to do, again..
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Then you can debunk the article in question?
>> >> >
>> >> > The article does not establish that no 757 hit the Pentagon,
>> >> > thus it debunks itself quite nicely.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> You're a funny little man.
>> >
>> > Hilarious, I know. I notice you ran away from backing up your shit
>> again,
>> > bitch.
>>
>>
>> You have the social skills of a dead troll in plastic baggie.
>
> I notice you ran away from backing up your shit again, bitch.

If your shit is backing up, see a doctor.
tw
2005-09-15 14:25:59 UTC
Permalink
"Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com>
wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in news:dgbkls$a9e$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>
> >
> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in news:dg92ll$rt8$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in
> >> >> news:dg8l9s$kef$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> >> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> news:dg5v8b$2j2$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> >> >> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >> >> >> "James Of Tucson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> >> news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >>A cruise missile hit the pentagon.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Forget about planes. You said yourself you don't have any
> >> >> >> >> > evidence
> >> >> > of
> >> >> >> >> > a plane.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> 757.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > So you can't show evidence of a plane.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Except for part of a single engine, which doesn't appear to
> >> >> >> >> be from a 757.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Says who?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Says lots of people. Check out the research available online.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So magic me up a cite then, bitch. Of course, it has to be from
> >> >> > someone who knows what they're talking about wrt airliner
> >> >> > engines,
> >> not
> >> >> > on eof your kook buddies.
> >> >
> >> > ..Jason runs away. What a surprise.
> >>
> >>
> >> So you're entirely ignorant of any such research done by anyone
> >> regarding these engines?
> >
> >
> > No, but apparently you are, seeing as you can't present up a cite from
> > someone who knows what they're talking about saying that those aren't
> > RB 211 parts
> >
> >>
> >> The Internet: look into it.
> >
> > Reality - give it a try sometime!
>
>
> Please don't flaunt your ignorace.

In other words, you STILL can't seeing as you can't present a cite from
someone who knows what they're talking about saying that those aren't RB 211
parts. Well well.



>
>
> >> >> >> >> The unofficially released stills seem to support a missile
> >> >> >> >> fired from close range by an F-16 type plane.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! How'd you work that out, ace?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> How did what work out for me?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Got alzheimers?
> >> >
> >> > ..Jason runs away. What a surprise.
> >>
> >>
> >> How did what work out for me?
> >
> > Alzheimers or illiteracy - which is it?
>
>
> How did what work out for me, genius?

Ah, so it's your basic inabilty to read that is teh problem, you gibbering
fucking putz. Now read it again and get an adult to help you:


You wrote:
> The unofficially released stills seem to support a missile fired from
close range by an F-16 type plane.

I replied:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! How'd you work that out, ace?

..and you've been running ever since. Hee hee!




>
>
> >> >> >> >> All that needs to be established is that no 757 hit the
> >> Pentagon.
> >> >> >> >> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Which you utterly fail to do, again..
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Then you can debunk the article in question?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The article does not establish that no 757 hit the Pentagon,
> >> >> > thus it debunks itself quite nicely.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> You're a funny little man.
> >> >
> >> > Hilarious, I know. I notice you ran away from backing up your shit
> >> again,
> >> > bitch.
> >>
> >>
> >> You have the social skills of a dead troll in plastic baggie.
> >
> > I notice you ran away from backing up your shit again, bitch.
>
> If your shit is backing up, see a doctor.

I notice you ran away from backing up your shit again, bitch.
Black People Don't Care About George Bush
2005-09-15 21:22:31 UTC
Permalink
"tw" <***@no.com> wrote in news:dgc09n$gt7$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:

>
> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in news:dgbkls$a9e$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>>
>> >
>> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in
>> >> news:dg92ll$rt8$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in
>> >> >> news:dg8l9s$kef$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> >> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> >> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in
>> >> >> >> news:dg5v8b$2j2$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> >> >> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> >> >> >> "James Of Tucson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >> >> >> >> news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
>> >> >> >> >> :
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >>A cruise missile hit the pentagon.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > Forget about planes. You said yourself you don't have
>> >> >> >> >> > any evidence
>> >> >> > of
>> >> >> >> >> > a plane.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> 757.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > So you can't show evidence of a plane.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Except for part of a single engine, which doesn't appear
>> >> >> >> >> to be from a 757.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Says who?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Says lots of people. Check out the research available
>> >> >> >> online.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So magic me up a cite then, bitch. Of course, it has to be
>> >> >> > from someone who knows what they're talking about wrt
>> >> >> > airliner engines,
>> >> not
>> >> >> > on eof your kook buddies.
>> >> >
>> >> > ..Jason runs away. What a surprise.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> So you're entirely ignorant of any such research done by anyone
>> >> regarding these engines?
>> >
>> >
>> > No, but apparently you are, seeing as you can't present up a cite
>> > from someone who knows what they're talking about saying that those
>> > aren't RB 211 parts
>> >
>> >>
>> >> The Internet: look into it.
>> >
>> > Reality - give it a try sometime!
>>
>>
>> Please don't flaunt your ignorace.
>
> In other words, you STILL can't seeing as you can't present a cite
> from someone who knows what they're talking about saying that those
> aren't RB 211 parts. Well well.


I'm quite sure I can find five or ten. I think one was an engineer from
the company in question.

Why can't you?


>> >> >> >> >> The unofficially released stills seem to support a
>> >> >> >> >> missile fired from close range by an F-16 type plane.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! How'd you work that out, ace?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> How did what work out for me?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Got alzheimers?
>> >> >
>> >> > ..Jason runs away. What a surprise.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> How did what work out for me?
>> >
>> > Alzheimers or illiteracy - which is it?
>>
>>
>> How did what work out for me, genius?
>
> Ah, so it's your basic inabilty to read that is teh problem, you
> gibbering fucking putz. Now read it again and get an adult to help
> you:
>
>
> You wrote:
>> The unofficially released stills seem to support a missile fired from
> close range by an F-16 type plane.
>
> I replied:
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! How'd you work that out, ace?
>
> ..and you've been running ever since. Hee hee!


Yes. How droll.



>> >> >> >> >> All that needs to be established is that no 757 hit the
>> >> Pentagon.
>> >> >> >> >> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Which you utterly fail to do, again..
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Then you can debunk the article in question?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The article does not establish that no 757 hit the Pentagon,
>> >> >> > thus it debunks itself quite nicely.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You're a funny little man.
>> >> >
>> >> > Hilarious, I know. I notice you ran away from backing up your
>> >> > shit
>> >> again,
>> >> > bitch.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You have the social skills of a dead troll in plastic baggie.
>> >
>> > I notice you ran away from backing up your shit again, bitch.
>>
>> If your shit is backing up, see a doctor.
>
> I notice you ran away from backing up your shit again, bitch.

I bet the ladies love you.
p***@yahoo.com
2005-09-16 09:49:43 UTC
Permalink
Black People Don't Care About George Bush skrev:

> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in news:dgc09n$gt7$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>
> >
> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in news:dgbkls$a9e$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in
> >> >> news:dg92ll$rt8$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> >> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> news:dg8l9s$kef$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> >> >> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >> >> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> >> news:dg5v8b$2j2$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> >> >> >> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >> >> >> >> "James Of Tucson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> >> >> news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
> >> >> >> >> >> :
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >>A cruise missile hit the pentagon.
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > Forget about planes. You said yourself you don't have
> >> >> >> >> >> > any evidence
> >> >> >> > of
> >> >> >> >> >> > a plane.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> 757.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> > So you can't show evidence of a plane.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Except for part of a single engine, which doesn't appear
> >> >> >> >> >> to be from a 757.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Says who?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Says lots of people. Check out the research available
> >> >> >> >> online.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > So magic me up a cite then, bitch. Of course, it has to be
> >> >> >> > from someone who knows what they're talking about wrt
> >> >> >> > airliner engines,
> >> >> not
> >> >> >> > on eof your kook buddies.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ..Jason runs away. What a surprise.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> So you're entirely ignorant of any such research done by anyone
> >> >> regarding these engines?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > No, but apparently you are, seeing as you can't present up a cite
> >> > from someone who knows what they're talking about saying that those
> >> > aren't RB 211 parts
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> The Internet: look into it.
> >> >
> >> > Reality - give it a try sometime!
> >>
> >>
> >> Please don't flaunt your ignorace.
> >
> > In other words, you STILL can't seeing as you can't present a cite
> > from someone who knows what they're talking about saying that those
> > aren't RB 211 parts. Well well.
>
>
> I'm quite sure I can find five or ten. I think one was an engineer from
> the company in question.

So in other words you MIGHT be able to find ONE person who knows what
they're talking about saying that those aren't RB 211 parts.

>
> Why can't you?

As I'm ot the one making the claim that it is "doubtful" that teh
wreckage of from an RB 211, I don't need to. This is basic stuff..


> >> >> >> >> >> The unofficially released stills seem to support a
> >> >> >> >> >> missile fired from close range by an F-16 type plane.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! How'd you work that out, ace?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> How did what work out for me?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Got alzheimers?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ..Jason runs away. What a surprise.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> How did what work out for me?
> >> >
> >> > Alzheimers or illiteracy - which is it?
> >>
> >>
> >> How did what work out for me, genius?
> >
> > Ah, so it's your basic inabilty to read that is teh problem, you
> > gibbering fucking putz. Now read it again and get an adult to help
> > you:
> >
> >
> > You wrote:
> >> The unofficially released stills seem to support a missile fired from
> > close range by an F-16 type plane.
> >
> > I replied:
> > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! How'd you work that out, ace?
> >
> > ..and you've been running ever since. Hee hee!
>
>
> Yes. How droll.

Aaaand Jason runs,screaming, from his claim again. Exceeding droll!


>

>
>
> >> >> >> >> >> All that needs to be established is that no 757 hit the
> >> >> Pentagon.
> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Which you utterly fail to do, again..
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Then you can debunk the article in question?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > The article does not establish that no 757 hit the Pentagon,
> >> >> >> > thus it debunks itself quite nicely.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You're a funny little man.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hilarious, I know. I notice you ran away from backing up your
> >> >> > shit
> >> >> again,
> >> >> > bitch.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> You have the social skills of a dead troll in plastic baggie.
> >> >
> >> > I notice you ran away from backing up your shit again, bitch.
> >>
> >> If your shit is backing up, see a doctor.
> >
> > I notice you ran away from backing up your shit again, bitch.
>
> I bet the ladies love you.

Jealous, eh.
Black People Don't Care About George Bush
2005-09-16 13:20:36 UTC
Permalink
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/claim.html

JAMIE MCINTYRE: "From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a
plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.
The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in. And
as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that
you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing
sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would
indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and
then caused the side to collapse.
Even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the
floors have all collapsed, that didn't happen immediately. It wasn't
until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened
enough that all of the floors collapsed." -CNN (09/11/01) [Video archived
at: Prison Planet; The Web Fairy]

The Pentagon's official claim...

"The Boeing 757 struck Wedge 1 on the Heliport side of the Pentagon very
low to the ground and entered Wedge 1 just to the north of Corridor 4 on
the first and second floors. The plane traveled through the Pentagon at
roughly 45-degree angle to the face of the building. It went through
Wedge 1 and into the un-renovated Wedge 2 before exiting the C-ring, the
third ring of offices, and into a roadway (A/E Drive) that circles the
perimeter of the Pentagon between the B and C-rings.
According to federal investigators, the fully fueled plane was traveling
at 350 mph when it struck the Pentagon."
- Annual Status Report to Congress (3/01/02)

"At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon,
traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour." - 9/11 Commission

"Investigators have identified remains of 184 people who were aboard
American Airlines Flight 77 or inside the Pentagon, including those of
the five hijackers, but they say it is impossible to match what is left
with the five missing people.
A team of more than 100 workers at a military morgue at Dover Air Force
Base in Delaware used several methods to identify remains but primarily
relied on DNA testing and dental records. The fifth unidentified victim
was a passenger on the hijacked plane.
The remains of the five hijackers have been identified through a process
of exclusion, as they did not match DNA samples contributed by family
members of all 183 victims who died at the site." - Washington Post
(11/21/01)

Mr. Lee Evey, the Pentagon's renovation manager, at the DoD news briefing
on the Pentagon renovation. (Click photo to read the briefing.)

Video shown in this briefing.

Slides used in this briefing.


Official Pentagon drawing showing the angle of impact and penetration of
Flight 77coming in to the right of the Helipad. (Photo source:
defenselink.mil)


Flight 77's stats...

Date of Accident: 11 September 2001; Airline: American Airlines,
Aircraft: Boeing 757-223; Location: Washington, D.C., USA; Registration:
N644AA; Previous Registrations: ---; Flight Number: 77; Fatalities:
64:64; MSN: 24602; Line Number: 365; Engine Manufacturer: Rolls Royce;
Engine Model: RB211-535E4B; Year of Delivery: 1991 - airdisaster.com


American Airlines Flight 77 (Photo source: airliners.net)


(Lost link to source. Please email if found.)


Punch-out hole the nose of Flight 77 supposedly made. (See photos at
inside damage.)



Simulation by Purdue University. Notice it shows Flight 77 flying in
level and touching the lawn.


"And the plane came through the first floor, right through Naval Ops,"
Michael Flocco, whose only son Matthew was killed at the Pentagon doing
the duty he loved. Mike put muscle into his mornings, helping rebuild the
Pentagon as part of Operation Phoenix." -CNN (9/08/02)




"By the time Flight 77 reached the C corridor, the airliner and 64
passengers and crew were a moving ball of fire.
The impact destroyed a lot of offices and 189 lives, 125 inside the
building. The Army's personnel management shop took a direct hit. So did
the Navy's command center, where casualties were the heaviest. The center
is a large open facility with lots of cubicles." -Washington Times
(12/26/03)

This simulation shows a Boeing 757 banking slightly to the left before it
crashes and not touching the lawn although it's arguable that the left
engine is. (Graphic source: "Pentagon Building Performance Report"
[PDF])

"Schwartz said that from information received from the radio tower at the
Virginia state police barracks, as the aircraft came in, it actually
dipped its wing to avoid hitting the tower and brought the wing back up
before going into the building.
"The aircraft did not strike the ground before it hit the building,"
explained Schwartz." - Fort Meade/Army



Was it just "luck" that the crash happened right in the middle of the
only renovated section of the Pentagon that was being retrofitted to
bolster it against an attack, has a new sprinkler system, was only five
days away from being completed, was right next to the Pentagon's new
personal fire station with their fire truck already parked outside, and
was where President Bush was going to be landing two hours later?


(Photo source: ncsu.edu)


(Close up.)


"Luck — if it can be called that — had it that the terrorists aimed the
Boeing 757 at the only part of the Pentagon that already had been
renovated in an 11-year, $1.3 billion project meant to bolster it against
attack. That significantly limited the damage and loss of life by slowing
the plane as it tore through the building and reducing the explosion's
reach."
"The reconstruction is expected to cost over $700 million and take until
spring 2003." - USA Today (1/01/02)


"Schwartz explained that renovations on the Pentagon began several years
earlier and were nearing completion, particularly the section called
Wedge 1, when the crash occurred.
He said the plane struck the building almost in the middle of the space
where the renovation had been completed. Personnel had not completely
reoccupied this area of the building.
"This contributed to the relatively low number of casualties," Schwartz
said. "The number could have been far greater had the plane struck
another portion of the building not affected by the renovation.”
He said one of the worst places the airplane could have gone was the
building's center court.
Schwartz said that from information received from the radio tower at the
Virginia state police barracks, as the aircraft came in, it actually
dipped its wing to avoid hitting the tower and brought the wing back up
before going into the building.
"The aircraft did not strike the ground before it hit the building,"
explained Schwartz.
"They (Fort Myer) provide a crash, fire and rescue truck at the Pentagon
heliport on standby during the daylight hours," Schwartz added." - Fort
Meade/Army


The 'Other' Tragedy

"Part of that area had been renovated recently, and that saved lives. Not
all the offices were occupied that morning because of the renovation. In
addition, the outer ring had been reinforced by floor-to-ceiling steel
beams that ran through all five floors. Between them was a Kevlar-like
mesh, similar to the material in bulletproof vests, which kept masonry
from becoming shrapnel. Together, the beams and the mesh formed a citadel
that kept the top floors from collapsing for about 35 minutes, time
enough for some people to escape. New blast-resistant windows above the
crash site didn't shatter. A new sprinkler system kept the fires from
consuming the entire place.

When the plane hit wedge 1, workers were just a few days away from
completing a three-year renovation of that section." -USNews (12/10/01)


"One hundred fifty feet (45.7 meters) from the impact zone was a new
heliport fire station, staffed by a three-person ARFF crew from nearby
Fort Myer. Captain Defina saw that the Fort Myer crew was trying to fight
the Pentagon fire with their disabled new E-One Titan. Its back end was
on fire, having been parked against the building with the front end
facing the heliport.
One of the Fort Myer firefighters had been inside the station watching
the World Trade Center events on television and the other two were
outside when they saw the 757 roaring toward them. Suffering minor burns
and injuries as they dove for cover, they tried unsuccessfully to start
their burning rig, which was soon a total loss."
The wall that the 757 hit was the first and only one so far to be
reinforced and have blast-resistant windows installed after the 1995
Oklahoma City bombing.
That afternoon, Captain Defina and airport Battalion Chief Walter Hood,
as well as other jurisdictions' battalion chiefs, led crews inside with
attack lines to fight fires on every floor of the "D" and "E" rings. The
aircraft had penetrated all the way to the "C" ring."
"The only way you could tell that an aircraft was inside was that we saw
pieces of the nose gear. The devastation was horrific." -NFPA Journal
(11/01/01) (Photo source: Smithsonian)


"At 9:38 a.m. on September 11, only one fire crew, Foam 161 of the Fort
Myer Fire Department, knew the exact location of the crash site. Captain
Dennis Gilroy and his team were already on station at the Pentagon when
Flight #77 slammed into it, just beyond the heliport. Foam 161 caught
fire and suffered a flat tire from flying debris. Firefighters Mark
Skipper and Alan Wallace were outside the vehicle at impact and received
burns and lacerations.

Ongoing Pentagon renovation work lowered the number of potential victims.
A portion of the impacted area was not yet fully repopulated following
recently completed upgrades.

The fact that the terrorist attack struck a large military facility
ensured the availability of military doctors, nurses, and first aid
responders." -Arlington County After-Action Report


"...The whole back of the fire truck had melted."
Just prior to the impact there were three firemen on the helipad at the
Pentagon. The president was supposed to land at the helipad two hours
after the impact, and so they had just pulled the foam truck out of the
firehouse and were standing there when they looked up and saw the plane
coming over the Navy Annex building." -Smithsonian Institution


"Because of its advanced age, the Pentagon has been undergoing some
structural upgrades and retrofits, including new blastproof windows made
of KevlarT that were, fortuitously, in place on the side of impact. This
reinforced section of the building had a significant effect on reducing
the extent of damage.

The federal fire department, located at Fort Myer, maintains a crash unit
at the Pentagon heliport that is staffed by three firefighters during
normal business hours.

Because of the KevlarT windows' absorption of the force of impact, there
was not very much glass debris to generate laceration-type injuries." -
Fire Engineering Magazine (11/02)

"The 1,000,000-square-foot wedge was five days away from completion when
it was struck by hijacked American Airlines Flight 77." -Annual Status
Report to Congress (3/01/02)



What are the odds that the crash happened in the very spot that was being
renovated? Notice the mysterious line mark in the lawn before 9/11 that
is just to right of the actual trajectory of the aircraft in question
that hit the Pentagon. Was this line mark in the lawn put there on
purpose to help "guide" the aircraft in question to crash into the
building?


Satellite photo taken 12/28/00. White arrow points to mysterious line
mark on lawn. (Photo source: ncsu.edu)


Satellite photo taken 9/07/01, 4 days before 9/11. White oval around the
mysterious line mark on lawn. (Photo source: spaceimaging.com)


Aerial photo taken after 9/11. (Photo source: september11news.com.
This photo has been rotated 180 deg. from the original.)


“Where the plane hit was an area that had just been renovated by
Singleton Electric,” said Hardy. “It was really lucky that was the area
that got hit because there weren’t as many people, not everyone was moved
in yet.” -CEE News (09/20/01)

"Much of Enercon's equipment is used for military projects, but...it's
the "Pentagon project" as he calls it, that causes Tangel to pause and
think.
"It's amazing they hit that part of the building," Tangel said of the
area that was being renovated at the Pentagon. "If they had hit any other
part of the Pentagon, they would've killed a lot more people and done a
lot more damage." -PJStar (09/10/02)

"Ongoing Pentagon renovations include designs for force protection that
saved military and civilian lives after the hijacked commercial airliner
smashed into the building Sept. 11, a DoD official said.
The terrorist assault "happened to hit an area that we had built so
sturdily," Pentagon renovation program manager Lee Evey said to reporters
Sept. 15. In addition to saving lives, the renovations helped to keep
more of the building intact.
"It could have been much, much worse," he said. The airliner crashed low
and diagonally into the Pentagon's outside "E" ring limestone wall, Evey
explained. The plane first hit a recently renovated wedge section near
the heliport on the west side of the building before passing into an
unrenovated area, he said.
Floor-to-floor and interconnected vertical steel beams, sturdier windows
and Kevlar armor panels used in the revamped exterior wall helped slow
down the plane and mitigate effects of the explosion as the plane crashed
through the Pentagon, Evey noted.
Evey said the hijacked aircraft slammed through the E, D, and C rings
before coming to rest in an open-air service passageway separating the C
and B rings.
An initial $145 million construction contract to start repairs to the
damaged sections was awarded Sept. 14, Evey said. Total cost of repairs
to the damaged sections of the building, he said, "would cost hundreds of
millions of dollars."
The contract also covers renovations on remaining portions of the
building and has a potential value of up to $758 million. All renovations
are to be completed by 2012." -DoD (9/15/01)

"Evey said the hijacked aircraft hit a portion of the building that had
been renovated and reinforced with blast resistant windows, a special
reinforced steel construction, and even fire-resistant Kevlar cloth."
"A $145 million contract was awarded Friday to Hensel Phelps Construction
Co., of Chantilly, Va., to begin rebuilding part of the damaged portion,
he said. The contract has the potential value of up to $758 million for
the future renovation of the undamaged portions of the building, said a
statement issued by the Pentagon." -Wired News

"The wall that the 757 hit was the first and only one so far to be
reinforced and have blast-resistant windows installed after the 1995
Oklahoma City bombing." -NFPA Journal (10/01/01)

"Nicholas Holland, an engineer with AMEC Construction Management of
Bethesda, Md., had spent the last two years working to reinforce the
walls. Two summers ago, a blast wall of reinforced steel and concrete was
installed right where the plane hit. It stood for 25 minutes after it was
hit before collapsing, long enough for people to escape, Holland said." -
Detroit News (9/11/01)

"The fact that more people were not killed at the Pentagon is due in part
to the renovation project underway on 9/11 that had forced many people
out of their offices in the area the plane hit. Another factor was that
much of the work already done had reinforced the structure with extra
steel, blast-resistant windows and Kevlar." -IBEW (Nov. '02)



Isn't it just too coincidental that the crash happened in the worst spot
for the terrorist hijackers, but the best spot if it was an inside job?


"KING: Michael, the Pentagon was kind of lucky in a sense, wasn't it?
FLOCCO: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
KING: The side they hit wasn't that populated and it didn't make a
direct, full -- like top of the Pentagon hit, right?
FLOCCO: Correct. Also, the other contributing factors -- fewer engines
[fewer engines?] -- was the fact that it hit initially on the newly
renovated section that had (UNINTELLIGIBLE) wire inside of -- able to
withstand more of an impact.
Plus, some of the columns and the windows had previously been reinforced
for the first phase of the renovation. It was a five-phase renovation
program. The first phase had just been completed only a week before. And
where the plane hit was under restructured, reinforced part of it. So
initially, it hit a very solid part and then, glanced off of that and
went into the old section that had just been evacuated for phase two
renovation. Had it hit anywhere else, it could have been catastrophic." -
CNN (9/08/02)


"The area hit by the plane was newly renovated and reinforced, while the
areas surrounding the impact zone were closed in preparation for
renovation, so the death toll could have been much higher if another area
had been hit." -Patriot Resource



Are we supposed to believe that the military had no anti-aircraft
defenses protect their own headquarters?


"Among the questions being asked here: How could the Pentagon, the center
of the U.S. defense establishment, not be prepared to defend itself
against an attack by an airplane?
Spokesman Rear Adm. Craig Quigley said the Pentagon has no anti-aircraft
defense system that he is aware of. The White House is assumed to have
surface-to-air missiles available for protection." -USA Today (09/11/01)


"For years, staff at the Pentagon joked that they worked at "Ground
Zero", the spot at which an incoming nuclear missile aimed at America's
defenses would explode. There is even a snack bar of that name in the
central courtyard of the five-sided building, America's most obvious
military bullseye." -Telegraph (9/16/01)


"The Pentagon itself was built to be a fortress, virtually impregnable;
it had long been considered a prime target for an enemy attack." -Fire
Engineering Magazine (11/02)



Was it just a coincidence that Donald Rumsfeld was safely on the opposite
side of the Pentagon when the crash happened?


"Quigley said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, 69, was in his office on
the north side of the complex when the plane hit the opposite side and he
went over to help the injured." -Reuters (9/11/01)

"The Pentagon was hit a short while after the World Trade Center was
struck. A plane, described by witnesses as a jetliner, made impact in the
portion of the building on side opposite from where Rumsfeld's office are
located." -The Ark City Traveler/AP (9/11/01)

"To give an idea of the power of the impact when American Airlines Flight
77 hit the building Tuesday, Bush said Defense Secretary Donald H.
Rumsfeld felt the explosion in his office - on the opposite side of the
massive five-sided structure." -The Augusta Chronicle/AP (9/12/01)

"The secretary was in his office, really not that far away from the side
of the building that got hit by the plane." - Assistant Secretary of
Defense Torie Clarke, DoD (09/15/01) ["Really not that far away"??? LOL
Torie!]

(Note that this graphic shows the plane coming in at the wrong angle.
Source: armytimes.com)



Note: This website had asked the question, "Why is there not one single
photo confirming that Donald Rumsfeld was helping the injured outside of
the Pentagon as reported?" Although not a single photo of Rumsfeld has
been found showing him helping the injured, I personally saw a video on
TV that showed Rumsfeld help carrying the injured on a stretcher. The
next question would be, it's very nice of the Sect. of Defense to be out
there helping the injured, but since the U.S. was still under attack,
shouldn't the Sect. of Defense be worrying less about looking like a hero
helping the injured and more about combating the existing ongoing
terrorist attack?

Remember: "In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the
most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of
immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for
DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval." - Defense
Technical Information Center (06/01/01)


"Quigley said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, 69, was in his office on
the north side of the complex when the plane hit the opposite side and he
went over to help the injured.
"He went outside the building and was helpful in getting several people
that were injured onto stretchers. He was out there 15 minutes or so
helping the injured," he said. -Reuters (9/11/01)


Rumsfeld went immediately to the scene and helped recover victims for
about 15 minutes before proceeding to the National Military Command
Center, a crisis compound on the other side of the Pentagon. -Pittsburg
11 News



Did Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld accidentally admit to a missile
crashing into the Pentagon and not Flight 77 in this interview?


Rumsfeld: "Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American
Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this
building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center." -
DoD (10/12/01)



Was Donald Rumsfeld psychic on 9/11, or was he just "spilling the beans"?


Inside, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had some people in to talk
about missile defense and the risk that terrorism seen in the past would
happen again.
“Let me tell ya,” he said, “I’ve been around the block a few times. There
will be another event.”
Two minutes later, a plane smashed into the first World Trade Center
tower and proved him right. - Fayetteville Observer/AP (9/16/01)


Seven minutes later, as Mr Bush, his entourage and the accompanying press
corps were boarding Air Force One, American Flight 77 swooped low over
the suburbs of northern Virginia and slammed into the Pentagon.
Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defence, was in his office on the
eastern side of the building, in a meeting with Christopher Cox, the
defence policy committee chairman of the House of Representatives. Mr
Rumsfeld, recalls Mr Cox, watched the TV coverage from New York and said:
"Believe me, this isn't over yet. There's going to be another attack, and
it could be us."
Moments later, the plane hit. -Telegraph UK (12/16/01)


Excerpts from an interview with Lieutenant Colonel Patty Horoho, who was
Assistant Deputy/Personnel & Health Management Policy, Office of the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower & Reserve Affairs.
"I stood behind Charlie and looked at the TV. At that time, it showed the
second plane attacking. I watched and this calm feeling came over me and
I said, “There’s going to be a series of attacks across the United
States…We’re going to be next.” I could just feel in my heart that that
was exactly what was going to happen." - Soldiers to the
Rescue/Responding in the Pentagon [HTML]



Who first informed the rest of the people inside the Pentagon that the
explosion that shocked the building was caused by a plane?


"Secretary Clarke: The secretary [Donald Rumsfeld] was in his office,
really not that far away from the side of the building that got hit by
the plane. He and another person immediately ran down the hallway and
went outside and helped some of the people, some of the casualties
getting off the stretchers, etc. When he came back in the building about
half an hour later, he was the first one that told us he was quite sure
it was a plane. Based on the wreckage and based on the thousands and
thousands of pieces of metal. He was the one that told us, the staff that
was in the room. So he was really the first one who told us that it was
most likely a plane." - DoD (09/15/04)



Who was telling the media what crashed into the Pentagon?


"Law enforcement officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the
plane that struck the Pentagon was an American Airlines jetliner that had
taken off from Dulles International Airport on a scheduled flight to Los
Angeles." - The Post (09/11/01)



Why are the first reports of what crashed into the Pentagon is a
helicopter?


2:41:05 PM
"The Pentagon is being evacuated in expectation of a terrorist attack.
It is believed a fire has broken out in the building." -TCM Breaking News
(9/11/01)


2:47:43 PM
"There are reports that a helicopter has crashed into the Pentagon.
An eyewitness said that they saw the helicopter circle the building and
after it disappeared behind it, an explosion occured." -TCM Breaking News
(9/11/01)


2:52:26 PM
"Paul Begala, a Democratic consultant, said he witnessed a explosion near
the Pentagon shortly after two planes crashed into World Trade Centre.
‘‘It was a huge fireball, a huge, orange fireball,’’ Begala said.
He said another witness told him a helicopter exploded." -TCM Breaking
News (9/11/01)


Excerpts from an interview with Captain William B. Durm, USN, who was
Commander of the Pentagon’s Triservice Dental Clinic.
"Still, I did not know a plane hit us. As I got close, somebody said a
helicopter had hit the other side of the building. I had not seen that
area yet.
An interesting story. I had an appointment with a gentleman to have a
root canal finished at 10:00 that morning. He actually had an appointment
for 1:00 in the afternoon; however, because I had a meeting with my staff
that afternoon, I had my technician call him up and move him to 10:00.
There are 27 employees in his office. Twenty-six were immediately killed.
He was the only one that survived that thing, and that's because we
called him up to come in early for a root canal." - Soldiers to the
Rescue/Responding in the Pentagon [HTML]



Did another aircraft strike the Pentagon, or are these reports referring
to the two explosions that were heard?


4:05:16 PM
"A second aircraft has crashed into the Pentagon building.
It is not known whether this plane was that which was hijacked from
Boston airport a short time ago, the fourth such plane to be used in this
major attack on the US.
Earlier, a small plane had slammed into the building and set it
ablaze." -TCM Breaking News (9/11/01)


4:17:03 PM
"Part of the Pentagon building outside Washington has collapsed.
It had been hit by two planes apparently hijacked by terrorists in Boston
earlier today." -TCM Breaking News (9/11/01)


6:40:29 PM
Fighter jets are patrolling the skies above Washington after a jet
hijacked by terrorists struck the Pentagon.
An aircraft has crashed on a helicopter landing pad near the Pentagon,
and the White House.
The Pentagon has taken a direct hit from an aircraft.
The nerve centre of the US military burst into flames and a portion of
one side of the five-sided structure collapsed when the plane struck.
Secondary explosions were reported in the aftermath of the attack and
great billows of smoke drifted skyward towards the Potomac River.
Authorities immediately began deploying troops, including a regiment of
light infantry.
General Richard Myers, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says
that prior to the crash into the Pentagon, military officials had been
notified that another hijacked plane had been heading from the New York
area to Washington.
He says he assumed that hijacked plane was the one that hit the Pentagon,
though he could not be sure." -TCM Breaking News (9/11/01)



Just how fast was Flight 77 going when it supposedly crashed into the
Pentagon?

"According to data on the recorder, the plane was going 345 miles per
hour when it crashed at about 9:30 Tuesday morning." -Fox (09/15/01)

According to federal investigators, the fully fueled plane was traveling
at 350 mph when it struck the Pentagon.
-Annual Status Report to Congress (3/01/02)
"It was traveling at a speed of about 400 miles per hour,
accelerating with close to its full complement of fuel at the time of
impact." -Arlington County After-Action Report

The jetliner disappeared from radar at 9:37 and less than a minute later
it clipped the tops of street lights and plowed into the Pentagon at 460
mph. -CBS (9/21/01)


"At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon,
traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour." -9/11 Commission


American Airlines Flight 77, bound from Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles
with 64 passengers and crew, flew low to the ground and then crashed into
the Pentagon going 600 mph and loaded with 30,000 pounds of fuel. -MSNBC
(9/12/01)




"CALCM (AGM-86C) Specifications - Speed: About 500 mph" -Boeing



Why did so many reports say Flight 77 crashed on the helicopter pad when
the Pentagon says it flew to the right of it?



"According to one witness, 'what looked like a 747' plowed into the south
side of the Pentagon, possibly skipping through a heliport before it hit
the building." -Stars and Stripes

"It slammed into the side of the Pentagon at an estimated 350 miles per
hour after first hitting the helipad." -Patriot Resource

"Captain Liebner says the aircraft struck a helicopter on the helipad,
setting fire to a fire truck." -Australian BC (9/12/01)


Official trajectory. (Source: washingtonpost.com)


"9:45: A third passenger jet, American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757
carrying 64 people, crashes on a helicopter landing pad beside the
Pentagon, near Washington, D.C." -Globe and Mail (9/12/01)

"The plane crashed on the helicopter landing pad adjacent to the
Pentagon." -Guardian (9/12/01)

"An aircraft has crashed on a helicopter landing pad near the Pentagon,
and the White House." -TCM Breaking News (9/11/01)


Why wasn't the Pentagon warned that an aircraft was heading its way when
the FAA had warned the White House that one was?


But Cheney says when he heard the other officials were safe, he decided
to stay at the White House, no matter what.
Cheney was joined by transportation secretary Norm Mineta who remembers
hearing the FAA counting down the hijacked jets closing in on the
capital.
“Someone came in and said, ‘Mr. Vice President, there’s a plane 50 miles
out,’ then he came in and said, ‘It's now 10 miles out, we don’t know
where it is exactly, but it’s coming in low and fast,’” says Mineta.
It was American Flight 77. At 9:38 a.m., it exploded into the Pentagon,
the first successful attack on Washington since the War of 1812. -CBS
(9/10/03)


"General Richard Myers, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says
that prior to the crash into the Pentagon, military officials had been
notified that another hijacked plane had been heading from the New York
area to Washington." -TCM Breaking News (9/11/01)



"When Flight 77 hit, the defense secretary thought it was a bomb.
"I had no idea," Rumsfeld said on ABC's This Week.
Though the trade center was burning, Pentagon employees had received no
warnings to take cover or clear out.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld thought a bomb had exploded at the
Pentagon, even though the military defense command had been warned 12
minutes before impact that an errant airliner was headed toward
Washington.

"And even though a World Trade Center tower was on fire, the Pentagon was
placed only on "Alpha" alert status, just one level up from normal and
two levels down from the "Charlie" threat level the building is now
under, Pentagon spokesman Glenn Flood said." -USA Today (9/16/01)


"Before the plane hit, the scene at the Pentagon was already chaotic.
Sheriff's deputies were screaming at people to move along quickly.
'There's a hijacked plane two minutes away. We don't know where it's
going to hit. Keep moving,' they shouted."

The U.S. Capitol was evacuated shortly after 9 a.m. ET, and officials
were telling people to stay away from the building by 10:30 a.m." -USA
Today (9/11/01)


"The American military air defence command was told by the federal
aviation administration that a hijacked commercial airliner was heading
towards Washington 12 minutes before it hit. But during that crucial time
the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and his top aides remained
unaware of any imminent danger.
Defence command also failed to inform Pentagon authorities responsible
for guarding the building and so no steps were taken to order an
evacuation or otherwise alert the building's 20,000 employees.

But while officials knew of the attacks in New York, few imagined that
the Pentagon itself could be a target." -Guardian (9/17/01)


"...neither the FAA, NORAD, nor any other federal government organization
made any effort to evacuate the buildings in Washington." -CNN (9/17/01)


Excerpts from an interview with Captain Michael J. Neri, Jr., who was
Special Assistant to the Assistant Surgeon General for Force Protection.
"Colonel Fruendt, our secretary Doreen, and myself were in there. I
looked at Colonel Fruendt and said, “I’m surprised we haven’t heard an
announcement about increased levels of THREATCON here at the Pentagon.” -
Soldiers to the Rescue/Responding in the Pentagon [HTML]

"In the moments immediately before impact at the Pentagon, the Arlington
County ECC began receiving 9-1-1 calls reporting a low flying airliner
that seemed off the normal flight path." -Arlington County After-Action
Report



Why wasn't there an order to shoot down Flight 77 before it crashed?


"McKinley and retired NORAD commander Larry Arnold, who was at the helm
on 9/11, said it would have been possible to scramble fighter jets over
the capital before hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the
Pentagon if the Federal Aviation Administration had notified NORAD
earlier of that particular hijacking.
FAA officials say they were in early informal contact with NORAD, even
though the official notification came later.
Two F-16 fighter jets mobilized from Virginia were 12 minutes away when
the Pentagon was hit, according to McKinley's submitted testimony.
Even with earlier official notification from the FAA, Arnold said it was
"speculative" to say whether Flight 77 could have been shot down before
it hit the Pentagon.
He said he never received authorization to shoot down Flight 77.
Additionally, he said he only learned of President Bush's authorization
to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93, which eventually crashed in
Pennsylvania, minutes after that plane already was down.

Yesterday's hearing also revealed that two unarmed District of Columbia
Air National Guard jet pilots who mobilized over Washington, D.C., that
day had expressed a willingness if necessary to fly their planes into a
hijacked jet to thwart an attack.
But their heroic offers were moot because Flight 77 already had struck
the Pentagon, and Flight 93 ended up crashing in the field after
passengers tried to retake the plane." -Star-Ledger/NJ.com (5/24/03)



Why did a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly cancel their travel
plans the day before 9/11?



On Sept. 10, NEWSWEEK has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials
suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because
of security concerns. -MSNBC (9/24/01)



Did this General get tipped off that the Pentagon was going to be hit?


Excerpts from an interview with Captain Michael J. Neri, Jr., who was
Special Assistant to the Assistant Surgeon General for Force Protection.
"We got word that General Bester canceled the rest of his meetings for
the day. He was going to return to the Pentagon to start monitoring in
case we had to start moving medical assets to New York." - Soldiers to
the Rescue/Responding in the Pentagon [HTML]



Why was most of the Marine Aviation moved further away from where the
crash happened the weekend before?



"Most of Marine Aviation had just the weekend before been moved to the
"Butler building," an extension of the Pentagon and about 200 yards from
where the impact occurred, not nearly as close as their previous
offices." -Leatherneck: "Instincts Told Them to Flee"


Another instance of office at the Pentagon moving away from the crash
area...


Excerpts from an interview with Colonel Jonathan Fruendt, who was Deputy
Assistant Surgeon General/Force Protection.
"Our office was located on the second floor in the A Ring. The office had
moved there about six months before I arrived. The office had previously
been in the E Ring, right in the area that was subsequently destroyed by
the aircraft." - Soldiers to the Rescue/Responding in the Pentagon [HTML]


More "lucky" people?...


Excerpts from an interview with Miss Beverly Ann Preston, who was an
Occupational Health Nurse for the Civilian Employee Health Service at the
DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic.
"I’ll tell you one story. One woman was in the new part of the building …
She was in the new part of the building and there were eight people in
her section. Within three weeks before this happened, three people had
retired and then three people were on vacation. So that day there was
only herself and her secretary in the building." - Soldiers to the
Rescue/Responding in the Pentagon [HTML]

"...most of the ACPD [Arlington County Police Dept.] senior leadership
was away from Arlington County on the morning of September 11." -
Arlington County After-Action Report



Who warned San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown not to fly 8 hours before the
attacks?

For Mayor Willie Brown, the first signs that something was amiss came
late Monday when he got a call from what he described as his airport
security - - a full eight hours before yesterday's string of terrorist
attacks -- advising him that Americans should be cautious about their air
travel.
Exactly where the call came from is a bit of a mystery. The mayor would
say only that it came from "my security people at the airport."
"We can only do what we can," the mayor said, adding, "Hell, if they
can't protect the Pentagon from attack, what can they protect?" -S.F.
Chronicle (9/12/01)



Did the Pentagon purposely inflate the number of casualties right after
the crash?


"Up to 800 people may have died Tuesday when a hijacked commercial
airliner was crashed into the Pentagon, officials said.
The more than 20,000 civilians and military men and women who work in the
Pentagon streamed into the surrounding parking lots, driven by blue and
white strobe alarm lights and wailing sirens." -CNN (9/12/01)


PENTAGON CASUALTIES OF THE TERRORIST ATTACK
"125 people were killed on the ground at the Pentagon. * An additional
59 perished aboard American Airlines Flight #77. We do not count the
five terrorists. Approximately 63 people were wounded/injured in the
attack." -DoD

"...in the first few hours, the media obtained information from any
available source...Estimates of “up to 800 fatalities” were based on the
potential occupancy of the impact area at the Pentagon, despite the
renovation work that left a significant part of the area uninhabited." -
Arlington County After-Action Report



Why haven't we heard what's on the flight recorders supposedly from
Flight 77? How do we know that these recorders weren't planted there or
that they were just said to have been recovered there? Is it just a
coincidence they were found in the middle of the night?

(Graphic source: usatoday.com) Pic of a flight recorder.


"Searchers today found the flight data and cockpit voice recorders from
the hijacked plane that flew into the Pentagon and exploded, Department
of Defense officials said.
The two "black boxes," crucial to uncovering details about the doomed
flight's last moments, were recovered at about 4 a.m., said Army Lt. Col.
George Rhynedance, a Pentagon spokesman.
Rhynedance said the recorders were in the possession of the FBI, and that
officials from the National Transportation Safety Board were providing
technical assistance in reading any data they contain.
Dick Bridges, deputy manager for Arlington County, Va., said the voice
recorder was damaged on the outside and the flight data recorder was
charred. But he said the FBI still was confident the data can be
recovered from both.
Bridges said the recorders were found "right where the plane came into
the building." -Houston Chronicle/AP (09/14/01)

"FBI Director Robert Mueller said Friday investigators have recovered
some information from the flight data recorder from American Airlines
Flight 77, the hijacked jet that slammed into the Pentagon." -CNN
(9/15/01)


"...officials in Washington said they may not be able to retrieve any
information the flight data and voice recorders aboard the airliner that
hit the Pentagon.
Federal sources said the Pentagon crash black boxes were taken to the
National Transportation Safety Bureau lab where a quick readout was
attempted. But preliminary information shows there is nothing that
appears to be useful on the cockpit voice tape. The tape appears to be
blank or erased.
Data from the Pentagon crash flight data recovered hasn't been processed
yet." -CBS (9/16/01)

"Searchers found the flight data and cockpit voice recorders about 4 a.m.
today in the wreckage of the hijacked plane that slammed into the
Pentagon on Sept. 11, Defense Department officials said.
The recorders were turned over the FBI." -DoD (9/14/01)

"FBI Director Robert Mueller said Flight 77's data recorder provided
altitude, speed, headings and other information, but the voice recorder
contained nothing useful." -CBS (2/23/02)

"Meanwhile, investigators tell Fox News they are getting "good, solid
readings" from American Airlines Flight 77's data recorder.
According to data on the recorder, the plane was going 345 miles per hour
when it crashed at about 9:30 Tuesday morning. Investigators also say the
recorder has speed an altitude information for the plane's entire flight.
The plane's voice recorder was also recovered, but National
Transportation Safety Board officials say it was too damaged in the fire
to obtain any information from it." -Fox (09/15/01)



Why does one report say the Black Boxes were found "right where the plane
came into the building," yet the ASCE Pentagon building report claims
they were found near the punch-out hole in Ring C?


Figure 3.17 Flight data recorder and landing gear. (Graphic source:
"Pentagon Building Performance Report" [PDF])


"Searchers sifting through the rubble at the Pentagon early Friday said
they recovered the "black boxes" containing the flight data and voice
recorders of the hijacked plane that crashed into the building Tuesday.
Bridges said the recorders were found "right where the plane came into
the building." -PBS (09/14/01)

"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." -Pentagon Building Performance Report (06/03)



Was it just a " bizarre coincidence" that John Fulton and the CIA were
planned a simulated plane crash into one of it's buildings on the morning
of 9/11?

John Fulton - Intelligence Networking & Analysis

On the morning of September 11th 2001, Mr. Fulton and his team at the CIA
were running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response
issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building.
Little did they know that the scenario would come true in a dramatic way
that day.

(Photo source: National Law Enforcement & Security Institute)

Agency was to simulate plane crash on September 11.
In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S.
intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an
errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings. But the cause
wasn't terrorism — it was to be a simulated accident.
Officials at the Chantilly, Va.-based National Reconnaissance Office had
scheduled an exercise that morning in which a small corporate jet would
crash into one of the four towers at the agency's headquarters building
after experiencing a mechanical failure.
The agency is about four miles from the runways of Washington Dulles
International Airport.
Adding to the coincidence, American Airlines Flight 77 — the Boeing 767
that was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon — took off from Dulles at
8:10 a.m. on Sept. 11, 50 minutes before the exercise was to begin. It
struck the Pentagon around 9:40 a.m., killing 64 aboard the plane and 125
on the ground.
The National Reconnaissance Office operates many of the nation's spy
satellites. It draws its personnel from the military and the CIA.
In a promotion for speaker John Fulton, a CIA officer assigned as chief
of NRO's strategic gaming division, the announcement says, "On the
morning of September 11th 2001, Mr. Fulton and his team ... were running
a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that
would be created if a plane were to strike a building. Little did they
know that the scenario would come true in a dramatic way that day." -
Boston Globe/AP (05/22/02)

Why did Gen. Richard Myers and the Bush Administration say they never
thought about hijacked planes crashing into the Pentagon or any other
building even though they practiced twice for a passenger aircraft
accidentally crashing into the Pentagon 11 months earlier and NORAD was
even going to specifically practice for a hijacked commercial jetliner
crashing into the Pentagon five months earlier?

"You hate to admit it, but we hadn't thought about this," Air Force Gen.
Richard Myers said. -DoD 10/23/01

"Never did anybody's thought process about how to protect America did we
ever think that the evil-doers would fly not one, but four commercial
aircraft into precious U.S. targets - never," said Bush. -White House
(9/16/01)


(Photos source: army.mil)




Contingency planning Pentagon MASCAL exercise simulates scenarios in
preparing for emergencies

The fire and smoke from the downed passenger aircraft billows from the
Pentagon courtyard. Defense Protective Services Police seal the crash
sight. Army medics, nurses and doctors scramble to organize aid. An
Arlington Fire Department chief dispatches his equipment to the affected
areas.
Don Abbott, of Command Emergency Response Training, walks over to the
Pentagon and extinguishes the flames. The Pentagon was a model and the
"plane crash" was a simulated one.
The Pentagon Mass Casualty Exercise, as the crash was called, was just
one of several scenarios that emergency response teams were exposed to
Oct. 24-26 in the Office of the Secretaries of Defense conference room.
On Oct. 24, there was a mock terrorist incident at the Pentagon Metro
stop and a construction accident to name just some of the scenarios that
were practiced to better prepare local agencies for real incidents.
"The most important thing is who are the players?" Geiling said. "And
what is their modus operandi?"
Brown thought the exercise was excellent preparation for any potential
disasters.
"This is important so that we're better prepared," Brown said. "This is
to work out the bugs. Hopefully it will never happen, but this way we're
prepared."
"You get to see the people that we'll be dealing with and to think about
the scenarios and what you would do," Sgt. Kelly Brown said. "It's a real
good scenario and one that could happen easily."
A major player in the exercise was the Arlington Fire Department.
"Our role is fire and rescue," Battalion Chief R.W. Cornwell said. "We
get to see how each other operates and the roles and responsibilities of
each. You have to plan for this. Look at all the air traffic around
here."
Burrell has coordinated these exercises for four years and he remarked
that his team gets better each year.
Abbott, in his after action critique, reminded the participants that the
actual disaster is only one-fifth of the incident and that the whole
emergency would run for seven to 20 days and might involve as many as 17
agencies.
"The emergency to a certain extent is the easiest part," Abbott said. He
reminded the group of the personal side of a disaster. "Families wanting
to come to the crash site for closure."
In this particular crash there would have been 341 victims. -MDW
(11/02/00)


"Over the years, accidental aircraft crash landings into the Pentagon
have occasionally been simulated.

Prior planning and training allowed responders to effect a large,
multijurisdictional response. The ACFD routinely participates in Pentagon
mass casualty tabletop exercises such as “Abbottsville” in May 2001, and
full-scale exercises such as “Cloudy Office” in 1998.

DTHC participation in an Arlington County EMS tabletop exercise with
Arlington County EMS in May 2001 helped response preparation for the
Pentagon attack. The scenario in that tabletop exercise featured a
commuter airplane crashing into the Pentagon. Additionally, Major Brown
and other DTHC staff had recently conducted a detailed disaster plan
review. The familiarity with its content helped adapt the DTHC disaster
plan to this situation.

The DPS was able to draw on the experience of previous interaction with
many of the responding agencies. The USSS, DC Metropolitan Police
Department, Virginia State Police, ACPD, and MDW frequently work together
when dignitaries visit the Pentagon. Area fire, rescue, medical, and law
enforcement agencies regularly participate together in tabletop and full-
scale exercises." -Arlington County After-Action Report


Five months before Sept. 11, 2001, the officers responsible for defending
American airspace wanted to test their ability to prevent a hijacked
airliner from being crashed into the Pentagon, but the scenario was
rejected by the Joint Chiefs of Staff as impractical, a Joint Chiefs
spokesman confirmed yesterday.
The disclosure was made after a government watchdog group released a
leaked e-mail from a former official at the North American Air Defense
Command. In the message, the official told colleagues a week after the
attacks that in April 2001 NORAD requested that war games run by the
Joint Chiefs include an ''event having a terrorist group hijack a
commercial airline . . . and fly it into the Pentagon."
Last night, Pentagon spokesman Lieutenant Commander Dan Hetlage confirmed
the account, saying: ''That scenario was rejected because it would have
become a whole exercise in and of itself. It wasn't looked on at the time
as being practicable."
The NORAD proposal is the clearest sign yet that national security
officials were worried before 9/11 about terrorists using hijacked
airliners as missiles, despite testimony that senior leaders, including
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, didn't know of such concerns.
Officials at NORAD apparently were concerned. But the e-mail said, the US
Pacific Command, which was overseeing the exercises simulating a war with
North Korea, ''didn't want it because it would take attention away from
their exercise objectives, and Joint Staff action officers rejected it as
too unrealistic."
Peter Stockton, chief investigator for the Project on Government
Oversight, said yesterday he was told by the source who provided the memo
that a special forces officer attached to the NORAD command at the time
had first proposed the Pentagon scenario be practiced.
Concerns that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles dates
back to the 1996 Olympic games in Atlanta, when jets were placed on
patrol to guard against such a threat." -Boston Globe (4/14/04)



Is it just a coincidence that hours before the Pentagon was hit, Pentagon
medic Matt Rosenberg was studying the new MASCAL medical emergency
disaster plan which is based on the unlikely scenario of an airplane
crashing into the Pentagon?


"Matt Rosenberg was down on Corridor 8, a medic at the health clinic in
the massive military headquarters, grateful for an uninterrupted hour in
which he could study a new medical emergency disaster plan based on the
unlikely scenario of an airplane crashing into the place.
Into the Pentagon's health clinic rushed a man screaming, "Evacuate now!
Evacuate now!" This was not part of the disaster drill Matt Rosenberg had
studied earlier that morning. He stopped a procedure on a patient in
Minor Surgery Treatment Room 2 and started evacuating patients.
A naval officer rushed in and said a patient was in the courtyard where
some people, confused and scared, had rushed to escape the collapsing
inferno inside Corridor 5. Rosenberg, 26, dashed down a hallway, pushing
through hundreds of people escaping the opposite direction, until he
reached the courtyard, where he saw smoke billowing and people staggering
out from the area that had been hit. He grabbed his radio and called back
to the clinic. "You need to initiate MASCAL right now! We have mass
casualties! I need medical assets to the courtyard!" -Star
Tribune/Washington Post (9/21/01)


Excerpts from an interview with Sergeant Matthew Rosenberg, a medic at
the DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic.
"We had virtually completed our MASCAL plan. I was setting up training
for medics, I was in the process of ordering new supplies, and trying to
reinvent what we would do, how we would go about it. We still had the old
MASCAL kits in place, and everything under the old guidance, and we were
trying to take that a step beyond. Believe it or not, the day prior to
the incident, I was just on the phone with the FBI, and we were talking
‘so who has command should this happen, who has the medical jurisdiction,
who does this, who does that,’ and we talked about it and talked about
it, and he helped me out a lot. And then the next day, during the
incident, I actually found him. He was out there on the incident that
day, and I made the joke, “You know, I used to have questions about all
this, about who would have the command.” He would say, “You got any more
questions?” I went, “Nope, not anymore.”
When I started seeing patients coming out of the building, I picked up my
radio, and I called in, “This is Sergeant Rosenberg. You need to initiate
the MASCAL plan now. We have multiple patients in the center courtyard,
and I need medical assets in the courtyard immediately.” - Soldiers to
the Rescue/Responding in the Pentagon [HTML]


Excerpts from an interview with Staff Sergeant Keith Pernell, who was
NCOIC of Nursing Services at the DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic.
Before September 11, we were actually working on the MASCAL. One of our
major functions was to re-evaluate the plan.
On September 11, I was in my office and Sergeant Rosenberg came up and
said, “Hey, Sergeant, come take a look at the TV, the World Trade Center,
a plane ran through it.” I said, “No, no, I'm all right, I need to just
finish this work up.”
I couldn't believe that a plane had crashed in there. When you visualize
it, you say, “My God, did this really happen? I can't believe it.” -
Soldiers to the Rescue/Responding in the Pentagon [HTML]



Was it just a coincidence that the MASCAL emergency equipment was out of
their storage areas for an "inventory check" before the Pentagon was hit?


Excerpts from an interview with Major Lorie A. Brown, who was Chief Nurse
of DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic.
"We did not feel a plane hit the building. Our lights didn’t flicker. We
didn’t lose electricity or phones. Nothing. There was no physical impact
for us. Probably the lack of physical impact is because the clinic is
below ground and also built with new construction techniques; this new
construction technique played a role in saving lives at the actual crash
site. But we had no physical impact and it wasn’t until someone came
running into the clinic and said, “You’ve got to get out. You’ve got to
get out. Something horrible has happened.”
We saw hundreds of people running down the corridor to the exit. Because
the crash site was on the west side of the building the clinic was almost
directly opposite, our corridor was a clear avenue for people to escape.
As soon as I saw that, we initiated the MASCAL, [mass casualty plan]
started galvanizing all of our assets and put our plan in action.
Having practiced over the past year our roles and worked our pieces, we
knew our lanes of responsibility. I’m the chairperson for the DiLorenzo
Action Response Team, DART; that is our MASCAL plan. For the past year,
the DART team has been working on developing that plan, really creating a
whole new plan. We sat down and met on numerous occasions with the Air
Force clinic, civilian EMS, [Emergency Medical Services] Pentagon and DoD
hierarchy, DPS and with the other civilian medical agencies. We worked
through issues, what would happen in the event of a MASCAL, what each of
our roles would be. We participated in several large tabletop exercises
with these external bodies, to include FEMA [Federal Emergency Management
Agency] and the others I just mentioned. We even did our own internal
exercise where we made up the scenario of a plane crashing into the
building. Though you can never be prepared for an event like this, I am
sure all our preparations and exercise paid off.
We actually had our MASCAL equipment out of the storage areas because we
were doing an inventory. So there were many pieces that just fell into
place and worked so well on that day. It was just fortuitous. It was just
amazing that way that things kind of happened the way they did. But like
I said our planning truly made such a huge difference on that day. Our
Commander had the foresight to focus on MASCAL prep and gave us the time
and budget to really revamp our old MASCAL plan. I can’t say enough about
how critical this was to our success." - Soldiers to the
Rescue/Responding in the Pentagon [HTML]



What does it say when even a Pentagon rescuer says it was "eerie" how the
MASCAL emergency plane crash plan he had been trained on twice before was
"very similar to what actually happened" at the Pentagon on 9/11?


Excerpts from an interview with Lieutenant Colonel John Felicio, who was
Deputy Commander for Administration of the DiLorenzo TRICARE Health
Clinic.
"As I was heading down the main corridor outside my office to the main
lobby, I remember an NCO asking me if I had heard about the “private
plane” that hit one of the World Trade Center Twin Towers. I told him I
hadn’t and walked out to the main lobby and that's when I saw it on the
TV. It wasn’t a private plane but a jet. At that time, I came back into
my office and I put on my WIN TV on my office computer. As I continued to
work, I saw that a second plane that had flown into the World Trade
Center.
At that time, I got this uneasy feeling and walked over to Major Brown's
office since she had clinical oversight of our Emergency Reaction Teams.
My thought was to see about our preparedness for a MASCAL situation.
I then went out to the front of the clinic, which is basically where we
normally marshal in MASCAL situations.
Meanwhile, I knew because of the two MASCAL exercises we previously did
that Colonel Kaminski, our Chief of Ancillary Services, was responsible
for being our Medical Liaison at the Emergency Operation Center (EOC) and
that he should be en route to that location.
The saving grace to our efforts was the two MASCAL exercises we
previously had conducted with the clinic leadership and staff. You know
it was kind of eerie. The scenario we had for these MASCALS was very
similar to what actually happened. Our scenario for both MASCALS was a
plane flying into the Pentagon courtyard." - Soldiers to the
Rescue/Responding in the Pentagon [HTML]



Was it just "sheer coincidence" that a large number of fire and medical
service units were dispatched to a high-rise building fire near the
Pentagon one minute before the attack and that the fire was already
reported out by the time the first responder arrived which made most of
the units available to help at the Pentagon?


"Additionally, just 1 minute before the Pentagon crash, in response to a
9-1-1 telephone call at 9:37 a.m., the ECC dispatched several units to an
apartment fire at 1003 Wilson Boulevard in Rosslyn. Because it was
located in a high-rise building, it was a substantial dispatch involving
nine different fire and medical service units. Engine 103 reached the
Rosslyn scene first and radioed that the apartment fire was out. Thus, by
sheer coincidence, there were a significant number of units already on
the road near the Pentagon at the time of the attack.

The ECC redirected units that had been dispatched minutes earlier to a
Rosslyn high-rise fire, now reported under control." -Arlington County
After-Action Report


Starting from: 1003 Wilson Blvd, Rosslyn, VA 22209-2201
Arriving at: US Pentagon Rotary, Arlington, VA
Distance: 2.6 miles Approximate Travel Time: 5 mins - Yahoo

"There were responses to two fires on the morning of September 11, which
the fill-in units readily handled.
On the morning of September 11, the regional response was almost
overwhelming.
Because of a dispatch for an apartment fire in the Rosslyn area minutes
before the plane hit the Pentagon, numerous units were on the air or in
the vicinity, and those units immediately self-dispatched as they
anticipated the ECC's response need." -Fire Engineering Magazine (11/02)



Was it just a coincidence also that Engine 101 was nearby the Pentagon
too at the time of the attack?


"By 8:30 a.m., training classes at the Arlington County Fire Training
Academy were in full swing.

In Arlington County, Captain Steve McCoy and the crew of Engine 101 were
en route to a training session in Crystal City, traveling north on
Interstate 395. Their conversation about the World Trade Center attack
was interrupted by the sight of a commercial airliner in steep descent,
banking sharply to its right before disappearing beyond the horizon. At
9:38 a.m., shortly after American Airlines Flight #77 disappeared from
sight, a tremendous explosion preceded a massive plume of smoke and fire.
Unable to pinpoint the precise location, Captain McCoy immediately
radioed the Arlington County Emergency Communications Center (ECC),
reporting an airplane crash in the vicinity of the 14th Street Bridge or
in Crystal City. Aware of the World Trade Center attack, Captain McCoy
also advised that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) should be
notified, since this was a possible terrorist attack." -Arlington County
After-Action Report



Was it just a coincidence that the Pentagon was staffed with extra
emergency communications specialists the day of the attack?


"On the morning of September 11, seven emergency communications
specialists, the minimum required staffing level, were on duty at the
ECC, having commenced their shift at 7:00 a.m...On this particular
morning, six additional staff members happened to be in the conference
room attending a training class." -Arlington County After-Action Report



Was it just a "precautionary step" that the FBI had sent a team over to
an airport near the Pentagon after Flight 77 was reported hijacked out of
Dulles?


"...at the FBI Washington Field Office (WFO), Special Agent-in-Charge
(SAC) Arthur Eberhart was putting in motion the steps necessary to
support New York City.

At about 9:20 a.m., the WFO Command Center was notified that American
Airlines Flight #77 had been hijacked shortly after takeoff from
Washington Dulles International Airport. SAC Eberhart dispatched a team
of 50 agents to investigate the Dulles hijacking and provide additional
security to prevent another. He sent a second team to Ronald Reagan
Washington National Airport as a precautionary step." -Arlington County
After-Action Report



How did so many important emergency personnel arrive at the Pentagon so
fast after the crash?

9:38 a.m. American Airlines Flight #77, carrying 58 passengers and a crew
of 6, crashes into the Pentagon
9:40 a.m. Captain Chuck Gibbs [ACFD’s Training Officer] arrives at the
Pentagon
9:40 a.m. Captain Mark Penn [Deputy Coordinator of Emergency Services]
arrives at Arlington County EOC
9:41 a.m. Battalion Chief Bob Cornwell arrives at the Pentagon and
assumes Incident Command
9:41 a.m. ACFD Truck 105 arrives at the Pentagon
9:42 a.m. ACFD Captain Edward Blunt arrives at the Pentagon and
establishes EMS Control
9:43 a.m. MWAA [Metropolitan Medical Response System] first responders
arrive at the Pentagon - Arlington County After-Action Report



If the 9/11 attacks were perpetuated by Muslim extremists who are willing
to die for their cause, why did their attacks only come from the air and
not from the ground also?


"There was great concern that additional “terrorist sleeper-cells” might
become active and perpetrate further attacks." -Arlington County After-
Action Report



What does the Pentagon say about the accusations that Flight 77 didn't
crash there?


"...we spoke with The Pentagon about the conspiracy theory, and they
said, "it's so ridiculous, we don't even address it." -7 News Online
(05/23/05)
Black People Don't Care About George Bush
2005-09-16 13:28:56 UTC
Permalink
***@yahoo.com wrote in
news:***@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Black People Don't Care About George Bush skrev:
>
>> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in news:dgc09n$gt7$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>>
>> >
>> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in
>> >> news:dgbkls$a9e$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in
>> >> >> news:dg92ll$rt8$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> >> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> >> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in
>> >> >> >> news:dg8l9s$kef$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> >> >> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> >> >> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in
>> >> >> >> >> news:dg5v8b$2j2$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> >> >> >> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> >> >> >> >> "James Of Tucson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >> >> >> >> >> news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.
>> >> >> >> >> >> com
>> >> >> >> >> >> :
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>A cruise missile hit the pentagon.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Forget about planes. You said yourself you don't
>> >> >> >> >> >> > have any evidence
>> >> >> >> > of
>> >> >> >> >> >> > a plane.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> 757.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > So you can't show evidence of a plane.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Except for part of a single engine, which doesn't
>> >> >> >> >> >> appear to be from a 757.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > Says who?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Says lots of people. Check out the research available
>> >> >> >> >> online.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > So magic me up a cite then, bitch. Of course, it has to be
>> >> >> >> > from someone who knows what they're talking about wrt
>> >> >> >> > airliner engines,
>> >> >> not
>> >> >> >> > on eof your kook buddies.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > ..Jason runs away. What a surprise.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So you're entirely ignorant of any such research done by anyone
>> >> >> regarding these engines?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > No, but apparently you are, seeing as you can't present up a
>> >> > cite from someone who knows what they're talking about saying
>> >> > that those aren't RB 211 parts
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The Internet: look into it.
>> >> >
>> >> > Reality - give it a try sometime!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Please don't flaunt your ignorace.
>> >
>> > In other words, you STILL can't seeing as you can't present a cite
>> > from someone who knows what they're talking about saying that those
>> > aren't RB 211 parts. Well well.
>>
>>
>> I'm quite sure I can find five or ten. I think one was an engineer
>> from the company in question.
>
> So in other words you MIGHT be able to find ONE person who knows what
> they're talking about saying that those aren't RB 211 parts.


No, as I said there are a lot of them.


http://physics911.net/missingwings.htm



Start with A.K. Dewdney. If you continue to whine, I'll try and find the
quote from the company rep.



>> Why can't you?
>
> As I'm ot the one making the claim that it is "doubtful" that teh
> wreckage of from an RB 211, I don't need to. This is basic stuff..


Erm, no, you're claiming that I MIGHT be able to find ONE person who says
they are not rb211 parts.


Of course, you're plainly wrong.




>> >> >> >> >> >> The unofficially released stills seem to support a
>> >> >> >> >> >> missile fired from close range by an F-16 type plane.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! How'd you work that out, ace?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> How did what work out for me?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Got alzheimers?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > ..Jason runs away. What a surprise.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How did what work out for me?
>> >> >
>> >> > Alzheimers or illiteracy - which is it?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> How did what work out for me, genius?
>> >
>> > Ah, so it's your basic inabilty to read that is teh problem, you
>> > gibbering fucking putz. Now read it again and get an adult to help
>> > you:
>> >
>> >
>> > You wrote:
>> >> The unofficially released stills seem to support a missile fired
>> >> from
>> > close range by an F-16 type plane.
>> >
>> > I replied:
>> > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! How'd you work that out, ace?
>> >
>> > ..and you've been running ever since. Hee hee!
>>
>>
>> Yes. How droll.
>
> Aaaand Jason runs,screaming, from his claim again. Exceeding droll!



Don't piss yourself, guy.



>> >> >> >> >> >> All that needs to be established is that no 757 hit
>> >> >> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> Pentagon.
>> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > Which you utterly fail to do, again..
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Then you can debunk the article in question?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > The article does not establish that no 757 hit the
>> >> >> >> > Pentagon, thus it debunks itself quite nicely.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> You're a funny little man.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Hilarious, I know. I notice you ran away from backing up your
>> >> >> > shit
>> >> >> again,
>> >> >> > bitch.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You have the social skills of a dead troll in plastic baggie.
>> >> >
>> >> > I notice you ran away from backing up your shit again, bitch.
>> >>
>> >> If your shit is backing up, see a doctor.
>> >
>> > I notice you ran away from backing up your shit again, bitch.
>>
>> I bet the ladies love you.
>
> Jealous, eh.


Ever so much.


No 757 Hit The Pentagon
http://www.bedoper.com
tw
2005-09-16 13:39:21 UTC
Permalink
"Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com>
wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
> ***@yahoo.com wrote in
> news:***@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Black People Don't Care About George Bush skrev:
> >
> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in news:dgc09n$gt7$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in
> >> >> news:dgbkls$a9e$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> >> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> news:dg92ll$rt8$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> >> >> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >> >> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> >> news:dg8l9s$kef$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> >> >> >> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >> >> >> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> >> >> news:dg5v8b$2j2$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> >> >> >> >> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >> >> >> >> >> "James Of Tucson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> >> >> >> news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> com
> >> >> >> >> >> >> :
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>A cruise missile hit the pentagon.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Forget about planes. You said yourself you don't
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > have any evidence
> >> >> >> >> > of
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > a plane.
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> 757.
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > So you can't show evidence of a plane.
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Except for part of a single engine, which doesn't
> >> >> >> >> >> >> appear to be from a 757.
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > Says who?
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Says lots of people. Check out the research available
> >> >> >> >> >> online.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > So magic me up a cite then, bitch. Of course, it has to be
> >> >> >> >> > from someone who knows what they're talking about wrt
> >> >> >> >> > airliner engines,
> >> >> >> not
> >> >> >> >> > on eof your kook buddies.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > ..Jason runs away. What a surprise.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> So you're entirely ignorant of any such research done by anyone
> >> >> >> regarding these engines?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No, but apparently you are, seeing as you can't present up a
> >> >> > cite from someone who knows what they're talking about saying
> >> >> > that those aren't RB 211 parts
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The Internet: look into it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Reality - give it a try sometime!
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Please don't flaunt your ignorace.
> >> >
> >> > In other words, you STILL can't seeing as you can't present a cite
> >> > from someone who knows what they're talking about saying that those
> >> > aren't RB 211 parts. Well well.
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm quite sure I can find five or ten. I think one was an engineer
> >> from the company in question.
> >
> > So in other words you MIGHT be able to find ONE person who knows what
> > they're talking about saying that those aren't RB 211 parts.
>
>
> No, as I said there are a lot of them.

No, as you said, only one was an engineer (and we've yet to hear from him)


> http://physics911.net/missingwings.htm
>
>
>
> Start with A.K. Dewdney.

Who has no credentials in being able to identify an RB 211, and bases his
size estimates on extremely flakey methodology. He is clearly rather a
stupid, credulous individual.

Once again, you fail to back up your claim..

> If you continue to whine, I'll try and find the
> quote from the company rep.

A REP?! What the fuck would he know about identifying engine parts?

>
>
>
> >> Why can't you?
> >
> > As I'm ot the one making the claim that it is "doubtful" that teh
> > wreckage of from an RB 211, I don't need to. This is basic stuff..
>
>
> Erm, no, you're claiming that I MIGHT be able to find ONE person who says
> they are not rb211 parts.

..ONE person who knows what they're talking about (e.g. someone familiar
with an RB 211)..
Naturally, you have failed even in that simple task.

However, the original claim is yours:
You: " Except for part of a single engine, which doesn't appear to be from a
757."
Me: "cite?"

..and whaddaya know? YOu can't produce a single cite from anyone who knows
what they'r talking about WRT RB 211 parts.

> Of course, you're plainly wrong.

Nice strawman.



>
>
>
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> The unofficially released stills seem to support a
> >> >> >> >> >> >> missile fired from close range by an F-16 type plane.
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! How'd you work that out, ace?
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> How did what work out for me?
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Got alzheimers?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > ..Jason runs away. What a surprise.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> How did what work out for me?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Alzheimers or illiteracy - which is it?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> How did what work out for me, genius?
> >> >
> >> > Ah, so it's your basic inabilty to read that is teh problem, you
> >> > gibbering fucking putz. Now read it again and get an adult to help
> >> > you:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > You wrote:
> >> >> The unofficially released stills seem to support a missile fired
> >> >> from
> >> > close range by an F-16 type plane.
> >> >
> >> > I replied:
> >> > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! How'd you work that out, ace?
> >> >
> >> > ..and you've been running ever since. Hee hee!
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes. How droll.
> >
> > Aaaand Jason runs,screaming, from his claim again. Exceeding droll!
>
>
>
> Don't piss yourself, guy.

I'll try not to, though with the howls of derisive laughter your idiocy
provokes it could be difficult.

>
>
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> All that needs to be established is that no 757 hit
> >> >> >> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> Pentagon.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > Which you utterly fail to do, again..
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Then you can debunk the article in question?
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > The article does not establish that no 757 hit the
> >> >> >> >> > Pentagon, thus it debunks itself quite nicely.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> You're a funny little man.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Hilarious, I know. I notice you ran away from backing up your
> >> >> >> > shit
> >> >> >> again,
> >> >> >> > bitch.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You have the social skills of a dead troll in plastic baggie.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I notice you ran away from backing up your shit again, bitch.
> >> >>
> >> >> If your shit is backing up, see a doctor.
> >> >
> >> > I notice you ran away from backing up your shit again, bitch.
> >>
> >> I bet the ladies love you.
> >
> > Jealous, eh.
>
>
> Ever so much.
>
>
> No 757 Hit The Pentagon
> http://www.bedoper.com
>
Black People Don't Care About George Bush
2005-09-16 13:46:42 UTC
Permalink
"tw" <***@no.com> wrote in news:dgehua$25m$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:

>
> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> ***@yahoo.com wrote in
>> news:***@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > Black People Don't Care About George Bush skrev:
>> >
>> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in
>> >> news:dgc09n$gt7$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in
>> >> >> news:dgbkls$a9e$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> >> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> >> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in
>> >> >> >> news:dg92ll$rt8$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> >> >> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> >> >> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in
>> >> >> >> >> news:dg8l9s$kef$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> >> >> >> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> >> >> >> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in
>> >> >> >> >> >> news:dg5v8b$2j2$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> >> >> >> >> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> "James Of Tucson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegrou
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> ps. com
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> :
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>A cruise missile hit the pentagon.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Forget about planes. You said yourself you don't
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > have any evidence
>> >> >> >> >> > of
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > a plane.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> 757.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > So you can't show evidence of a plane.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Except for part of a single engine, which doesn't
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> appear to be from a 757.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Says who?
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Says lots of people. Check out the research available
>> >> >> >> >> >> online.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > So magic me up a cite then, bitch. Of course, it has to
>> >> >> >> >> > be from someone who knows what they're talking about
>> >> >> >> >> > wrt airliner engines,
>> >> >> >> not
>> >> >> >> >> > on eof your kook buddies.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > ..Jason runs away. What a surprise.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> So you're entirely ignorant of any such research done by
>> >> >> >> anyone regarding these engines?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > No, but apparently you are, seeing as you can't present up a
>> >> >> > cite from someone who knows what they're talking about saying
>> >> >> > that those aren't RB 211 parts
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The Internet: look into it.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Reality - give it a try sometime!
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Please don't flaunt your ignorace.
>> >> >
>> >> > In other words, you STILL can't seeing as you can't present a
>> >> > cite from someone who knows what they're talking about saying
>> >> > that those aren't RB 211 parts. Well well.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I'm quite sure I can find five or ten. I think one was an engineer
>> >> from the company in question.
>> >
>> > So in other words you MIGHT be able to find ONE person who knows
>> > what they're talking about saying that those aren't RB 211 parts.
>>
>>
>> No, as I said there are a lot of them.
>
> No, as you said, only one was an engineer (and we've yet to hear from
> him)


I was mistaken about him being a company engineer.



>> http://physics911.net/missingwings.htm
>>
>>
>>
>> Start with A.K. Dewdney.
>
> Who has no credentials in being able to identify an RB 211, and bases
> his size estimates on extremely flakey methodology. He is clearly
> rather a stupid, credulous individual.

Ah, yes. World famous PhD Dewdney.

Do you realize how weak you currently appear?


> Once again, you fail to back up your claim..

Now, why would I continue to provide cites, if you're just going to
dismiss them without cause?


Can you show some flaw in Mr. Dewdney's work?

Please do so.



>> If you continue to whine, I'll try and find the
>> quote from the company rep.
>
> A REP?! What the fuck would he know about identifying engine parts?


Reps speak for the company. In a sense, they ARE the company.



>> >> Why can't you?
>> >
>> > As I'm ot the one making the claim that it is "doubtful" that teh
>> > wreckage of from an RB 211, I don't need to. This is basic stuff..
>>
>>
>> Erm, no, you're claiming that I MIGHT be able to find ONE person who
>> says they are not rb211 parts.
>
> ..ONE person who knows what they're talking about (e.g. someone
> familiar with an RB 211)..
> Naturally, you have failed even in that simple task.
>
> However, the original claim is yours:
> You: " Except for part of a single engine, which doesn't appear to be
> from a 757."
> Me: "cite?"
>
> ..and whaddaya know? YOu can't produce a single cite from anyone who
> knows what they'r talking about WRT RB 211 parts.
>
>> Of course, you're plainly wrong.
>
> Nice strawman.


You have made this essentially unwinnable, since you simply dismiss PhDs,
company representatives, etc. as "not knowing what they're talking
about".


Please go back to high school debate classes.




>> >> >> >> >> >> >> The unofficially released stills seem to support a
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> missile fired from close range by an F-16 type
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> plane.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! How'd you work that out, ace?
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> How did what work out for me?
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > Got alzheimers?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > ..Jason runs away. What a surprise.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> How did what work out for me?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Alzheimers or illiteracy - which is it?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How did what work out for me, genius?
>> >> >
>> >> > Ah, so it's your basic inabilty to read that is teh problem, you
>> >> > gibbering fucking putz. Now read it again and get an adult to
>> >> > help you:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > You wrote:
>> >> >> The unofficially released stills seem to support a missile
>> >> >> fired from
>> >> > close range by an F-16 type plane.
>> >> >
>> >> > I replied:
>> >> > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! How'd you work that out, ace?
>> >> >
>> >> > ..and you've been running ever since. Hee hee!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Yes. How droll.
>> >
>> > Aaaand Jason runs,screaming, from his claim again. Exceeding droll!
>>
>>
>>
>> Don't piss yourself, guy.
>
> I'll try not to, though with the howls of derisive laughter your
> idiocy provokes it could be difficult.


There's always Depends, guy.


>> >> >> >> >> >> >> All that needs to be established is that no 757 hit
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> Pentagon.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Which you utterly fail to do, again..
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Then you can debunk the article in question?
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > The article does not establish that no 757 hit the
>> >> >> >> >> > Pentagon, thus it debunks itself quite nicely.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> You're a funny little man.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Hilarious, I know. I notice you ran away from backing up
>> >> >> >> > your shit
>> >> >> >> again,
>> >> >> >> > bitch.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> You have the social skills of a dead troll in plastic
>> >> >> >> baggie.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I notice you ran away from backing up your shit again, bitch.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If your shit is backing up, see a doctor.
>> >> >
>> >> > I notice you ran away from backing up your shit again, bitch.
>> >>
>> >> I bet the ladies love you.
>> >
>> > Jealous, eh.
>>
>>
>> Ever so much.
>>
>>
>> No 757 Hit The Pentagon
>> http://www.bedoper.com



Controversy Swirling Over September 11 Pentagon Mystery: Industry Experts
Can’t Explain Photo Evidence

American Free Press
By Christopher Bollyn

[...] The photograph is one of many taken by Jocelyn Augustino, a FEMA
photographer, at the Pentagon crash site on Sept. 13, 2001. In the FEMA
on-line photo library, the best photos of the unidentified disc are
numbered 4414 and 4415, archived here

Several readers wrote to AFP suggesting that the unidentified disc was a
piece from the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) mounted in the tail section of
a Boeing 757. Honeywell makes the GTCP331-200 APU used on the 757
aircraft. No one suggested, however, that the small disc was a piece from
one of the main engines of a 757-200.

AFP contacted Honeywell’s Aerospace division in Phoenix, Ariz., and sent
high-resolution photos for their examination. "There’s no way that’s an
APU wheel," an expert at Honeywell told AFP. The expert, who cannot be
named, added: "That turbine disc—there’s no way in the world that came
out of an APU."

American Free Press contacted Pratt & Whitney and Rolls Royce,
manufacturers of the 757’s turbofan jet engines to try and identify the
piece.

"If the aircraft that struck the Pentagon was a Boeing 757-200 owned by
American Airlines, then it would have to be a Rolls Royce engine," Mark
Sullivan, spokesman for Pratt & Whitney, told AFP.

John W. Brown, spokesman for Rolls Royce (Indianapolis), had previously
told AFP: "It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I’m familiar
with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy."

The AE 3007 engines are used in small commuter jets such as the Cessna
Citation; the AE 3007H is also used in the military’s unmanned aircraft,
the Global Hawk. The Global Hawk is manufactured by Northrop Grumman’s
subsidiary Ryan Aeronautical, which it acquired from Teledyne, Inc. in
July 1999.

If the government version that an American Airlines 757-200 hit the
Pentagon is accurate, then the object in the photo would have to be from
a Rolls Royce RB211-535 turbofan engine.

When AFP told Brown that it must be a piece of a Rolls Royce engine,
Brown balked and asked who at Pratt & Whitney had provided the
information.

Asked again if the disc in the photo is a piece of a Rolls Royce RB211-
535, or from the AE 3007 series, Brown said he could not answer.

AFP then asked Brown if he was actually familiar with the parts of an AE
3007H, which is made at the Indiana plant: "No," Brown said. "I don’t
build the engines. I am a spokesman for the company. I speak for the
company."

Rolls Royce produces the RB211-535 engines for American Airlines 757-200
aircraft at a plant in Derby, England. Martin Johnson, head of
communications at Rolls Royce in Derby, said he had followed the story
closely in American Free Press and had also been notified in advance by
Rolls Royce offices in Seattle and Indianapolis.

However, rather than address the question of the unidentified disc,
Johnson launched a verbal attack on this reporter for questioning the
government version of events at the Pentagon on 9-11. "You are the only
person in the world who does not believe that a 757 hit the Pentagon,"
Johnson said. "The idea that we can have a reasonable conversation is
beyond your wildest dreams," Johnson said and hung up the phone.

Flug Revue, a German magazine about aviation equipment was more willing
to discuss the disc. Karl Schwarz, a technical editor at the Bonn-based
publication, examined the photo and technical drawings of the RB211-535
for AFP. "I think only an engineer who is involved in the design of the
engine could identify the part," Schwarz said.

While the front fan of the RB211-535 has a 74.5-inch diameter,
compression discs inside the engine are much smaller. Schwarz said the
inner discs are between 29 and 41 inches in diameter. "It could well be"
an inner compression disc, Schwarz said. The discs from the inner stages
are made of titanium, he added.

AFP asked Schwarz if this could be a disc from a smaller engine, such as
the Global Hawk’s AE 3007H. "It could come from any jet engine," Schwarz
said.

If the disc in the photo can be matched with a Rolls Royce AE 3007H
engine, some speculate that it would prove something like a Global Hawk
hit the Pentagon.

The Global Hawk engine is hand built at the Rolls Royce plant in
Indianapolis and has an opening diameter of 43.5 inches. Schwarz said he
did not have a technical diagram of an AE 3007 engine to consult.

Because the disc in the photo appears very similar in size and shape to
the front fan of a Global Hawk engine, AFP asked Schwarz in what position
is the solid disc found behind the front fan of a turbofan engine.
"Immediately," Schwarz said.

An unnamed former cruise missile engineer for the engine manufacturer
Teledyne Continental Motors-Turbine Engines added his opinion to the
debate:

"Clearly, the part in the picture is larger than 24 inches in diameter.
It also appears to have a nosepiece-like device on its front. This
probably houses bearings, front oil sump and perhaps an alternator or
starter."

This engineer concluded with the intriguing comment, "This fan did not
come from a cruise missile engine."

Comment: The AE 3007 is the engine used in the US military's 'Global
Hawk' (among others). If the 'turbine disc' in the photograph above came
from the aircraft that hit the pentagon and we use it to assess the
relative size of the entire engine of the craft, then it is clear that it
was NOT a 757-200 that hit the Pentagon.

If any readers have any further information that might help to identify
the part please email us.
tw
2005-09-16 14:02:04 UTC
Permalink
"Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com>
wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in news:dgehua$25m$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>
> >
> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> ***@yahoo.com wrote in
> >> news:***@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> >>
> >> > Black People Don't Care About George Bush skrev:
> >> >
> >> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in
> >> >> news:dgc09n$gt7$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> >> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> news:dgbkls$a9e$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> >> >> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >> >> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> >> news:dg92ll$rt8$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> >> >> >> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >> >> >> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> >> >> news:dg8l9s$kef$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> >> >> >> >> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >> >> >> >> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> >> >> >> news:dg5v8b$2j2$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "James Of Tucson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegrou
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ps. com
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> :
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>A cruise missile hit the pentagon.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Forget about planes. You said yourself you don't
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > have any evidence
> >> >> >> >> >> > of
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > a plane.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 757.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > So you can't show evidence of a plane.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Except for part of a single engine, which doesn't
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> appear to be from a 757.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Says who?
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Says lots of people. Check out the research available
> >> >> >> >> >> >> online.
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > So magic me up a cite then, bitch. Of course, it has to
> >> >> >> >> >> > be from someone who knows what they're talking about
> >> >> >> >> >> > wrt airliner engines,
> >> >> >> >> not
> >> >> >> >> >> > on eof your kook buddies.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > ..Jason runs away. What a surprise.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> So you're entirely ignorant of any such research done by
> >> >> >> >> anyone regarding these engines?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > No, but apparently you are, seeing as you can't present up a
> >> >> >> > cite from someone who knows what they're talking about saying
> >> >> >> > that those aren't RB 211 parts
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> The Internet: look into it.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Reality - give it a try sometime!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Please don't flaunt your ignorace.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In other words, you STILL can't seeing as you can't present a
> >> >> > cite from someone who knows what they're talking about saying
> >> >> > that those aren't RB 211 parts. Well well.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm quite sure I can find five or ten. I think one was an engineer
> >> >> from the company in question.
> >> >
> >> > So in other words you MIGHT be able to find ONE person who knows
> >> > what they're talking about saying that those aren't RB 211 parts.
> >>
> >>
> >> No, as I said there are a lot of them.
> >
> > No, as you said, only one was an engineer (and we've yet to hear from
> > him)
>
>
> I was mistaken about him being a company engineer.


So, the grand total of qualified people you can find who have said the
engine parts aren't consistent with an RB 211 is.. let me count them up
now.. none.


>
>
>
> >> http://physics911.net/missingwings.htm
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Start with A.K. Dewdney.
> >
> > Who has no credentials in being able to identify an RB 211, and bases
> > his size estimates on extremely flakey methodology. He is clearly
> > rather a stupid, credulous individual.
>
> Ah, yes. World famous PhD Dewdney.

World famous? Are you claiming people with PhDs aren't prone to stupidity or
credulity?

>
> Do you realize how weak you currently appear?

Far stronger than someone who said they coudl find quotes from Rolls Royce
engineers showing taht the parts weren't from an RB 211. And that's all that
counts right now..


>
>
> > Once again, you fail to back up your claim..
>
> Now, why would I continue to provide cites, if you're just going to
> dismiss them without cause?

LOL! Nice try. I asked fro acite from someone who knew what they were
talking about WRT to identifying an RB 211. You failed. Again.

>
>
> Can you show some flaw in Mr. Dewdney's work?
>
> Please do so.

Certainly. "By comparison with the leg of the worker standing beside it, the
part is evidently less than 0.61 metres (two feet) in diameter. "

Flakey methodology - camera perspective, lens used etc mean you can't make
assertions like the above with any confidence.


> >> If you continue to whine, I'll try and find the
> >> quote from the company rep.
> >
> > A REP?! What the fuck would he know about identifying engine parts?
>
>
> Reps speak for the company. In a sense, they ARE the company.

A REP?! What the fuck would he know about identifying engine parts?





>
>
>
> >> >> Why can't you?
> >> >
> >> > As I'm ot the one making the claim that it is "doubtful" that teh
> >> > wreckage of from an RB 211, I don't need to. This is basic stuff..
> >>
> >>
> >> Erm, no, you're claiming that I MIGHT be able to find ONE person who
> >> says they are not rb211 parts.
> >
> > ..ONE person who knows what they're talking about (e.g. someone
> > familiar with an RB 211)..
> > Naturally, you have failed even in that simple task.
> >
> > However, the original claim is yours:
> > You: " Except for part of a single engine, which doesn't appear to be
> > from a 757."
> > Me: "cite?"
> >
> > ..and whaddaya know? YOu can't produce a single cite from anyone who
> > knows what they'r talking about WRT RB 211 parts.
> >
> >> Of course, you're plainly wrong.
> >
> > Nice strawman.
>
>
> You have made this essentially unwinnable, since you simply dismiss PhDs,
> company representatives, etc. as "not knowing what they're talking
> about".

..in relation to identifying RB211 parts. I'm sure you'd agree, someone
would have to actually KNOW what RB 211 parts look like in order to claim
the parts at the Pentagon aren't?


>
>
> Please go back to high school debate classes.

..which woudl still be a fiar way over your head.


>
>
>
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The unofficially released stills seem to support a
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> missile fired from close range by an F-16 type
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> plane.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! How'd you work that out, ace?
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> How did what work out for me?
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > Got alzheimers?
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > ..Jason runs away. What a surprise.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> How did what work out for me?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Alzheimers or illiteracy - which is it?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> How did what work out for me, genius?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Ah, so it's your basic inabilty to read that is teh problem, you
> >> >> > gibbering fucking putz. Now read it again and get an adult to
> >> >> > help you:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You wrote:
> >> >> >> The unofficially released stills seem to support a missile
> >> >> >> fired from
> >> >> > close range by an F-16 type plane.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I replied:
> >> >> > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! How'd you work that out, ace?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ..and you've been running ever since. Hee hee!
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes. How droll.
> >> >
> >> > Aaaand Jason runs,screaming, from his claim again. Exceeding droll!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Don't piss yourself, guy.
> >
> > I'll try not to, though with the howls of derisive laughter your
> > idiocy provokes it could be difficult.
>
>
> There's always Depends, guy.
>
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> All that needs to be established is that no 757 hit
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> >> Pentagon.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Which you utterly fail to do, again..
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Then you can debunk the article in question?
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > The article does not establish that no 757 hit the
> >> >> >> >> >> > Pentagon, thus it debunks itself quite nicely.
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> You're a funny little man.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Hilarious, I know. I notice you ran away from backing up
> >> >> >> >> > your shit
> >> >> >> >> again,
> >> >> >> >> > bitch.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> You have the social skills of a dead troll in plastic
> >> >> >> >> baggie.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I notice you ran away from backing up your shit again, bitch.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> If your shit is backing up, see a doctor.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I notice you ran away from backing up your shit again, bitch.
> >> >>
> >> >> I bet the ladies love you.
> >> >
> >> > Jealous, eh.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ever so much.
> >>
> >>
> >> No 757 Hit The Pentagon
> >> http://www.bedoper.com
>
>
>
> Controversy Swirling Over September 11 Pentagon Mystery: Industry Experts
> Can’t Explain Photo Evidence
>
> American Free Press
> By Christopher Bollyn
>
> [...] The photograph is one of many taken by Jocelyn Augustino, a FEMA
> photographer, at the Pentagon crash site on Sept. 13, 2001. In the FEMA
> on-line photo library, the best photos of the unidentified disc are
> numbered 4414 and 4415, archived here
>
> Several readers wrote to AFP suggesting that the unidentified disc was a
> piece from the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) mounted in the tail section of
> a Boeing 757. Honeywell makes the GTCP331-200 APU used on the 757
> aircraft. No one suggested, however, that the small disc was a piece from
> one of the main engines of a 757-200.
>
> AFP contacted Honeywell’s Aerospace division in Phoenix, Ariz., and sent
> high-resolution photos for their examination. "There’s no way that’s an
> APU wheel," an expert at Honeywell told AFP. The expert, who cannot be
> named, added: "That turbine disc—there’s no way in the world that came
> out of an APU."

I agree.


>
> American Free Press contacted Pratt & Whitney and Rolls Royce,
> manufacturers of the 757’s turbofan jet engines to try and identify the
> piece.
>
> "If the aircraft that struck the Pentagon was a Boeing 757-200 owned by
> American Airlines, then it would have to be a Rolls Royce engine," Mark
> Sullivan, spokesman for Pratt & Whitney, told AFP.

I agree.


>
> John W. Brown, spokesman for Rolls Royce (Indianapolis), had previously
> told AFP: "It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I’m familiar
> with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy."

Hardly surprising

>
> The AE 3007 engines are used in small commuter jets such as the Cessna
> Citation; the AE 3007H is also used in the military’s unmanned aircraft,
> the Global Hawk. The Global Hawk is manufactured by Northrop Grumman’s
> subsidiary Ryan Aeronautical, which it acquired from Teledyne, Inc. in
> July 1999.

So it's not from a commuter jet or drone. Duh..


>
> If the government version that an American Airlines 757-200 hit the
> Pentagon is accurate, then the object in the photo would have to be from
> a Rolls Royce RB211-535 turbofan engine.
>
> When AFP told Brown that it must be a piece of a Rolls Royce engine,
> Brown balked and asked who at Pratt & Whitney had provided the
> information.
>
> Asked again if the disc in the photo is a piece of a Rolls Royce RB211-
> 535, or from the AE 3007 series, Brown said he could not answer.
>
> AFP then asked Brown if he was actually familiar with the parts of an AE
> 3007H, which is made at the Indiana plant: "No," Brown said. "I don’t
> build the engines. I am a spokesman for the company. I speak for the
> company."


Well.. look at that! He doesn't knwo what he's talking about WRT to engine
parts. Surprise surprise.


>
> Rolls Royce produces the RB211-535 engines for American Airlines 757-200
> aircraft at a plant in Derby, England. Martin Johnson, head of
> communications at Rolls Royce in Derby, said he had followed the story
> closely in American Free Press and had also been notified in advance by
> Rolls Royce offices in Seattle and Indianapolis.
>
> However, rather than address the question of the unidentified disc,
> Johnson launched a verbal attack on this reporter for questioning the
> government version of events at the Pentagon on 9-11. "You are the only
> person in the world who does not believe that a 757 hit the Pentagon,"
> Johnson said. "The idea that we can have a reasonable conversation is
> beyond your wildest dreams," Johnson said and hung up the phone.
>
> Flug Revue, a German magazine about aviation equipment was more willing
> to discuss the disc. Karl Schwarz, a technical editor at the Bonn-based
> publication, examined the photo and technical drawings of the RB211-535
> for AFP. "I think only an engineer who is involved in the design of the
> engine could identify the part," Schwarz said.

Exactly. We don't have any quotes from them now do we?


>
> While the front fan of the RB211-535 has a 74.5-inch diameter,
> compression discs inside the engine are much smaller. Schwarz said the
> inner discs are between 29 and 41 inches in diameter. "It could well be"
> an inner compression disc, Schwarz said. The discs from the inner stages
> are made of titanium, he added.
>
> AFP asked Schwarz if this could be a disc from a smaller engine, such as
> the Global Hawk’s AE 3007H. "It could come from any jet engine," Schwarz
> said.
>
> If the disc in the photo can be matched with a Rolls Royce AE 3007H
> engine, some speculate that it would prove something like a Global Hawk
> hit the Pentagon.
>
> The Global Hawk engine is hand built at the Rolls Royce plant in
> Indianapolis and has an opening diameter of 43.5 inches. Schwarz said he
> did not have a technical diagram of an AE 3007 engine to consult.
>
> Because the disc in the photo appears very similar in size and shape to
> the front fan of a Global Hawk engine, AFP asked Schwarz in what position
> is the solid disc found behind the front fan of a turbofan engine.
> "Immediately," Schwarz said.
>
> An unnamed former cruise missile engineer

Handy, eh?

> for the engine manufacturer
> Teledyne Continental Motors-Turbine Engines added his opinion to the
> debate:
>
> "Clearly, the part in the picture is larger than 24 inches in diameter.
> It also appears to have a nosepiece-like device on its front.

LOL! "A noisepiece-like device". This guy doesn't sound liek an engineer..

> This probably houses bearings, front oil sump and perhaps an alternator
or
> starter."

Uh huh,,,


>
> This engineer concluded with the intriguing comment, "This fan did not
> come from a cruise missile engine."

Intriguing! So, the only possible qualified person you can find simply says
"it's not from a cruise". Brilliant!


>
> Comment: The AE 3007 is the engine used in the US military's 'Global
> Hawk' (among others). If the 'turbine disc' in the photograph above came
> from the aircraft that hit the pentagon and we use it to assess the
> relative size of the entire engine of the craft, then it is clear that it
> was NOT a 757-200 that hit the Pentagon.

Unsupported assertion from someone who doesn't knwo what they're talking
about..


>
> If any readers have any further information that might help to identify
> the part please email us.
>
>

Thanks for posting so much information that supports what I've been saying!
m***@yahoo.com.ar
2005-09-16 14:30:46 UTC
Permalink
The issue is not whether a 757 hit the pentagone or, the issue is HOW
this was done, and who or what flew this plane into the pentagone.

Clearly Hanjour couldn't have done this. Then who did it ? The most
logical explanation is that it was teleguided...

Another issue is this HUGE coincidence: Charles Burlingame, original
pilot of flight 77 has drafted the Pentagon's emergency response plan
in case it was hit by a civilian airliner.... This is a revelation of
the government's implication for sure.

So whether a 757 hit the Pentagone or not is irrelevant for the time
being, as long as the Hanjour magical pilot skills were not adressed.
tw
2005-09-16 14:34:53 UTC
Permalink
<***@yahoo.com.ar> wrote in message
news:***@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The issue is not whether a 757 hit the pentagone or, the issue is HOW
> this was done, and who or what flew this plane into the pentagone.
>
> Clearly Hanjour couldn't have done this.

Why not? How is this "clear"? You do realise there is a difference between
landing an aircraft and pointing one at a building and crashing into it,
don't you?
m***@yahoo.com.ar
2005-09-16 15:35:16 UTC
Permalink
>> Clearly Hanjour couldn't have done this.

>Why not? How is this "clear"? You do realise there is a difference between
>landing an aircraft and pointing one at a building and crashing into it,
>don't you?

Because:

The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought
in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that
that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that
manner. It's unsafe." [NATCA
http://www.september11-tribute.org/NewsArticles/DaniellOBrien.htm ]


Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill,
making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm, possibly
one of the hijackers. Someone even knew how to turn off the
transponder, a move that is considerably less than obvious. [Washington

Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&conte...

]


"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is
impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said
[ex-commercial pilot Russ] Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the
jump from Boeing 727's to the highly sophisticated computerized
characteristics of the 737's through 767's it took him considerable
time to feel comfortable flying. [LewisNews
http://www.lewisnews.com/article.asp?ID=106623 ]


[Flight Academy] Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite,
meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they
considered him a very bad pilot. "I'm still to this day amazed that he
could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee said. "He
could not fly at all." [New York Times
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20A11FD35550C778CDDAC...

]

Federal Aviation Administration records show [Hanjour] obtained a
commercial pilot's license in April 1999, but how and where he did so
remains a lingering question that FAA officials refuse to discuss. His
limited flying abilities do afford an insight into one feature of the
attacks: The conspiracy apparently did not include a surplus of skilled

pilots. [Cape Cod Times
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hanjour_history.html ]


However, when Baxter and fellow instructor Ben Conner took the slender,

soft-spoken Hanjour on three test runs during the second week of
August, they found he had trouble controlling and landing the
single-engine Cessna 172. Even though Hanjour showed a federal pilot's
license and a log book cataloging 600 hours of flying experience, chief

flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without
more lessons.


In the spring of 2000, Hanjour had asked to enroll in the CRM Airline
Training Center in Scottsdale, Ariz., for advanced training, said the
center's attorney, Gerald Chilton Jr. Hanjour had attended the school
for three months in late 1996 and again in December 1997 but never
finished coursework for a license to fly a single-engine aircraft,
Chilton said.


When Hanjour reapplied to the center last year, "We declined to provide

training to him because we didn't think he was a good enough student
when he was there in 1996 and 1997" Chilton said. [Newsday
http://www.newsday.com/ny-usflight232380680sep23.story ]


National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
Outline of the 9/11 Plot
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0406/S00195.htm


[Excerpt]


On December 12, 2000, [Nawaf al Hazmi and Hani Hanjour] were settling
in Mesa, Arizona, and Hanjour was ready to brush up on his flight
training (Brush up? He could barely fly a Cessna). By early 2001, he
was using a Boeing 737 simulator. Because his performance struck his
flight instructors as sub-standard, they discouraged Hanjour from
continuing, but he persisted.


He might have had the licence, but then again is that striking you ?
The flight schools owners are all directly related to the Bush family
and the neocons (if you want proof just say so) and implicated in drug
"import"... So giving him the licence is not a problem if it serves the

"big plan".


But that's not the point here is it ? He was a lousy pilot who did
extraordinary things with a 757 the first time he flew it
Tom
2005-09-16 16:05:15 UTC
Permalink
<***@yahoo.com.ar> wrote in message
news:***@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> Clearly Hanjour couldn't have done this.
>
> >Why not? How is this "clear"? You do realise there is a difference
between
> >landing an aircraft and pointing one at a building and crashing into it,
> >don't you?
>
> Because:
>
> The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought
> in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that
> that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that
> manner. It's unsafe." [NATCA
> http://www.september11-tribute.org/NewsArticles/DaniellOBrien.htm ]

Unqualified pilot flies plane in unsafe manner shock!


>
>
> Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill,

Who? Cite?

> making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm, possibly
> one of the hijackers. Someone even knew how to turn off the
> transponder, a move that is considerably less than obvious. [Washington

Not if you've recieved a basic level of flight training, or have ever mucked
about with MS flight simulator, or a host of other sims.


> Post
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&conte...
>
> ]
>
>
> "For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is
> impossible

WHO is claiming he "flew like an ace"?

> there is not one chance in a thousand," said
> [ex-commercial pilot Russ] Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the
> jump from Boeing 727's to the highly sophisticated computerized
> characteristics of the 737's through 767's it took him considerable
> time to feel comfortable flying. [LewisNews
> http://www.lewisnews.com/article.as?ID=106623 ]

I suspect he'd have felt comfortable flying it into the ground from day one
thuogh. Don't you?


>
>
> [Flight Academy] Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite,
> meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they
> considered him a very bad pilot. "I'm still to this day amazed that he
> could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee said. "He
> could not fly at all." [New York Times
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20A11FD35550C778CDDAC...

Flying is piss easy once the aircraft is in the air, you know.


>
> ]
>
> Federal Aviation Administration records show [Hanjour] obtained a
> commercial pilot's license in April 1999, but how and where he did so
> remains a lingering question that FAA officials refuse to discuss. His
> limited flying abilities do afford an insight into one feature of the
> attacks: The conspiracy apparently did not include a surplus of skilled
>
> pilots. [Cape Cod Times
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hanjour_history.html ]
>
>
> However, when Baxter and fellow instructor Ben Conner took the slender,
>
> soft-spoken Hanjour on three test runs during the second week of
> August, they found he had trouble controlling and landing the
> single-engine Cessna 172. Even though Hanjour showed a federal pilot's
> license and a log book cataloging 600 hours of flying experience, chief
>
> flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without
> more lessons.
>
>
> In the spring of 2000, Hanjour had asked to enroll in the CRM Airline
> Training Center in Scottsdale, Ariz., for advanced training, said the
> center's attorney, Gerald Chilton Jr. Hanjour had attended the school
> for three months in late 1996 and again in December 1997 but never
> finished coursework for a license to fly a single-engine aircraft,
> Chilton said.
>
>
> When Hanjour reapplied to the center last year, "We declined to provide
>
> training to him because we didn't think he was a good enough student
> when he was there in 1996 and 1997" Chilton said. [Newsday
> http://www.newsday.com/ny-usflight232380680sep23.story ]
>
>
> National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
> Outline of the 9/11 Plot
> http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0406/S00195.htm
>
>
> [Excerpt]
>
>
> On December 12, 2000, [Nawaf al Hazmi and Hani Hanjour] were settling
> in Mesa, Arizona, and Hanjour was ready to brush up on his flight
> training (Brush up? He could barely fly a Cessna). By early 2001, he
> was using a Boeing 737 simulator. Because his performance struck his
> flight instructors as sub-standard, they discouraged Hanjour from
> continuing, but he persisted.

..so he woudl certainly be familiar with operating a transponder then.

>
>
> He might have had the licence, but then again is that striking you ?
> The flight schools owners are all directly related to the Bush family
> and the neocons (if you want proof just say so) and implicated in drug
> "import"... So giving him the licence is not a problem if it serves the
>
> "big plan".
>
>
> But that's not the point here is it ? He was a lousy pilot who did
> extraordinary things with a 757 the first time he flew it

Flying it into the ground is "extraordinary", certainly. But it doesn't
require much skill.
What other "extraordinary" things did he do?

>
Frank Dwyer
2005-09-16 15:58:54 UTC
Permalink
tw wrote:

> <***@yahoo.com.ar> wrote in message
> news:***@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>The issue is not whether a 757 hit the pentagone or, the issue is HOW
>>this was done, and who or what flew this plane into the pentagone.
>>
>>Clearly Hanjour couldn't have done this.
>
>
> Why not? How is this "clear"? You do realise there is a difference between
> landing an aircraft and pointing one at a building and crashing into it,
> don't you?

No, it doesn't realize that at all. It refers to someone who flew
erratically, eventually crashing into a building, as an "ace".
Apparently, "monnomiznogoud" admires the piloting skills of someone who
crashed a plane.
m***@yahoo.com
2005-09-16 16:09:37 UTC
Permalink
why do you think it was allowed to crash
Frank Dwyer
2005-09-16 17:30:00 UTC
Permalink
***@yahoo.com wrote:
> why do you think it was allowed to crash

Allowed? What do mean by allowed?
Tom
2005-09-17 15:25:11 UTC
Permalink
<***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:***@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> why do you think it was allowed to crash
>

Do planes need permission to crash?
Phil Miller
2005-09-17 00:32:41 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:58:54 GMT, Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@-=Citlink=-.net>
wrote:

>> <***@yahoo.com.ar> wrote in message

>No, it doesn't realize that at all. It refers to someone who flew
>erratically, eventually crashing into a building, as an "ace".
>Apparently, "monnomiznogoud" admires the piloting skills of someone who
>crashed a plane.

Well, according to his(?) email address, he's(?) from Argentina. Maybe
it's a case of what he(?) is comparing with?

Phil
--
Profanisaurus #1

Aeroplane Blonde [n]
One who has bleached/dyed her hair but still has a 'black box'.
h***@aol.com
2005-09-18 02:14:06 UTC
Permalink
I still dont see anything that shows it being a plane.
a***@justicespammail.com
2005-09-18 03:21:32 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 02:14:06 GMT, <***@aol.com> wrote:

>I still dont see anything that shows it being a plane.

If you're expecting a Bugs Bunny cartoon picture, you won't get it.
There are plenty of parts that indicate it was a plane, and a 757 to
boot.
Pooh Bear
2005-09-18 03:53:55 UTC
Permalink
***@yahoo.com.ar wrote:

> The issue is not whether a 757 hit the pentagone or, the issue is HOW
> this was done, and who or what flew this plane into the pentagone.
>
> Clearly Hanjour couldn't have done this.

Why exactly *not* ?

There's no *clearly* whatever. That's just your miserable attempt to avoid
the obvious which is that it's actually dead easy. Buy a copy of Flight
Simulator and you'll see for yourself..

> Then who did it ? The most
> logical explanation is that it was teleguided...

Bwahahahahaaha !

Teleguided my arse. You're living in a total fantasy world.

Btw. Any 'automatically guided' aircraft needs full 'fly by wire'
electronic control systems. Neither 757s nor 767s are fly by wire
aircraft, so it's entirely impossible to automate them like that even in
your wildest wacko dreams.

Graham
Rev. 11D Meow!
2005-09-16 13:02:14 UTC
Permalink
"Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com>
wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in news:dgc09n$gt7$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>
>>
>> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:***@207.14.113.17...
>>> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in news:dgbkls$a9e$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>>>
>>> >
>>> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>>> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>>> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in
>>> >> news:dg92ll$rt8$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>>> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>>> >> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in
>>> >> >> news:dg8l9s$kef$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>>> >> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> >> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>>> >> >> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in
>>> >> >> >> news:dg5v8b$2j2$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>>> >> >> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> >> >> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>>> >> >> >> >> "James Of Tucson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> >> >> >> >> news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
>>> >> >> >> >> :
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> >>A cruise missile hit the pentagon.
>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> > Forget about planes. You said yourself you don't have
>>> >> >> >> >> > any evidence
>>> >> >> > of
>>> >> >> >> >> > a plane.
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> 757.
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> > So you can't show evidence of a plane.
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> Except for part of a single engine, which doesn't appear
>>> >> >> >> >> to be from a 757.
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > Says who?
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> Says lots of people. Check out the research available
>>> >> >> >> online.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > So magic me up a cite then, bitch. Of course, it has to be
>>> >> >> > from someone who knows what they're talking about wrt
>>> >> >> > airliner engines,
>>> >> not
>>> >> >> > on eof your kook buddies.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > ..Jason runs away. What a surprise.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> So you're entirely ignorant of any such research done by anyone
>>> >> regarding these engines?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > No, but apparently you are, seeing as you can't present up a cite
>>> > from someone who knows what they're talking about saying that those
>>> > aren't RB 211 parts
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> The Internet: look into it.
>>> >
>>> > Reality - give it a try sometime!
>>>
>>>
>>> Please don't flaunt your ignorace.
>>
>> In other words, you STILL can't seeing as you can't present a cite
>> from someone who knows what they're talking about saying that those
>> aren't RB 211 parts. Well well.
>
>
> I'm quite sure I can find five or ten. I think one was an engineer from
> the company in question.
>
> Why can't you?
>
>
>>> >> >> >> >> The unofficially released stills seem to support a
>>> >> >> >> >> missile fired from close range by an F-16 type plane.
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! How'd you work that out, ace?
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> How did what work out for me?
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Got alzheimers?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > ..Jason runs away. What a surprise.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> How did what work out for me?
>>> >
>>> > Alzheimers or illiteracy - which is it?
>>>
>>>
>>> How did what work out for me, genius?
>>
>> Ah, so it's your basic inabilty to read that is teh problem, you
>> gibbering fucking putz. Now read it again and get an adult to help
>> you:
>>
>>
>> You wrote:
>>> The unofficially released stills seem to support a missile fired from
>> close range by an F-16 type plane.
>>
>> I replied:
>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! How'd you work that out, ace?
>>
>> ..and you've been running ever since. Hee hee!
>
>
> Yes. How droll.
>
Go to GOOGLE. (Not the advanced version)
Type in the word FAILURE .
Hit the "I Feel Lucky" button.
See where you land.
>
>
>>> >> >> >> >> All that needs to be established is that no 757 hit the
>>> >> Pentagon.
>>> >> >> >> >> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > Which you utterly fail to do, again..
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> Then you can debunk the article in question?
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > The article does not establish that no 757 hit the Pentagon,
>>> >> >> > thus it debunks itself quite nicely.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> You're a funny little man.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Hilarious, I know. I notice you ran away from backing up your
>>> >> > shit
>>> >> again,
>>> >> > bitch.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> You have the social skills of a dead troll in plastic baggie.
>>> >
>>> > I notice you ran away from backing up your shit again, bitch.
>>>
>>> If your shit is backing up, see a doctor.
>>
>> I notice you ran away from backing up your shit again, bitch.
>
> I bet the ladies love you.
>
>
>
Black People Don't Care About George Bush
2005-09-16 13:29:49 UTC
Permalink
"Rev. 11D Meow!" <***@Crack.Corn> wrote in news:JJudnWWTyvvEX7feRVn-
***@comcast.com:

>
> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com>
> wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in news:dgc09n$gt7$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>>
>>>
>>> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>>> <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:***@207.14.113.17...
>>>> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in news:dgbkls$a9e$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>>>> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>>>> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in
>>>> >> news:dg92ll$rt8$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>>>> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>>>> >> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in
>>>> >> >> news:dg8l9s$kef$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>>>> >> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> >> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>>>> >> >> >> "tw" <***@no.com> wrote in
>>>> >> >> >> news:dg5v8b$2j2$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se:
>>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>>>> >> >> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> >> >> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>>>> >> >> >> >> "James Of Tucson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> >> >> >> >> news:1126569266.410469.208810
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
>>>> >> >> >> >> :
>>>> >> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> >> >>A cruise missile hit the pentagon.
>>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> >> > Forget about planes. You said yourself you don't have
>>>> >> >> >> >> > any evidence
>>>> >> >> > of
>>>> >> >> >> >> > a plane.
>>>> >> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >> 757.
>>>> >> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >> > So you can't show evidence of a plane.
>>>> >> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >> Except for part of a single engine, which doesn't appear
>>>> >> >> >> >> to be from a 757.
>>>> >> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> > Says who?
>>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> Says lots of people. Check out the research available
>>>> >> >> >> online.
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> > So magic me up a cite then, bitch. Of course, it has to be
>>>> >> >> > from someone who knows what they're talking about wrt
>>>> >> >> > airliner engines,
>>>> >> not
>>>> >> >> > on eof your kook buddies.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > ..Jason runs away. What a surprise.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> So you're entirely ignorant of any such research done by anyone
>>>> >> regarding these engines?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > No, but apparently you are, seeing as you can't present up a cite
>>>> > from someone who knows what they're talking about saying that
those
>>>> > aren't RB 211 parts
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The Internet: look into it.
>>>> >
>>>> > Reality - give it a try sometime!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please don't flaunt your ignorace.
>>>
>>> In other words, you STILL can't seeing as you can't present a cite
>>> from someone who knows what they're talking about saying that those
>>> aren't RB 211 parts. Well well.
>>
>>
>> I'm quite sure I can find five or ten. I think one was an engineer
from
>> the company in question.
>>
>> Why can't you?
>>
>>
>>>> >> >> >> >> The unofficially released stills seem to support a
>>>> >> >> >> >> missile fired from close range by an F-16 type plane.
>>>> >> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! How'd you work that out, ace?
>>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> How did what work out for me?
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> > Got alzheimers?
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > ..Jason runs away. What a surprise.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> How did what work out for me?
>>>> >
>>>> > Alzheimers or illiteracy - which is it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How did what work out for me, genius?
>>>
>>> Ah, so it's your basic inabilty to read that is teh problem, you
>>> gibbering fucking putz. Now read it again and get an adult to help
>>> you:
>>>
>>>
>>> You wrote:
>>>> The unofficially released stills seem to support a missile fired
from
>>> close range by an F-16 type plane.
>>>
>>> I replied:
>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! How'd you work that out, ace?
>>>
>>> ..and you've been running ever since. Hee hee!
>>
>>
>> Yes. How droll.
>>
> Go to GOOGLE. (Not the advanced version)
> Type in the word FAILURE .
> Hit the "I Feel Lucky" button.
> See where you land.


I landed at Raoul's old archive page.

Funny, eh?


>>>> >> >> >> >> All that needs to be established is that no 757 hit the
>>>> >> Pentagon.
>>>> >> >> >> >> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>>>> >> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> > Which you utterly fail to do, again..
>>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> Then you can debunk the article in question?
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> > The article does not establish that no 757 hit the Pentagon,
>>>> >> >> > thus it debunks itself quite nicely.
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> You're a funny little man.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Hilarious, I know. I notice you ran away from backing up your
>>>> >> > shit
>>>> >> again,
>>>> >> > bitch.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> You have the social skills of a dead troll in plastic baggie.
>>>> >
>>>> > I notice you ran away from backing up your shit again, bitch.
>>>>
>>>> If your shit is backing up, see a doctor.
>>>
>>> I notice you ran away from backing up your shit again, bitch.
>>
>> I bet the ladies love you.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
MuhammadColumbo
2005-09-13 15:04:14 UTC
Permalink
"Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com> a
écrit dans le message de news: ***@207.14.113.17...
> "James Of Tucson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>
>>
>> Lack of a plane, doesn't make your case for a cruise missile. You're
>> not done until you come up with evidence. Like pieces of a cruise
>> missle. Or a missing cruise missle. Or maybe we'd settle for open
>> testimony from the commander who gave an order to fire a cruise missile
>> at the Pentagon.
>
> The unofficially released stills seem to support a missile fired from
> close range by an F-16 type plane.

Not so close range. Because the cruise missile need some distance
tostabilise its guidance regulator before being precisely guided. As they
used cruise missile type guidance for the plane, they probably used the same
kind of missile to manage all the weapons by the same work desk. That's why
the UA93 waited the strike on Pentagone (minus 3 minutes) before deviate
from its flight route.
tw
2005-09-14 09:10:03 UTC
Permalink
"MuhammadColumbo" <***@swing.be> wrote in message
news:4326ec91$0$29283$***@news.skynet.be...
>
> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com> a
> écrit dans le message de news: ***@207.14.113.17...
> > "James Of Tucson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
> > news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
> >
> >>
> >> Lack of a plane, doesn't make your case for a cruise missile. You're
> >> not done until you come up with evidence. Like pieces of a cruise
> >> missle. Or a missing cruise missle. Or maybe we'd settle for open
> >> testimony from the commander who gave an order to fire a cruise missile
> >> at the Pentagon.
> >
> > The unofficially released stills seem to support a missile fired from
> > close range by an F-16 type plane.
>
> Not so close range. Because the cruise missile need some distance
> tostabilise its guidance regulator before being precisely guided.

"Guidance regulator"?! LOL!

> As they used cruise missile type guidance for the plane , they probably
used the same
> kind of missile to manage all the weapons by the same work desk. That's
why
> the UA93 waited the strike on Pentagone (minus 3 minutes) before deviate
> from its flight route.

So how come so many people saw a large passenger plane, (and large passenger
plane-sized damage was caused to the Pentagon), yet no one reports seeing
fighter jets firing missiles?


>
>
>
>
Pooh Bear
2005-09-14 14:25:40 UTC
Permalink
tw wrote:

> So how come so many people saw a large passenger plane, (and large passenger
> plane-sized damage was caused to the Pentagon), yet no one reports seeing
> fighter jets firing missiles?

Clearly because they were all subjected to mind-control rays by the alien
gummint. ;-)

Graham
Bertie the Bunyip
2005-09-14 16:03:20 UTC
Permalink
Pooh Bear <***@hotmail.com>
sednews:***@hotmail.com:

>
> tw wrote:
>
>> So how come so many people saw a large passenger plane, (and large
>> passenger plane-sized damage was caused to the Pentagon), yet no one
>> reports seeing fighter jets firing missiles?
>
> Clearly because they were all subjected to mind-control rays by the
> alien gummint.


God you;re crap at this.


Bertie
MuhammadColumbo
2005-09-14 18:49:16 UTC
Permalink
"tw" <***@no.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
dg8pdc$mpg$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se...
>
> "MuhammadColumbo" <***@swing.be> wrote in message
> news:4326ec91$0$29283$***@news.skynet.be...
>>
>> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com> a
>> écrit dans le message de news: ***@207.14.113.17...
>> > "James Of Tucson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
>> > news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Lack of a plane, doesn't make your case for a cruise missile. You're
>> >> not done until you come up with evidence. Like pieces of a cruise
>> >> missle. Or a missing cruise missle. Or maybe we'd settle for open
>> >> testimony from the commander who gave an order to fire a cruise
>> >> missile
>> >> at the Pentagon.
>> >
>> > The unofficially released stills seem to support a missile fired from
>> > close range by an F-16 type plane.
>>
>> Not so close range. Because the cruise missile need some distance
>> tostabilise its guidance regulator before being precisely guided.
>
> "Guidance regulator"?! LOL!

Why LOL? Do you think the cruise missiles have no guidance regulator? If so,
how it finds its target?

>> As they used cruise missile type guidance for the plane , they probably
> used the same
>> kind of missile to manage all the weapons by the same work desk. That's
> why
>> the UA93 waited the strike on Pentagone (minus 3 minutes) before deviate
>> from its flight route.
>
> So how come so many people saw a large passenger plane, (and large
> passenger
> plane-sized damage was caused to the Pentagon), yet no one reports seeing
> fighter jets firing missiles?

The damages caused to the Pentagone are very very very small with regard to
a passenger sized plane. The entry hole is just ONE WINDOW, the upper floor
windows are not damaged, glass not broken, even if they are reinforced,
their frame will be broken. And as the depth of the damages reached 6 walls
(three rings of the Pentagone) , it is impossible that to be a large plane.
So we have several possibilities :
1- The witnesses are all liars.
2- People who reported that are liars.
3- There was a large plane, but it did't hit the Pentagone.

I think the last one is the most probable. Ther was a C-130 plane on that
day on the air.

I don't want to discuss Pentagone strike, because that is not me who found
that, I analysed the question and decided that there was no large plane on
the Pentagone. There are enough web sites that explain it. And my arguments
to justify the absence of large plane on the Pentagone are on my web site. I
can explain my arguments if you have any question on.

http://users.swing.be/muhammadcolumbo/
khobar
2005-09-14 21:29:09 UTC
Permalink
"MuhammadColumbo" <***@swing.be> wrote in message
news:43287486$1$2545$***@news.skynet.be...
>
> "tw" <***@no.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> dg8pdc$mpg$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se...
> >
> > "MuhammadColumbo" <***@swing.be> wrote in message
> > news:4326ec91$0$29283$***@news.skynet.be...
> >>
> >> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com>
a
> >> écrit dans le message de news:
***@207.14.113.17...
> >> > "James Of Tucson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> > news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Lack of a plane, doesn't make your case for a cruise missile.
You're
> >> >> not done until you come up with evidence. Like pieces of a cruise
> >> >> missle. Or a missing cruise missle. Or maybe we'd settle for open
> >> >> testimony from the commander who gave an order to fire a cruise
> >> >> missile
> >> >> at the Pentagon.
> >> >
> >> > The unofficially released stills seem to support a missile fired from
> >> > close range by an F-16 type plane.
> >>
> >> Not so close range. Because the cruise missile need some distance
> >> tostabilise its guidance regulator before being precisely guided.
> >
> > "Guidance regulator"?! LOL!
>
> Why LOL? Do you think the cruise missiles have no guidance regulator? If
so,
> how it finds its target?
>
> >> As they used cruise missile type guidance for the plane , they probably
> > used the same
> >> kind of missile to manage all the weapons by the same work desk. That's
> > why
> >> the UA93 waited the strike on Pentagone (minus 3 minutes) before
deviate
> >> from its flight route.
> >
> > So how come so many people saw a large passenger plane, (and large
> > passenger
> > plane-sized damage was caused to the Pentagon), yet no one reports
seeing
> > fighter jets firing missiles?
>
> The damages caused to the Pentagone are very very very small with regard
to
> a passenger sized plane. The entry hole is just ONE WINDOW, the upper
floor
> windows are not damaged, glass not broken, even if they are reinforced,
> their frame will be broken. And as the depth of the damages reached 6
walls
> (three rings of the Pentagone) , it is impossible that to be a large
plane.
> So we have several possibilities :
> 1- The witnesses are all liars.
> 2- People who reported that are liars.
> 3- There was a large plane, but it did't hit the Pentagone.

You need to take a look at www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce as it clearly shows
the damage was quite extensive with an entry hole not quite the width of a
757 wingtip to wingtip. It's a bit of a goofy site full of contradictions to
the author's claims, but there's enough there to address your claims above.
As just one example, you claim that the entry hole is just one window, but
www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce clearly shows this is not the case.

>
> I think the last one is the most probable. Ther was a C-130 plane on that
> day on the air.
>
> I don't want to discuss Pentagone strike, because that is not me who found
> that, I analysed the question and decided that there was no large plane on
> the Pentagone. There are enough web sites that explain it. And my
arguments
> to justify the absence of large plane on the Pentagone are on my web site.
I
> can explain my arguments if you have any question on.
>
> http://users.swing.be/muhammadcolumbo/

I really liked your assertion that vegetation hides crash noise.

Paul Nixon
Black People Don't Care About George Bush
2005-09-14 23:02:05 UTC
Permalink
"khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:eD0We.79446$***@fed1read06:

> "MuhammadColumbo" <***@swing.be> wrote in message
> news:43287486$1$2545$***@news.skynet.be...
>>
>> "tw" <***@no.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
>> dg8pdc$mpg$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se...
>> >
>> > "MuhammadColumbo" <***@swing.be> wrote in message
>> > news:4326ec91$0$29283$***@news.skynet.be...
>> >>
>> >> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> >> <***@yahoo.com>
> a
>> >> écrit dans le message de news:
> ***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> > "James Of Tucson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >> > news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Lack of a plane, doesn't make your case for a cruise missile.
> You're
>> >> >> not done until you come up with evidence. Like pieces of a
>> >> >> cruise missle. Or a missing cruise missle. Or maybe we'd
>> >> >> settle for open testimony from the commander who gave an order
>> >> >> to fire a cruise missile
>> >> >> at the Pentagon.
>> >> >
>> >> > The unofficially released stills seem to support a missile fired
>> >> > from close range by an F-16 type plane.
>> >>
>> >> Not so close range. Because the cruise missile need some distance
>> >> tostabilise its guidance regulator before being precisely guided.
>> >
>> > "Guidance regulator"?! LOL!
>>
>> Why LOL? Do you think the cruise missiles have no guidance regulator?
>> If
> so,
>> how it finds its target?
>>
>> >> As they used cruise missile type guidance for the plane , they
>> >> probably
>> > used the same
>> >> kind of missile to manage all the weapons by the same work desk.
>> >> That's
>> > why
>> >> the UA93 waited the strike on Pentagone (minus 3 minutes) before
> deviate
>> >> from its flight route.
>> >
>> > So how come so many people saw a large passenger plane, (and large
>> > passenger
>> > plane-sized damage was caused to the Pentagon), yet no one reports
> seeing
>> > fighter jets firing missiles?
>>
>> The damages caused to the Pentagone are very very very small with
>> regard
> to
>> a passenger sized plane. The entry hole is just ONE WINDOW, the upper
> floor
>> windows are not damaged, glass not broken, even if they are
>> reinforced, their frame will be broken. And as the depth of the
>> damages reached 6
> walls
>> (three rings of the Pentagone) , it is impossible that to be a large
> plane.
>> So we have several possibilities :
>> 1- The witnesses are all liars.
>> 2- People who reported that are liars.
>> 3- There was a large plane, but it did't hit the Pentagone.
>
> You need to take a look at www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce as it clearly
> shows the damage was quite extensive with an entry hole not quite the
> width of a 757 wingtip to wingtip.


Please don't use my website to lie. The "entry hole" you're referring to
is actually "facade damage".

"Entry holes" tend to not have standing columns in them. That would make
them a series of holes, at best.



> It's a bit of a goofy site full of
> contradictions to the author's claims,


Surely you can cite a few for us all?



> but there's enough there to
> address your claims above. As just one example, you claim that the
> entry hole is just one window, but www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
> clearly shows this is not the case.


Correct, it's a whacking two windows high at the top.

Less than 20 feet, in other words. That's the "fuselage" hole.





>> I think the last one is the most probable. Ther was a C-130 plane on
>> that day on the air.
>>
>> I don't want to discuss Pentagone strike, because that is not me who
>> found that, I analysed the question and decided that there was no
>> large plane on the Pentagone. There are enough web sites that explain
>> it. And my
> arguments
>> to justify the absence of large plane on the Pentagone are on my web
>> site.
> I
>> can explain my arguments if you have any question on.
>>
>> http://users.swing.be/muhammadcolumbo/
>
> I really liked your assertion that vegetation hides crash noise.


Almost as good as the claim "the 757 ripped the antenna off of a Jeep
Cherokee, and I was 6 feet away from the engine".
khobar
2005-09-15 02:48:49 UTC
Permalink
"Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com>
wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
> "khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
> news:eD0We.79446$***@fed1read06:
>
> > "MuhammadColumbo" <***@swing.be> wrote in message
> > news:43287486$1$2545$***@news.skynet.be...
> >>
> >> "tw" <***@no.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> >> dg8pdc$mpg$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se...
> >> >
> >> > "MuhammadColumbo" <***@swing.be> wrote in message
> >> > news:4326ec91$0$29283$***@news.skynet.be...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> >> >> <***@yahoo.com>
> > a
> >> >> écrit dans le message de news:
> > ***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >> > "James Of Tucson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> >> > news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Lack of a plane, doesn't make your case for a cruise missile.
> > You're
> >> >> >> not done until you come up with evidence. Like pieces of a
> >> >> >> cruise missle. Or a missing cruise missle. Or maybe we'd
> >> >> >> settle for open testimony from the commander who gave an order
> >> >> >> to fire a cruise missile
> >> >> >> at the Pentagon.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The unofficially released stills seem to support a missile fired
> >> >> > from close range by an F-16 type plane.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not so close range. Because the cruise missile need some distance
> >> >> tostabilise its guidance regulator before being precisely guided.
> >> >
> >> > "Guidance regulator"?! LOL!
> >>
> >> Why LOL? Do you think the cruise missiles have no guidance regulator?
> >> If
> > so,
> >> how it finds its target?
> >>
> >> >> As they used cruise missile type guidance for the plane , they
> >> >> probably
> >> > used the same
> >> >> kind of missile to manage all the weapons by the same work desk.
> >> >> That's
> >> > why
> >> >> the UA93 waited the strike on Pentagone (minus 3 minutes) before
> > deviate
> >> >> from its flight route.
> >> >
> >> > So how come so many people saw a large passenger plane, (and large
> >> > passenger
> >> > plane-sized damage was caused to the Pentagon), yet no one reports
> > seeing
> >> > fighter jets firing missiles?
> >>
> >> The damages caused to the Pentagone are very very very small with
> >> regard
> > to
> >> a passenger sized plane. The entry hole is just ONE WINDOW, the upper
> > floor
> >> windows are not damaged, glass not broken, even if they are
> >> reinforced, their frame will be broken. And as the depth of the
> >> damages reached 6
> > walls
> >> (three rings of the Pentagone) , it is impossible that to be a large
> > plane.
> >> So we have several possibilities :
> >> 1- The witnesses are all liars.
> >> 2- People who reported that are liars.
> >> 3- There was a large plane, but it did't hit the Pentagone.
> >
> > You need to take a look at www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce as it clearly
> > shows the damage was quite extensive with an entry hole not quite the
> > width of a 757 wingtip to wingtip.
>
>
> Please don't use my website to lie. The "entry hole" you're referring to
> is actually "facade damage".

Not according to the pictures on your website.

>
> "Entry holes" tend to not have standing columns in them. That would make
> them a series of holes, at best.

Then you should probably remove some of the pictures on your website. As it
is now, there are pictures there that show clearly the damage was very
extensive.

>
>
>
> > It's a bit of a goofy site full of
> > contradictions to the author's claims,
>
>
> Surely you can cite a few for us all?

For one, you title the page "Problems With the ASCE Report On The Pentagon
Cast Further Doubt on 757 Story" but you rely on the *accuracy and
completeness* of that report, contradicting your claim that it is problems
with the report that support your claim.

For another, you claim there is something called "the actual entry hole",
but your site clearly contradicts this claim as evidenced by the photos you
posted.

And for another, you claim the ASCE report " is the only place I have seen
this bumpy, irregular smoke trail referred to as a 757" which is
contradicted by the pictures on your website which clearly shows the blob is
not referred to as a 757. I do note, however, that you refer to the blob as
"a bumpy, irregular smoke trail" with no substantiation whatsoever.

And for yet another, you claim that Fig 3.10 shows 4 missing windows from
the second floor when your own website demonstrates that Fig 3.10 shows only
2. In fact you even point out that Fig. 3.10 does, in fact, show those two
windows. Hello?

I could go on but that is sufficient.

>
>
>
> > but there's enough there to
> > address your claims above. As just one example, you claim that the
> > entry hole is just one window, but www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
> > clearly shows this is not the case.
>
>
> Correct, it's a whacking two windows high at the top.

Yes, I know I'm correct.

>
> Less than 20 feet, in other words. That's the "fuselage" hole.

Oh? I thought you claimed that was "the actual entry hole." Are you now
admitting that there are other holes?

>
> >> I think the last one is the most probable. Ther was a C-130 plane on
> >> that day on the air.
> >>
> >> I don't want to discuss Pentagone strike, because that is not me who
> >> found that, I analysed the question and decided that there was no
> >> large plane on the Pentagone. There are enough web sites that explain
> >> it. And my
> > arguments
> >> to justify the absence of large plane on the Pentagone are on my web
> >> site.
> > I
> >> can explain my arguments if you have any question on.
> >>
> >> http://users.swing.be/muhammadcolumbo/
> >
> > I really liked your assertion that vegetation hides crash noise.
>
>
> Almost as good as the claim "the 757 ripped the antenna off of a Jeep
> Cherokee, and I was 6 feet away from the engine".

I'm surprised you aren't jumping all over that claim as evidence supporting
your claim. After all, that witness refers to "the engine" and not "the left
engine" or "right engine." How'd you miss that?

Paul Nixon
Black People Don't Care About George Bush
2005-09-15 03:48:32 UTC
Permalink
"khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:Xi5We.79477$***@fed1read06:

> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> "khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
>> news:eD0We.79446$***@fed1read06:
>>
>> > "MuhammadColumbo" <***@swing.be> wrote in message
>> > news:43287486$1$2545$***@news.skynet.be...
>> >>
>> >> "tw" <***@no.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
>> >> dg8pdc$mpg$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se...
>> >> >
>> >> > "MuhammadColumbo" <***@swing.be> wrote in message
>> >> > news:4326ec91$0$29283$***@news.skynet.be...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> >> >> <***@yahoo.com>
>> > a
>> >> >> écrit dans le message de news:
>> > ***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> >> > "James Of Tucson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >> >> > news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Lack of a plane, doesn't make your case for a cruise
>> >> >> >> missile.
>> > You're
>> >> >> >> not done until you come up with evidence. Like pieces of a
>> >> >> >> cruise missle. Or a missing cruise missle. Or maybe we'd
>> >> >> >> settle for open testimony from the commander who gave an
>> >> >> >> order to fire a cruise missile
>> >> >> >> at the Pentagon.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The unofficially released stills seem to support a missile
>> >> >> > fired from close range by an F-16 type plane.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Not so close range. Because the cruise missile need some
>> >> >> distance tostabilise its guidance regulator before being
>> >> >> precisely guided.
>> >> >
>> >> > "Guidance regulator"?! LOL!
>> >>
>> >> Why LOL? Do you think the cruise missiles have no guidance
>> >> regulator? If
>> > so,
>> >> how it finds its target?
>> >>
>> >> >> As they used cruise missile type guidance for the plane , they
>> >> >> probably
>> >> > used the same
>> >> >> kind of missile to manage all the weapons by the same work
>> >> >> desk. That's
>> >> > why
>> >> >> the UA93 waited the strike on Pentagone (minus 3 minutes)
>> >> >> before
>> > deviate
>> >> >> from its flight route.
>> >> >
>> >> > So how come so many people saw a large passenger plane, (and
>> >> > large passenger
>> >> > plane-sized damage was caused to the Pentagon), yet no one
>> >> > reports
>> > seeing
>> >> > fighter jets firing missiles?
>> >>
>> >> The damages caused to the Pentagone are very very very small with
>> >> regard
>> > to
>> >> a passenger sized plane. The entry hole is just ONE WINDOW, the
>> >> upper
>> > floor
>> >> windows are not damaged, glass not broken, even if they are
>> >> reinforced, their frame will be broken. And as the depth of the
>> >> damages reached 6
>> > walls
>> >> (three rings of the Pentagone) , it is impossible that to be a
>> >> large
>> > plane.
>> >> So we have several possibilities :
>> >> 1- The witnesses are all liars.
>> >> 2- People who reported that are liars.
>> >> 3- There was a large plane, but it did't hit the Pentagone.
>> >
>> > You need to take a look at www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce as it
>> > clearly shows the damage was quite extensive with an entry hole not
>> > quite the width of a 757 wingtip to wingtip.
>>
>>
>> Please don't use my website to lie. The "entry hole" you're referring
>> to is actually "facade damage".
>
> Not according to the pictures on your website.

People can see for themselves, can't they?

; )


http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce


Are you saying there is no facade damage?

Are you saying there are not columns in the single hole you claim exists?

Tell me more about this, please.



>
>>
>> "Entry holes" tend to not have standing columns in them. That would
>> make them a series of holes, at best.
>
> Then you should probably remove some of the pictures on your website.
> As it is now, there are pictures there that show clearly the damage
> was very extensive.


And another shill begs me to remove my site...


http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce


"The damage was very extensive" is hollow, empty and meaningless.


If the photos support a 757, then what's your concern?


>> > It's a bit of a goofy site full of
>> > contradictions to the author's claims,
>>
>>
>> Surely you can cite a few for us all?
>
> For one, you title the page "Problems With the ASCE Report On The
> Pentagon Cast Further Doubt on 757 Story" but you rely on the
> *accuracy and completeness* of that report, contradicting your claim
> that it is problems with the report that support your claim.


I rely on the *accuracy and completeness* of the report?

Problems with the report support my claim that no 757 hit the Pentagon.

Squirm.


> For another, you claim there is something called "the actual entry
> hole", but your site clearly contradicts this claim as evidenced by
> the photos you posted.


The photos contradict what, exactly?



> And for another, you claim the ASCE report " is the only place I have
> seen this bumpy, irregular smoke trail referred to as a 757" which is
> contradicted by the pictures on your website which clearly shows the
> blob is not referred to as a 757. I do note, however, that you refer
> to the blob as "a bumpy, irregular smoke trail" with no substantiation
> whatsoever.


The cloud is referred to as "incoming plane". That plane being a 757.


Is this too hard for you?





The most serious error in the ASCE report can be found in section 3,
"Review of Crash Information". Figure 3.3, a still frame from the
unofficial, yet released Pentagon security camera footage, incorrectly
labels the white smoke trail in the still "Approaching Aircraft". If the
many building performance experts on the panel who assembled the report
cannot tell the difference between a white, bumpy smoke trail and a 757,
their credibility is questionable, at best.





> And for yet another, you claim that Fig 3.10 shows 4 missing windows
> from the second floor when your own website demonstrates that Fig 3.10
> shows only 2. In fact you even point out that Fig. 3.10 does, in fact,
> show those two windows. Hello?
>
> I could go on but that is sufficient.


You may have found a misstatement, and I shall rectify it, if so.

I appreciate the proofreading.




The ASCE report also aids supporters of the 757 theory by
misrepresenting the width of the initial impact damage. While the
photograph in figure 3.8 indicates that only two windows, and a single
column are missing from the second floor, the drawing placed beside it
(figure 3.10) shows a total of four missing windows. This illustration
does not correspond to any known photograph. Its inclusion is yet another
reason to doubt the veracity of the report.




Nope, I think you have a comprehension problem.




The ambiguous presence of the two windows on the second floor are
revealed only under magnification. No columns are shown on the bottom
floor.


>> > but there's enough there to
>> > address your claims above. As just one example, you claim that the
>> > entry hole is just one window, but www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>> > clearly shows this is not the case.
>>
>>
>> Correct, it's a whacking two windows high at the top.
>
> Yes, I know I'm correct.


Two windows wide. That's quite a tidy plane crash, eh?


; )




>> Less than 20 feet, in other words. That's the "fuselage" hole.
>
> Oh? I thought you claimed that was "the actual entry hole." Are you
> now admitting that there are other holes?


You really suck at this. You were claiming some fantastic 120-foot wide
hole. I pointed out that it's really a series of holes. Please quit
frothing and concentrate.





The damage to the first floor columns, based on photographic evidence
and the ASCE report text, shows only 5 columns were removed at that
point. However, figure 3.10, again, seems to show a much larger area of
damage. This confusion aids many 757 theorists by enabling them to claim,
falsely, that the entry hole into the Pentagon was one hundred to one
hundred and twenty feet wide. This figure, as revealed in the ASCE text
(section 6.1), actually refers to damage to the Pentagon’s façade, and
not the actual entry hole.





And quit kooking over "actual entry hole", simpleton. It doesn't serve
you well.





>
>>
>> >> I think the last one is the most probable. Ther was a C-130 plane
>> >> on that day on the air.
>> >>
>> >> I don't want to discuss Pentagone strike, because that is not me
>> >> who found that, I analysed the question and decided that there was
>> >> no large plane on the Pentagone. There are enough web sites that
>> >> explain it. And my
>> > arguments
>> >> to justify the absence of large plane on the Pentagone are on my
>> >> web site.
>> > I
>> >> can explain my arguments if you have any question on.
>> >>
>> >> http://users.swing.be/muhammadcolumbo/
>> >
>> > I really liked your assertion that vegetation hides crash noise.
>>
>>
>> Almost as good as the claim "the 757 ripped the antenna off of a Jeep
>> Cherokee, and I was 6 feet away from the engine".
>
> I'm surprised you aren't jumping all over that claim as evidence
> supporting your claim. After all, that witness refers to "the engine"
> and not "the left engine" or "right engine." How'd you miss that?

If you'd done your homework, you'd know he is in fact referring to a
mythical right side engine.


Thanks for playing, Paul. We are amused.










With Photos:
http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce



Problems With the ASCE Report On The Pentagon Cast Further Doubt on 757
Story

By Jason Christie
8/8/2004


Three years after 9/11, there is still little to no evidence indicating a
757 struck the Pentagon. Indeed, there seems to have been no "official"
investigation into this topic at all. Many who claim a 757 hit the
Pentagon cite an American Society of Civil Engineers building study as
proof. I contend that the ASCE report, despite its assumptions regarding
the day in question, actually supports the belief that no 757 hit the
Pentagon.


The report, some sixty pages long, was released in January of 2003. Its
stated purpose was not to investigate the events that caused damage to
the Pentagon, but to examine the performance of the building after the
incident in question. It makes certain base assumptions regarding the
assumed presence of a 757, and works forward from there.


While there are an impressive number of PhDs behind the building
performance report, some of the logic is rather spotty, and the report
seems to include at least one falsehood. Other areas of the report openly
contradict the claims many have made in support of the 757 theory.


The most serious error in the ASCE report can be found in section 3,
"Review of Crash Information". Figure 3.3, a still frame from the
unofficial, yet released Pentagon security camera footage, incorrectly
labels the white smoke trail in the still "Approaching Aircraft". If the
many building performance experts on the panel who assembled the report
cannot tell the difference between a white, bumpy smoke trail and a 757,
their credibility is questionable, at best.


Smoke trail mislabled as 757.

Figure 3.4 clearly shows an extension of the same smoke trail reaching
all the way to the Pentagon, which would make this "757" hundreds of feet
longer than a real 757. That is, of course, ignoring the fact that this
supposed 757 lacks any wings, a tail, or any marking that would indicate
it is an airliner.


Smoke trail remains in place. Clearly, that was not a 757.


In fact, the ASCE report is the only place I have seen this bumpy,
irregular smoke trail referred to as a 757. I believe this piece of
disinformation is deliberate. If it is unintentional, then the ASCE
should correct this report in order to save their credibility. There is
nothing in the still frames that remotely resembles a 757, so it is
difficult to believe a team of engineers could make a mistake of this
magnitude.


The ASCE report also aids supporters of the 757 theory by misrepresenting
the width of the initial impact damage. While the photograph in figure
3.8 indicates that only two windows, and a single column are missing from
the second floor, the drawing placed beside it (figure 3.10) shows a
total of four missing windows. This illustration does not correspond to
any known photograph. Its inclusion is yet another reason to doubt the
veracity of the report.


Note the fencing in place, where the left wing clearly would have struck,
had a 757 hit the Pentagon.


The ambiguous presence of the two windows on the second floor are
revealed only under magnification. No columns are shown on the bottom
floor.


This is crucial, as the small size of the initial entry point, along with
the stunning lack of debris, is the main reason so many doubt the claim
that a 757 struck the Pentagon to begin with.


Careful reading of the report shows that only a single column and two
windows from the second floor were removed. This makes the width of the
damage at the top of the entry point somewhere between sixteen and twenty
feet. Of course, part of the top of the column is still evident in
photographs, which calls into question the possibility that a massive 757
inflicted the damage, yet left this piece of the building in position.

Note the lack of tail damage.
Two windows wide, with the top part of the column hanging down. Total
lack of tail damage above presumed impact area.


The damage to the first floor columns, based on photographic evidence and
the ASCE report text, shows only 5 columns were removed at that point.
However, figure 3.10, again, seems to show a much larger area of damage.
This confusion aids many 757 theorists by enabling them to claim,
falsely, that the entry hole into the Pentagon was one hundred to one
hundred and twenty feet wide. This figure, as revealed in the ASCE text
(section 6.1), actually refers to damage to the Pentagon’s façade, and
not the actual entry hole.


Deceptively, both missing and damaged columns are assigned the same
color. In the front wall, only columns 10-14 were removed, in fact.

Finally, the diagrams 6.2 and 6.3 show another fallacy of the 757 story,
and illustrate a dramatic lack of critical thinking on the part of the
report’s authors. The supposed exit point of the alleged 757 is commonly
referred to as the "AE punch-out". It was a circular hole approximately
eight feet wide in the rear wall of the Pentagon, where the remains of
the aircraft are claimed to have exited.


An amazing number of columns in front of the AE punch-out "exit hole".
Did a giant pachinko ball strike the Pentagon?


However, as diagrams 6.2 and 6.3 clearly illustrate, at least four
columns remained in place in front of the claimed exit hole. It is
difficult to imagine something with the size and mass required to create
this exit point weaving around the columns like a giant pachinko ball in
order to reach the rear wall and create this circular-shaped hole. This
facet of the damage in not questioned in the ASCE report.


Whatever made this hole couldn't have been a 757, or even a missile, due
to the columns in front of it. Probably man-made.

Furthermore, the supposed 757 engines remain unaccounted for in the
ASCE’s study. With these obvious holes in the 757 theory, and the lack of
debris, supporters of the 757 story are reduced to reliance on eyewitness
testimony. This testimony, hearsay evidence, would not even be allowed in
court unless presented by the eyewitness themselves, and certainly cannot
account for the lack of 757 debris or explain the other serious flaws in
the 757 theory.


There is an ambiguity to the World Trade Center case that allows for
endless debate on the issues involved. There is considerably less "wiggle
room" when it comes to the Pentagon, and that is probably why FEMA
neglected to study the Pentagon at all. A formal report on the cause of
the damage itself would have renewed debate, and put FEMA on the
defensive.


Unless definitive evidence indicating a 757 is uncovered, the most
logical conclusion that can be reached when studying all of the available
evidence is that no 757 hit the Pentagon, and a subsequent cover-up was
attempted. And of course, if no 757 struck the Pentagon, then all of the
events surrounding 9/11 must be questioned. I invite all interested
parties to read the ASCE report for themselves and consider the many
flaws in this building performance report.

ASCE Report Online in PDF Format:
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf
khobar
2005-09-15 15:50:55 UTC
Permalink
"Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com>
wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
> "khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
> news:Xi5We.79477$***@fed1read06:
>
> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> "khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
> >> news:eD0We.79446$***@fed1read06:
> >>
> >> > "MuhammadColumbo" <***@swing.be> wrote in message
> >> > news:43287486$1$2545$***@news.skynet.be...
> >> >>
> >> >> "tw" <***@no.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> >> >> dg8pdc$mpg$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "MuhammadColumbo" <***@swing.be> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:4326ec91$0$29283$***@news.skynet.be...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> >> >> >> <***@yahoo.com>
> >> > a
> >> >> >> écrit dans le message de news:
> >> > ***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >> >> > "James Of Tucson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> > news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Lack of a plane, doesn't make your case for a cruise
> >> >> >> >> missile.
> >> > You're
> >> >> >> >> not done until you come up with evidence. Like pieces of a
> >> >> >> >> cruise missle. Or a missing cruise missle. Or maybe we'd
> >> >> >> >> settle for open testimony from the commander who gave an
> >> >> >> >> order to fire a cruise missile
> >> >> >> >> at the Pentagon.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > The unofficially released stills seem to support a missile
> >> >> >> > fired from close range by an F-16 type plane.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Not so close range. Because the cruise missile need some
> >> >> >> distance tostabilise its guidance regulator before being
> >> >> >> precisely guided.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Guidance regulator"?! LOL!
> >> >>
> >> >> Why LOL? Do you think the cruise missiles have no guidance
> >> >> regulator? If
> >> > so,
> >> >> how it finds its target?
> >> >>
> >> >> >> As they used cruise missile type guidance for the plane , they
> >> >> >> probably
> >> >> > used the same
> >> >> >> kind of missile to manage all the weapons by the same work
> >> >> >> desk. That's
> >> >> > why
> >> >> >> the UA93 waited the strike on Pentagone (minus 3 minutes)
> >> >> >> before
> >> > deviate
> >> >> >> from its flight route.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So how come so many people saw a large passenger plane, (and
> >> >> > large passenger
> >> >> > plane-sized damage was caused to the Pentagon), yet no one
> >> >> > reports
> >> > seeing
> >> >> > fighter jets firing missiles?
> >> >>
> >> >> The damages caused to the Pentagone are very very very small with
> >> >> regard
> >> > to
> >> >> a passenger sized plane. The entry hole is just ONE WINDOW, the
> >> >> upper
> >> > floor
> >> >> windows are not damaged, glass not broken, even if they are
> >> >> reinforced, their frame will be broken. And as the depth of the
> >> >> damages reached 6
> >> > walls
> >> >> (three rings of the Pentagone) , it is impossible that to be a
> >> >> large
> >> > plane.
> >> >> So we have several possibilities :
> >> >> 1- The witnesses are all liars.
> >> >> 2- People who reported that are liars.
> >> >> 3- There was a large plane, but it did't hit the Pentagone.
> >> >
> >> > You need to take a look at www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce as it
> >> > clearly shows the damage was quite extensive with an entry hole not
> >> > quite the width of a 757 wingtip to wingtip.
> >>
> >>
> >> Please don't use my website to lie. The "entry hole" you're referring
> >> to is actually "facade damage".
> >
> > Not according to the pictures on your website.
>
> People can see for themselves, can't they?
>
> ; )

Yes, indeed they can.

>
>
> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>
>
> Are you saying there is no facade damage?

Eh?

>
> Are you saying there are not columns in the single hole you claim exists?

Eh?

>
> Tell me more about this, please.

More about what?

>
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> "Entry holes" tend to not have standing columns in them. That would
> >> make them a series of holes, at best.
> >
> > Then you should probably remove some of the pictures on your website.
> > As it is now, there are pictures there that show clearly the damage
> > was very extensive.
>
>
> And another shill begs me to remove my site...

I said "you should probably remove some of the pictures on your website. As
it is now, there are pictures there that show
clearly the damage was very extensive."

>
>
> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>
>
> "The damage was very extensive" is hollow, empty and meaningless.

Not so - you provide pictures on your website proving that the statement is
not hollow, empty, or meaningless.

>
>
> If the photos support a 757, then what's your concern?

Now you're trying to dodge the issue, eh?

>
> >> > It's a bit of a goofy site full of
> >> > contradictions to the author's claims,
> >>
> >>
> >> Surely you can cite a few for us all?
> >
> > For one, you title the page "Problems With the ASCE Report On The
> > Pentagon Cast Further Doubt on 757 Story" but you rely on the
> > *accuracy and completeness* of that report, contradicting your claim
> > that it is problems with the report that support your claim.
>
>
> I rely on the *accuracy and completeness* of the report?

Absolutely.

>
> Problems with the report support my claim that no 757 hit the Pentagon.

So far any so-called "problems" have been manufactured by you. Otherwise
clearly the ASCE report does not support your premise.

>
> Squirm.
>
>
> > For another, you claim there is something called "the actual entry
> > hole", but your site clearly contradicts this claim as evidenced by
> > the photos you posted.
>
>
> The photos contradict what, exactly?

This "the actual entry hole" of yours.

>
>
>
> > And for another, you claim the ASCE report " is the only place I have
> > seen this bumpy, irregular smoke trail referred to as a 757" which is
> > contradicted by the pictures on your website which clearly shows the
> > blob is not referred to as a 757. I do note, however, that you refer
> > to the blob as "a bumpy, irregular smoke trail" with no substantiation
> > whatsoever.
>
>
> The cloud is referred to as "incoming plane". That plane being a 757.

It's referred to as approaching aircraft, and since you just
admitted the reference actually comes from you, thank you for admitting that
you lied when you said the ASCE was where the reference came from.

>
>
> Is this too hard for you?
>
>
>
>
>
> The most serious error in the ASCE report can be found in section 3,
> "Review of Crash Information". Figure 3.3, a still frame from the
> unofficial, yet released Pentagon security camera footage, incorrectly
> labels the white smoke trail in the still "Approaching Aircraft". If the
> many building performance experts on the panel who assembled the report
> cannot tell the difference between a white, bumpy smoke trail and a 757,
> their credibility is questionable, at best.

Let's have that again: "The most serious error in the ASCE report can be
found in section 3, "Review of Crash Information". Figure 3.3, a still frame
from the unofficial, yet released Pentagon security camera footage,
incorrectly labels the white smoke trail in the still "Approaching
Aircraft".

This "most serious error" depends *entirely* on your biased opinion which,
btw, doesn't actually affect anything.

>
>
>
>
>
> > And for yet another, you claim that Fig 3.10 shows 4 missing windows
> > from the second floor when your own website demonstrates that Fig 3.10
> > shows only 2. In fact you even point out that Fig. 3.10 does, in fact,
> > show those two windows. Hello?
> >
> > I could go on but that is sufficient.
>
>
> You may have found a misstatement, and I shall rectify it, if so.

I found many lies, contradictions, and misstatements, and since I've only
provided a few of them for you how do you propose to rectify it especially
considering that doing so will leave your site saying something you don't
want it to?

>
> I appreciate the proofreading.

You asked for some contradictions on your site and I provided them.

>
>
>
> The ASCE report also aids supporters of the 757 theory by
> misrepresenting the width of the initial impact damage. While the
> photograph in figure 3.8 indicates that only two windows, and a single
> column are missing from the second floor, the drawing placed beside it
> (figure 3.10) shows a total of four missing windows. This illustration
> does not correspond to any known photograph. Its inclusion is yet another
> reason to doubt the veracity of the report.
>
>
>
>
> Nope, I think you have a comprehension problem.
>
>
>
>
> The ambiguous presence of the two windows on the second floor are
> revealed only under magnification. No columns are shown on the bottom
> floor.

Then you need your eyes checked. Looking at the ASCE report
(http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf) Fig. 3.10
the windows are plain as can be.

>
>
> >> > but there's enough there to
> >> > address your claims above. As just one example, you claim that the
> >> > entry hole is just one window, but www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
> >> > clearly shows this is not the case.
> >>
> >>
> >> Correct, it's a whacking two windows high at the top.
> >
> > Yes, I know I'm correct.
>
>
> Two windows wide. That's quite a tidy plane crash, eh?

Eh? You said the entry hole was just one widow, to which I replied "but
www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce clearly shows this is not the case."

>
>
> ; )
>
>
>
>
> >> Less than 20 feet, in other words. That's the "fuselage" hole.
> >
> > Oh? I thought you claimed that was "the actual entry hole." Are you
> > now admitting that there are other holes?
>
>
> You really suck at this. You were claiming some fantastic 120-foot wide
> hole. I pointed out that it's really a series of holes. Please quit
> frothing and concentrate.

LOL. You still can't seem to make up your mind between "actual entry hole"
(which you use to support your so-called argument) and now "series of holes"
(which you use to nitpick despite it contradicting your claim). Which is it?

>
>
>
>
>
> The damage to the first floor columns, based on photographic evidence
> and the ASCE report text, shows only 5 columns were removed at that
> point. However, figure 3.10, again, seems to show a much larger area of
> damage. This confusion aids many 757 theorists by enabling them to claim,
> falsely, that the entry hole into the Pentagon was one hundred to one
> hundred and twenty feet wide. This figure, as revealed in the ASCE text
> (section 6.1), actually refers to damage to the Pentagon's façade, and
> not the actual entry hole.
>
>
>
>
>
> And quit kooking over "actual entry hole", simpleton. It doesn't serve
> you well.

*YOU* depend on this "actual entry hole" as the cornerstone of your
argument - you describe it as "crucial, as the small size of the initial
entry point, along with the stunning lack of debris, is the main reason so
many doubt the claim that a 757 struck the Pentagon to begin with."

And you've now contradicted your own claim a number of times here. Is there
only this "actual entry hole" that is "somewhere between sixteen and twenty
feet. Of course, part of the top of the column is still evident in
photographs, which calls into question the possibility that a massive 757
inflicted the damage," or is it that you "pointed out that it's really a
series of holes" that extends much farther than you want to admit (for
obvious reasons) but do so anyway via the pictures on your website?

>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> >> I think the last one is the most probable. Ther was a C-130 plane
> >> >> on that day on the air.
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't want to discuss Pentagone strike, because that is not me
> >> >> who found that, I analysed the question and decided that there was
> >> >> no large plane on the Pentagone. There are enough web sites that
> >> >> explain it. And my
> >> > arguments
> >> >> to justify the absence of large plane on the Pentagone are on my
> >> >> web site.
> >> > I
> >> >> can explain my arguments if you have any question on.
> >> >>
> >> >> http://users.swing.be/muhammadcolumbo/
> >> >
> >> > I really liked your assertion that vegetation hides crash noise.
> >>
> >>
> >> Almost as good as the claim "the 757 ripped the antenna off of a Jeep
> >> Cherokee, and I was 6 feet away from the engine".
> >
> > I'm surprised you aren't jumping all over that claim as evidence
> > supporting your claim. After all, that witness refers to "the engine"
> > and not "the left engine" or "right engine." How'd you miss that?
>
> If you'd done your homework, you'd know he is in fact referring to a
> mythical right side engine.

Oh, okay. The engine that took a bite out of the generator thing.

> Thanks for playing, Paul. We are amused.

Who else is in there with you?

Paul Nixon
Black People Don't Care About George Bush
2005-09-15 21:39:27 UTC
Permalink
"khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:7MgWe.23773$***@fed1read02:

> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> "khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
>> news:Xi5We.79477$***@fed1read06:
>>
>> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> "khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
>> >> news:eD0We.79446$***@fed1read06:
>> >>
>> >> > "MuhammadColumbo" <***@swing.be> wrote in message
>> >> > news:43287486$1$2545$***@news.skynet.be...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "tw" <***@no.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
>> >> >> dg8pdc$mpg$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "MuhammadColumbo" <***@swing.be> wrote in
>> >> >> > message news:4326ec91$0$29283$***@news.skynet.be...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> >> >> >> <***@yahoo.com>
>> >> > a
>> >> >> >> écrit dans le message de news:
>> >> > ***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> >> >> > "James Of Tucson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >> >> >> > news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Lack of a plane, doesn't make your case for a cruise
>> >> >> >> >> missile.
>> >> > You're
>> >> >> >> >> not done until you come up with evidence. Like pieces of
>> >> >> >> >> a cruise missle. Or a missing cruise missle. Or maybe
>> >> >> >> >> we'd settle for open testimony from the commander who
>> >> >> >> >> gave an order to fire a cruise missile
>> >> >> >> >> at the Pentagon.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > The unofficially released stills seem to support a missile
>> >> >> >> > fired from close range by an F-16 type plane.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Not so close range. Because the cruise missile need some
>> >> >> >> distance tostabilise its guidance regulator before being
>> >> >> >> precisely guided.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "Guidance regulator"?! LOL!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why LOL? Do you think the cruise missiles have no guidance
>> >> >> regulator? If
>> >> > so,
>> >> >> how it finds its target?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> As they used cruise missile type guidance for the plane ,
>> >> >> >> they probably
>> >> >> > used the same
>> >> >> >> kind of missile to manage all the weapons by the same work
>> >> >> >> desk. That's
>> >> >> > why
>> >> >> >> the UA93 waited the strike on Pentagone (minus 3 minutes)
>> >> >> >> before
>> >> > deviate
>> >> >> >> from its flight route.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So how come so many people saw a large passenger plane, (and
>> >> >> > large passenger
>> >> >> > plane-sized damage was caused to the Pentagon), yet no one
>> >> >> > reports
>> >> > seeing
>> >> >> > fighter jets firing missiles?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The damages caused to the Pentagone are very very very small
>> >> >> with regard
>> >> > to
>> >> >> a passenger sized plane. The entry hole is just ONE WINDOW, the
>> >> >> upper
>> >> > floor
>> >> >> windows are not damaged, glass not broken, even if they are
>> >> >> reinforced, their frame will be broken. And as the depth of the
>> >> >> damages reached 6
>> >> > walls
>> >> >> (three rings of the Pentagone) , it is impossible that to be a
>> >> >> large
>> >> > plane.
>> >> >> So we have several possibilities :
>> >> >> 1- The witnesses are all liars.
>> >> >> 2- People who reported that are liars.
>> >> >> 3- There was a large plane, but it did't hit the Pentagone.
>> >> >
>> >> > You need to take a look at www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce as it
>> >> > clearly shows the damage was quite extensive with an entry hole
>> >> > not quite the width of a 757 wingtip to wingtip.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Please don't use my website to lie. The "entry hole" you're
>> >> referring to is actually "facade damage".
>> >
>> > Not according to the pictures on your website.
>>
>> People can see for themselves, can't they?
>>
>> ; )
>
> Yes, indeed they can.
>
>>
>>
>> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>>
>>
>> Are you saying there is no facade damage?
>
> Eh?
>
>>
>> Are you saying there are not columns in the single hole you claim
>> exists?
>
> Eh?
>
>>
>> Tell me more about this, please.
>
> More about what?


You're officially dull.



>> >>
>> >> "Entry holes" tend to not have standing columns in them. That
>> >> would make them a series of holes, at best.
>> >
>> > Then you should probably remove some of the pictures on your
>> > website. As it is now, there are pictures there that show clearly
>> > the damage was very extensive.
>>
>>
>> And another shill begs me to remove my site...
>
> I said "you should probably remove some of the pictures on your
> website. As it is now, there are pictures there that show
> clearly the damage was very extensive."


Which is a pretty stupid thing to say.




>> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>>
>>
>> "The damage was very extensive" is hollow, empty and meaningless.
>
> Not so - you provide pictures on your website proving that the
> statement is not hollow, empty, or meaningless.


It's a null statement. Has anyone ever contested that there was extensive
damage at the Pentagon?


I certainly haven't.



>> If the photos support a 757, then what's your concern?
>
> Now you're trying to dodge the issue, eh?


What issue? The burning issue of extensive damage at the Pentagon on
9/11?



>> >> > It's a bit of a goofy site full of
>> >> > contradictions to the author's claims,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Surely you can cite a few for us all?
>> >
>> > For one, you title the page "Problems With the ASCE Report On The
>> > Pentagon Cast Further Doubt on 757 Story" but you rely on the
>> > *accuracy and completeness* of that report, contradicting your
>> > claim that it is problems with the report that support your claim.
>>
>>
>> I rely on the *accuracy and completeness* of the report?
>
> Absolutely.


Even though the report is inaccurate and incomplete, as my essay shows?




>> Problems with the report support my claim that no 757 hit the
>> Pentagon.
>
> So far any so-called "problems" have been manufactured by you.
> Otherwise clearly the ASCE report does not support your premise.


Whatever you say, champ.

http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce



>> Squirm.
>>
>>
>> > For another, you claim there is something called "the actual entry
>> > hole", but your site clearly contradicts this claim as evidenced by
>> > the photos you posted.
>>
>>
>> The photos contradict what, exactly?
>
> This "the actual entry hole" of yours.


Yes, that is your claim.

Yawn.


>> > And for another, you claim the ASCE report " is the only place I
>> > have seen this bumpy, irregular smoke trail referred to as a 757"
>> > which is contradicted by the pictures on your website which clearly
>> > shows the blob is not referred to as a 757. I do note, however,
>> > that you refer to the blob as "a bumpy, irregular smoke trail" with
>> > no substantiation whatsoever.
>>
>>
>> The cloud is referred to as "incoming plane". That plane being a 757.
>
> It's referred to as approaching aircraft, and since you just
> admitted the reference actually comes from you, thank you for
> admitting that you lied when you said the ASCE was where the reference
> came from.



You're just not very bright, I'm afraid.




>> Is this too hard for you?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The most serious error in the ASCE report can be found in section 3,
>> "Review of Crash Information". Figure 3.3, a still frame from the
>> unofficial, yet released Pentagon security camera footage,
>> incorrectly labels the white smoke trail in the still "Approaching
>> Aircraft". If the many building performance experts on the panel who
>> assembled the report cannot tell the difference between a white,
>> bumpy smoke trail and a 757, their credibility is questionable, at
>> best.
>
> Let's have that again: "The most serious error in the ASCE report can
> be found in section 3, "Review of Crash Information". Figure 3.3, a
> still frame from the unofficial, yet released Pentagon security camera
> footage, incorrectly labels the white smoke trail in the still
> "Approaching Aircraft".
>
> This "most serious error" depends *entirely* on your biased opinion
> which, btw, doesn't actually affect anything.



So you're saying that bumpy, irregular smoke trail is a 757?


; )


>> > And for yet another, you claim that Fig 3.10 shows 4 missing
>> > windows from the second floor when your own website demonstrates
>> > that Fig 3.10 shows only 2. In fact you even point out that Fig.
>> > 3.10 does, in fact, show those two windows. Hello?
>> >
>> > I could go on but that is sufficient.
>>
>>
>> You may have found a misstatement, and I shall rectify it, if so.
>
> I found many lies, contradictions, and misstatements, and since I've
> only provided a few of them for you how do you propose to rectify it
> especially considering that doing so will leave your site saying
> something you don't want it to?


I can't let fucktards dictate the content of my site, sorry. Come up with
something valid.



>> I appreciate the proofreading.
>
> You asked for some contradictions on your site and I provided them.


No, you just made another loopy claim.




>> The ASCE report also aids supporters of the 757 theory by
>> misrepresenting the width of the initial impact damage. While the
>> photograph in figure 3.8 indicates that only two windows, and a
>> single column are missing from the second floor, the drawing placed
>> beside it (figure 3.10) shows a total of four missing windows. This
>> illustration does not correspond to any known photograph. Its
>> inclusion is yet another reason to doubt the veracity of the report.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Nope, I think you have a comprehension problem.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The ambiguous presence of the two windows on the second floor are
>> revealed only under magnification. No columns are shown on the bottom
>> floor.
>
> Then you need your eyes checked. Looking at the ASCE report
> (http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf) Fig. 3.10
> the windows are plain as can be.


Print the PDF and tell me how apparent they are without magnification.


Try to be honest.


>> >> > but there's enough there to
>> >> > address your claims above. As just one example, you claim that
>> >> > the entry hole is just one window, but
>> >> > www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce clearly shows this is not the
>> >> > case.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Correct, it's a whacking two windows high at the top.
>> >
>> > Yes, I know I'm correct.
>>
>>
>> Two windows wide. That's quite a tidy plane crash, eh?
>
> Eh? You said the entry hole was just one widow, to which I replied
> "but www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce clearly shows this is not the
> case."


Of course, you're a drooling moron, because it says right above your
reponse, "Eh?", "two windows wide". Go up two lines before that, and it
says "two windows wide". Google me two years ago, and I said "two windows
wide". Now, where on earth did you get this "one window wide" claim?


Dumbfuck.


>> >> Less than 20 feet, in other words. That's the "fuselage" hole.
>> >
>> > Oh? I thought you claimed that was "the actual entry hole." Are you
>> > now admitting that there are other holes?
>>
>>
>> You really suck at this. You were claiming some fantastic 120-foot
>> wide hole. I pointed out that it's really a series of holes. Please
>> quit frothing and concentrate.
>
> LOL. You still can't seem to make up your mind between "actual entry
> hole" (which you use to support your so-called argument) and now
> "series of holes" (which you use to nitpick despite it contradicting
> your claim). Which is it?


You seem to have an enormous amount of trouble with language.

The center, "fuselage hole" is the "actual entry hole". The rest is
facade damage.


You're really grasping at straws, aren't you?



>> The damage to the first floor columns, based on photographic
>> evidence
>> and the ASCE report text, shows only 5 columns were removed at that
>> point. However, figure 3.10, again, seems to show a much larger area
>> of damage. This confusion aids many 757 theorists by enabling them to
>> claim, falsely, that the entry hole into the Pentagon was one hundred
>> to one hundred and twenty feet wide. This figure, as revealed in the
>> ASCE text (section 6.1), actually refers to damage to the Pentagon's
>> façade, and not the actual entry hole.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> And quit kooking over "actual entry hole", simpleton. It doesn't
>> serve you well.
>
> *YOU* depend on this "actual entry hole" as the cornerstone of your
> argument - you describe it as "crucial, as the small size of the
> initial entry point, along with the stunning lack of debris, is the
> main reason so many doubt the claim that a 757 struck the Pentagon to
> begin with."


Ok...


> And you've now contradicted your own claim a number of times here. Is
> there only this "actual entry hole" that is "somewhere between sixteen
> and twenty feet.


No, dummy. There is also a lot of facade damage.


No tail damage, though. No right side engine damage/entry hole.

Is there?


> Of course, part of the top of the column is still
> evident in photographs, which calls into question the possibility that
> a massive 757 inflicted the damage," or is it that you "pointed out
> that it's really a series of holes" that extends much farther than you
> want to admit (for obvious reasons) but do so anyway via the pictures
> on your website?



Sorry, I don't speak kookbabble. Try and reparse that so it makes more
sense.




>> >> >> I think the last one is the most probable. Ther was a C-130
>> >> >> plane on that day on the air.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I don't want to discuss Pentagone strike, because that is not
>> >> >> me who found that, I analysed the question and decided that
>> >> >> there was no large plane on the Pentagone. There are enough web
>> >> >> sites that explain it. And my
>> >> > arguments
>> >> >> to justify the absence of large plane on the Pentagone are on
>> >> >> my web site.
>> >> > I
>> >> >> can explain my arguments if you have any question on.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://users.swing.be/muhammadcolumbo/
>> >> >
>> >> > I really liked your assertion that vegetation hides crash noise.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Almost as good as the claim "the 757 ripped the antenna off of a
>> >> Jeep Cherokee, and I was 6 feet away from the engine".
>> >
>> > I'm surprised you aren't jumping all over that claim as evidence
>> > supporting your claim. After all, that witness refers to "the
>> > engine" and not "the left engine" or "right engine." How'd you miss
>> > that?
>>
>> If you'd done your homework, you'd know he is in fact referring to a
>> mythical right side engine.
>
> Oh, okay. The engine that took a bite out of the generator thing.


And then disappeared?

And also flew over the Pentagon?

And didn't enter the Pentagon through the facade?

Andy Carol says, "Hi!".


>> Thanks for playing, Paul. We are amused.
>
> Who else is in there with you?

Your fat mother?


BTW, your group line tricks are amateur, at best. What do you have to
hide?
khobar
2005-09-16 01:07:48 UTC
Permalink
"Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com>
wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
> "khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
> news:7MgWe.23773$***@fed1read02:
>
> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> "khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
> >> news:Xi5We.79477$***@fed1read06:
> >>
> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >> "khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
> >> >> news:eD0We.79446$***@fed1read06:
> >> >>
> >> >> > "MuhammadColumbo" <***@swing.be> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:43287486$1$2545$***@news.skynet.be...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "tw" <***@no.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> >> >> >> dg8pdc$mpg$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > "MuhammadColumbo" <***@swing.be> wrote in
> >> >> >> > message news:4326ec91$0$29283$***@news.skynet.be...
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> >> >> >> >> <***@yahoo.com>
> >> >> > a
> >> >> >> >> écrit dans le message de news:
> >> >> > ***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >> >> >> > "James Of Tucson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> >> > news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Lack of a plane, doesn't make your case for a cruise
> >> >> >> >> >> missile.
> >> >> > You're
> >> >> >> >> >> not done until you come up with evidence. Like pieces of
> >> >> >> >> >> a cruise missle. Or a missing cruise missle. Or maybe
> >> >> >> >> >> we'd settle for open testimony from the commander who
> >> >> >> >> >> gave an order to fire a cruise missile
> >> >> >> >> >> at the Pentagon.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > The unofficially released stills seem to support a missile
> >> >> >> >> > fired from close range by an F-16 type plane.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Not so close range. Because the cruise missile need some
> >> >> >> >> distance tostabilise its guidance regulator before being
> >> >> >> >> precisely guided.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > "Guidance regulator"?! LOL!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Why LOL? Do you think the cruise missiles have no guidance
> >> >> >> regulator? If
> >> >> > so,
> >> >> >> how it finds its target?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> As they used cruise missile type guidance for the plane ,
> >> >> >> >> they probably
> >> >> >> > used the same
> >> >> >> >> kind of missile to manage all the weapons by the same work
> >> >> >> >> desk. That's
> >> >> >> > why
> >> >> >> >> the UA93 waited the strike on Pentagone (minus 3 minutes)
> >> >> >> >> before
> >> >> > deviate
> >> >> >> >> from its flight route.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > So how come so many people saw a large passenger plane, (and
> >> >> >> > large passenger
> >> >> >> > plane-sized damage was caused to the Pentagon), yet no one
> >> >> >> > reports
> >> >> > seeing
> >> >> >> > fighter jets firing missiles?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The damages caused to the Pentagone are very very very small
> >> >> >> with regard
> >> >> > to
> >> >> >> a passenger sized plane. The entry hole is just ONE WINDOW, the
> >> >> >> upper
> >> >> > floor
> >> >> >> windows are not damaged, glass not broken, even if they are
> >> >> >> reinforced, their frame will be broken. And as the depth of the
> >> >> >> damages reached 6
> >> >> > walls
> >> >> >> (three rings of the Pentagone) , it is impossible that to be a
> >> >> >> large
> >> >> > plane.
> >> >> >> So we have several possibilities :
> >> >> >> 1- The witnesses are all liars.
> >> >> >> 2- People who reported that are liars.
> >> >> >> 3- There was a large plane, but it did't hit the Pentagone.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You need to take a look at www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce as it
> >> >> > clearly shows the damage was quite extensive with an entry hole
> >> >> > not quite the width of a 757 wingtip to wingtip.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Please don't use my website to lie. The "entry hole" you're
> >> >> referring to is actually "facade damage".
> >> >
> >> > Not according to the pictures on your website.
> >>
> >> People can see for themselves, can't they?
> >>
> >> ; )
> >
> > Yes, indeed they can.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
> >>
> >>
> >> Are you saying there is no facade damage?
> >
> > Eh?
> >
> >>
> >> Are you saying there are not columns in the single hole you claim
> >> exists?
> >
> > Eh?
> >
> >>
> >> Tell me more about this, please.
> >
> > More about what?
>
>
> You're officially dull.
>
>
>
>
> >> >>
> >> >> "Entry holes" tend to not have standing columns in them. That
> >> >> would make them a series of holes, at best.
> >> >
> >> > Then you should probably remove some of the pictures on your
> >> > website. As it is now, there are pictures there that show clearly
> >> > the damage was very extensive.
> >>
> >>
> >> And another shill begs me to remove my site...
> >
> > I said "you should probably remove some of the pictures on your
> > website. As it is now, there are pictures there that show
> > clearly the damage was very extensive."
>
>
> Which is a pretty stupid thing to say.

Stupid or not, it proves you can't read.

>
>
>
>
> >> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
> >>
> >>
> >> "The damage was very extensive" is hollow, empty and meaningless.
> >
> > Not so - you provide pictures on your website proving that the
> > statement is not hollow, empty, or meaningless.
>
>
> It's a null statement. Has anyone ever contested that there was extensive
> damage at the Pentagon?
>
>
> I certainly haven't.

LOL. Don't you read your own website?

>
>
>
> >> If the photos support a 757, then what's your concern?
> >
> > Now you're trying to dodge the issue, eh?
>
>
> What issue? The burning issue of extensive damage at the Pentagon on
> 9/11?

LOL. Your claim that the ASCE report supports you.

>
>
>
> >> >> > It's a bit of a goofy site full of
> >> >> > contradictions to the author's claims,
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Surely you can cite a few for us all?
> >> >
> >> > For one, you title the page "Problems With the ASCE Report On The
> >> > Pentagon Cast Further Doubt on 757 Story" but you rely on the
> >> > *accuracy and completeness* of that report, contradicting your
> >> > claim that it is problems with the report that support your claim.
> >>
> >>
> >> I rely on the *accuracy and completeness* of the report?
> >
> > Absolutely.
>
>
> Even though the report is inaccurate and incomplete, as my essay shows?

Your so-called "essay" hasn't shown that at all.

>
>
>
>
> >> Problems with the report support my claim that no 757 hit the
> >> Pentagon.
> >
> > So far any so-called "problems" have been manufactured by you.
> > Otherwise clearly the ASCE report does not support your premise.
>
>
> Whatever you say, champ.
>
> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>
>
>
> >> Squirm.
> >>
> >>
> >> > For another, you claim there is something called "the actual entry
> >> > hole", but your site clearly contradicts this claim as evidenced by
> >> > the photos you posted.
> >>
> >>
> >> The photos contradict what, exactly?
> >
> > This "the actual entry hole" of yours.
>
>
> Yes, that is your claim.
>
> Yawn.

It's not my claim: it's at http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce

>
>
> >> > And for another, you claim the ASCE report " is the only place I
> >> > have seen this bumpy, irregular smoke trail referred to as a 757"
> >> > which is contradicted by the pictures on your website which clearly
> >> > shows the blob is not referred to as a 757. I do note, however,
> >> > that you refer to the blob as "a bumpy, irregular smoke trail" with
> >> > no substantiation whatsoever.
> >>
> >>
> >> The cloud is referred to as "incoming plane". That plane being a 757.
> >
> > It's referred to as approaching aircraft, and since you just
> > admitted the reference actually comes from you, thank you for
> > admitting that you lied when you said the ASCE was where the reference
> > came from.
>
>
>
> You're just not very bright, I'm afraid.
>
>
>
>
> >> Is this too hard for you?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The most serious error in the ASCE report can be found in section 3,
> >> "Review of Crash Information". Figure 3.3, a still frame from the
> >> unofficial, yet released Pentagon security camera footage,
> >> incorrectly labels the white smoke trail in the still "Approaching
> >> Aircraft". If the many building performance experts on the panel who
> >> assembled the report cannot tell the difference between a white,
> >> bumpy smoke trail and a 757, their credibility is questionable, at
> >> best.
> >
> > Let's have that again: "The most serious error in the ASCE report can
> > be found in section 3, "Review of Crash Information". Figure 3.3, a
> > still frame from the unofficial, yet released Pentagon security camera
> > footage, incorrectly labels the white smoke trail in the still
> > "Approaching Aircraft".
> >
> > This "most serious error" depends *entirely* on your biased opinion
> > which, btw, doesn't actually affect anything.
>
>
>
> So you're saying that bumpy, irregular smoke trail is a 757?

Must be difficult for you to go through life so challenged, eh? I said this
"most serious error" depends *entirely* on your biased opinion which, btw,
doesn't actually affect anything.

>
>
> ; )
>
>
> >> > And for yet another, you claim that Fig 3.10 shows 4 missing
> >> > windows from the second floor when your own website demonstrates
> >> > that Fig 3.10 shows only 2. In fact you even point out that Fig.
> >> > 3.10 does, in fact, show those two windows. Hello?
> >> >
> >> > I could go on but that is sufficient.
> >>
> >>
> >> You may have found a misstatement, and I shall rectify it, if so.
> >
> > I found many lies, contradictions, and misstatements, and since I've
> > only provided a few of them for you how do you propose to rectify it
> > especially considering that doing so will leave your site saying
> > something you don't want it to?
>
>
> I can't let fucktards dictate the content of my site, sorry. Come up with
> something valid.

You're the one who invited me to point out contradictions, and you're the
one who volunteers to rectify your website. As for your problem with
"fucktards", I can't help you there. Perhaps if you were less you you
wouldn't attract them, eh?

>
>
>
> >> I appreciate the proofreading.
> >
> > You asked for some contradictions on your site and I provided them.
>
>
> No, you just made another loopy claim.

LOL.

>
>
>
>
> >> The ASCE report also aids supporters of the 757 theory by
> >> misrepresenting the width of the initial impact damage. While the
> >> photograph in figure 3.8 indicates that only two windows, and a
> >> single column are missing from the second floor, the drawing placed
> >> beside it (figure 3.10) shows a total of four missing windows. This
> >> illustration does not correspond to any known photograph. Its
> >> inclusion is yet another reason to doubt the veracity of the report.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Nope, I think you have a comprehension problem.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The ambiguous presence of the two windows on the second floor are
> >> revealed only under magnification. No columns are shown on the bottom
> >> floor.
> >
> > Then you need your eyes checked. Looking at the ASCE report
> > (http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf) Fig. 3.10
> > the windows are plain as can be.
>
>
> Print the PDF and tell me how apparent they are without magnification.

Ah, so you lied again - now it's your printout that needs to be magnified in
order for you to see the windows. Perhaps you should upgrade from
dot-matrix. I have no difficulty in seeing the windows, and of course no
attempt was ever made to hide them. For you to try to make a point you had
to lie. Tch, tch, tch.

>
>
> Try to be honest.
>
>
> >> >> > but there's enough there to
> >> >> > address your claims above. As just one example, you claim that
> >> >> > the entry hole is just one window, but
> >> >> > www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce clearly shows this is not the
> >> >> > case.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Correct, it's a whacking two windows high at the top.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, I know I'm correct.
> >>
> >>
> >> Two windows wide. That's quite a tidy plane crash, eh?
> >
> > Eh? You said the entry hole was just one widow, to which I replied
> > "but www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce clearly shows this is not the
> > case."
>
>
> Of course, you're a drooling moron, because it says right above your
> reponse, "Eh?", "two windows wide". Go up two lines before that, and it
> says "two windows wide". Google me two years ago, and I said "two windows
> wide". Now, where on earth did you get this "one window wide" claim?

Well which is it? I said you claimed the entry hole was just one window wide
and you said "correct" as in agreement. Do pay attention. Not that it
matters because the entry hole you're referring to is far larger than that,
as the pictures on your website prove.

>
>
> Dumbfuck.
>
>
> >> >> Less than 20 feet, in other words. That's the "fuselage" hole.
> >> >
> >> > Oh? I thought you claimed that was "the actual entry hole." Are you
> >> > now admitting that there are other holes?
> >>
> >>
> >> You really suck at this. You were claiming some fantastic 120-foot
> >> wide hole. I pointed out that it's really a series of holes. Please
> >> quit frothing and concentrate.
> >
> > LOL. You still can't seem to make up your mind between "actual entry
> > hole" (which you use to support your so-called argument) and now
> > "series of holes" (which you use to nitpick despite it contradicting
> > your claim). Which is it?
>
>
> You seem to have an enormous amount of trouble with language.
>
> The center, "fuselage hole" is the "actual entry hole". The rest is
> facade damage.

But you said there were a series of holes. Which is it? One hole or a series
of holes?

>
>
> You're really grasping at straws, aren't you?
>
>
>
> >> The damage to the first floor columns, based on photographic
> >> evidence
> >> and the ASCE report text, shows only 5 columns were removed at that
> >> point. However, figure 3.10, again, seems to show a much larger area
> >> of damage. This confusion aids many 757 theorists by enabling them to
> >> claim, falsely, that the entry hole into the Pentagon was one hundred
> >> to one hundred and twenty feet wide. This figure, as revealed in the
> >> ASCE text (section 6.1), actually refers to damage to the Pentagon's
> >> façade, and not the actual entry hole.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> And quit kooking over "actual entry hole", simpleton. It doesn't
> >> serve you well.
> >
> > *YOU* depend on this "actual entry hole" as the cornerstone of your
> > argument - you describe it as "crucial, as the small size of the
> > initial entry point, along with the stunning lack of debris, is the
> > main reason so many doubt the claim that a 757 struck the Pentagon to
> > begin with."
>
>
> Ok...
>
>
> > And you've now contradicted your own claim a number of times here. Is
> > there only this "actual entry hole" that is "somewhere between sixteen
> > and twenty feet.
>
>
> No, dummy. There is also a lot of facade damage.

What kind of facade damage?

>
>
> No tail damage, though. No right side engine damage/entry hole.
>
> Is there?

Is that what the ASCE report says?

>
>
> > Of course, part of the top of the column is still
> > evident in photographs, which calls into question the possibility that
> > a massive 757 inflicted the damage," or is it that you "pointed out
> > that it's really a series of holes" that extends much farther than you
> > want to admit (for obvious reasons) but do so anyway via the pictures
> > on your website?
>
>
>
> Sorry, I don't speak kookbabble. Try and reparse that so it makes more
> sense.

Well the quotes came directly from you either from your website or from your
posts.

>
>
>
>
> >> >> >> I think the last one is the most probable. Ther was a C-130
> >> >> >> plane on that day on the air.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I don't want to discuss Pentagone strike, because that is not
> >> >> >> me who found that, I analysed the question and decided that
> >> >> >> there was no large plane on the Pentagone. There are enough web
> >> >> >> sites that explain it. And my
> >> >> > arguments
> >> >> >> to justify the absence of large plane on the Pentagone are on
> >> >> >> my web site.
> >> >> > I
> >> >> >> can explain my arguments if you have any question on.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> http://users.swing.be/muhammadcolumbo/
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I really liked your assertion that vegetation hides crash noise.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Almost as good as the claim "the 757 ripped the antenna off of a
> >> >> Jeep Cherokee, and I was 6 feet away from the engine".
> >> >
> >> > I'm surprised you aren't jumping all over that claim as evidence
> >> > supporting your claim. After all, that witness refers to "the
> >> > engine" and not "the left engine" or "right engine." How'd you miss
> >> > that?
> >>
> >> If you'd done your homework, you'd know he is in fact referring to a
> >> mythical right side engine.
> >
> > Oh, okay. The engine that took a bite out of the generator thing.
>
>
> And then disappeared?
>
> And also flew over the Pentagon?
>
> And didn't enter the Pentagon through the facade?
>
>
> Andy Carol says, "Hi!".
>
>
> >> Thanks for playing, Paul. We are amused.
> >
> > Who else is in there with you?
>
> Your fat mother?
>
>
> BTW, your group line tricks are amateur, at best. What do you have to
> hide?

Paul Nixon
Black People Don't Care About George Bush
2005-09-16 01:20:11 UTC
Permalink
"khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:gWoWe.23798$***@fed1read02:

> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> "khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
>> news:7MgWe.23773$***@fed1read02:
>>
>> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> "khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
>> >> news:Xi5We.79477$***@fed1read06:
>> >>
>> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> >> "khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
>> >> >> news:eD0We.79446$***@fed1read06:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > "MuhammadColumbo" <***@swing.be> wrote in
>> >> >> > message news:43287486$1$2545$***@news.skynet.be...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "tw" <***@no.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
>> >> >> >> dg8pdc$mpg$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se...
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > "MuhammadColumbo" <***@swing.be> wrote in
>> >> >> >> > message news:4326ec91$0$29283$***@news.skynet.be...
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> >> >> >> >> <***@yahoo.com>
>> >> >> > a
>> >> >> >> >> écrit dans le message de news:
>> >> >> > ***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> >> >> >> > "James Of Tucson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >> >> >> >> > news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.c
>> >> >> >> >> > om:
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Lack of a plane, doesn't make your case for a cruise
>> >> >> >> >> >> missile.
>> >> >> > You're
>> >> >> >> >> >> not done until you come up with evidence. Like pieces
>> >> >> >> >> >> of a cruise missle. Or a missing cruise missle. Or
>> >> >> >> >> >> maybe we'd settle for open testimony from the
>> >> >> >> >> >> commander who gave an order to fire a cruise missile
>> >> >> >> >> >> at the Pentagon.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > The unofficially released stills seem to support a
>> >> >> >> >> > missile fired from close range by an F-16 type plane.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Not so close range. Because the cruise missile need some
>> >> >> >> >> distance tostabilise its guidance regulator before being
>> >> >> >> >> precisely guided.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > "Guidance regulator"?! LOL!
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Why LOL? Do you think the cruise missiles have no guidance
>> >> >> >> regulator? If
>> >> >> > so,
>> >> >> >> how it finds its target?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> As they used cruise missile type guidance for the plane ,
>> >> >> >> >> they probably
>> >> >> >> > used the same
>> >> >> >> >> kind of missile to manage all the weapons by the same
>> >> >> >> >> work desk. That's
>> >> >> >> > why
>> >> >> >> >> the UA93 waited the strike on Pentagone (minus 3 minutes)
>> >> >> >> >> before
>> >> >> > deviate
>> >> >> >> >> from its flight route.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > So how come so many people saw a large passenger plane,
>> >> >> >> > (and large passenger
>> >> >> >> > plane-sized damage was caused to the Pentagon), yet no one
>> >> >> >> > reports
>> >> >> > seeing
>> >> >> >> > fighter jets firing missiles?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The damages caused to the Pentagone are very very very small
>> >> >> >> with regard
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> >> a passenger sized plane. The entry hole is just ONE WINDOW,
>> >> >> >> the upper
>> >> >> > floor
>> >> >> >> windows are not damaged, glass not broken, even if they are
>> >> >> >> reinforced, their frame will be broken. And as the depth of
>> >> >> >> the damages reached 6
>> >> >> > walls
>> >> >> >> (three rings of the Pentagone) , it is impossible that to be
>> >> >> >> a large
>> >> >> > plane.
>> >> >> >> So we have several possibilities :
>> >> >> >> 1- The witnesses are all liars.
>> >> >> >> 2- People who reported that are liars.
>> >> >> >> 3- There was a large plane, but it did't hit the Pentagone.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You need to take a look at www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce as
>> >> >> > it clearly shows the damage was quite extensive with an entry
>> >> >> > hole not quite the width of a 757 wingtip to wingtip.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Please don't use my website to lie. The "entry hole" you're
>> >> >> referring to is actually "facade damage".
>> >> >
>> >> > Not according to the pictures on your website.
>> >>
>> >> People can see for themselves, can't they?
>> >>
>> >> ; )
>> >
>> > Yes, indeed they can.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Are you saying there is no facade damage?
>> >
>> > Eh?
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Are you saying there are not columns in the single hole you claim
>> >> exists?
>> >
>> > Eh?
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Tell me more about this, please.
>> >
>> > More about what?
>>
>>
>> You're officially dull.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Entry holes" tend to not have standing columns in them. That
>> >> >> would make them a series of holes, at best.
>> >> >
>> >> > Then you should probably remove some of the pictures on your
>> >> > website. As it is now, there are pictures there that show
>> >> > clearly the damage was very extensive.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> And another shill begs me to remove my site...
>> >
>> > I said "you should probably remove some of the pictures on your
>> > website. As it is now, there are pictures there that show
>> > clearly the damage was very extensive."
>>
>>
>> Which is a pretty stupid thing to say.
>
> Stupid or not, it proves you can't read.


Clearly, I can read, dipshit.

Telling me to remove anything from my site is absurd.

But go ahead and quibble.



>> >> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "The damage was very extensive" is hollow, empty and meaningless.
>> >
>> > Not so - you provide pictures on your website proving that the
>> > statement is not hollow, empty, or meaningless.
>>
>>
>> It's a null statement. Has anyone ever contested that there was
>> extensive damage at the Pentagon?
>>
>>
>> I certainly haven't.
>
> LOL. Don't you read your own website?


Can you cite this claim for us?



>> >> If the photos support a 757, then what's your concern?
>> >
>> > Now you're trying to dodge the issue, eh?
>>
>>
>> What issue? The burning issue of extensive damage at the Pentagon on
>> 9/11?
>
> LOL. Your claim that the ASCE report supports you.


http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce

It doesn't support a 757...


>> >> >> > It's a bit of a goofy site full of
>> >> >> > contradictions to the author's claims,
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Surely you can cite a few for us all?
>> >> >
>> >> > For one, you title the page "Problems With the ASCE Report On
>> >> > The Pentagon Cast Further Doubt on 757 Story" but you rely on
>> >> > the *accuracy and completeness* of that report, contradicting
>> >> > your claim that it is problems with the report that support your
>> >> > claim.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I rely on the *accuracy and completeness* of the report?
>> >
>> > Absolutely.
>>
>>
>> Even though the report is inaccurate and incomplete, as my essay
>> shows?
>
> Your so-called "essay" hasn't shown that at all.


Then what are you worried about?


>> >> Problems with the report support my claim that no 757 hit the
>> >> Pentagon.
>> >
>> > So far any so-called "problems" have been manufactured by you.
>> > Otherwise clearly the ASCE report does not support your premise.
>>
>>
>> Whatever you say, champ.
>>
>> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Squirm.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > For another, you claim there is something called "the actual
>> >> > entry hole", but your site clearly contradicts this claim as
>> >> > evidenced by the photos you posted.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The photos contradict what, exactly?
>> >
>> > This "the actual entry hole" of yours.
>>
>>
>> Yes, that is your claim.
>>
>> Yawn.
>
> It's not my claim: it's at http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce


This would be more fun if you were coherent.


>> >> > And for another, you claim the ASCE report " is the only place I
>> >> > have seen this bumpy, irregular smoke trail referred to as a
>> >> > 757" which is contradicted by the pictures on your website which
>> >> > clearly shows the blob is not referred to as a 757. I do note,
>> >> > however, that you refer to the blob as "a bumpy, irregular smoke
>> >> > trail" with no substantiation whatsoever.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The cloud is referred to as "incoming plane". That plane being a
>> >> 757.
>> >
>> > It's referred to as approaching aircraft, and since you just
>> > admitted the reference actually comes from you, thank you for
>> > admitting that you lied when you said the ASCE was where the
>> > reference came from.
>>
>>
>>
>> You're just not very bright, I'm afraid.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Is this too hard for you?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The most serious error in the ASCE report can be found in section
>> >> 3,
>> >> "Review of Crash Information". Figure 3.3, a still frame from the
>> >> unofficial, yet released Pentagon security camera footage,
>> >> incorrectly labels the white smoke trail in the still "Approaching
>> >> Aircraft". If the many building performance experts on the panel
>> >> who assembled the report cannot tell the difference between a
>> >> white, bumpy smoke trail and a 757, their credibility is
>> >> questionable, at best.
>> >
>> > Let's have that again: "The most serious error in the ASCE report
>> > can be found in section 3, "Review of Crash Information". Figure
>> > 3.3, a still frame from the unofficial, yet released Pentagon
>> > security camera footage, incorrectly labels the white smoke trail
>> > in the still "Approaching Aircraft".
>> >
>> > This "most serious error" depends *entirely* on your biased opinion
>> > which, btw, doesn't actually affect anything.
>>
>>
>>
>> So you're saying that bumpy, irregular smoke trail is a 757?
>
> Must be difficult for you to go through life so challenged, eh? I said
> this "most serious error" depends *entirely* on your biased opinion
> which, btw, doesn't actually affect anything.


Why are you unable to answer this simple question?



>> >> > And for yet another, you claim that Fig 3.10 shows 4 missing
>> >> > windows from the second floor when your own website demonstrates
>> >> > that Fig 3.10 shows only 2. In fact you even point out that Fig.
>> >> > 3.10 does, in fact, show those two windows. Hello?
>> >> >
>> >> > I could go on but that is sufficient.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You may have found a misstatement, and I shall rectify it, if so.
>> >
>> > I found many lies, contradictions, and misstatements, and since
>> > I've only provided a few of them for you how do you propose to
>> > rectify it especially considering that doing so will leave your
>> > site saying something you don't want it to?
>>
>>
>> I can't let fucktards dictate the content of my site, sorry. Come up
>> with something valid.
>
> You're the one who invited me to point out contradictions, and you're
> the one who volunteers to rectify your website. As for your problem
> with "fucktards", I can't help you there. Perhaps if you were less you
> you wouldn't attract them, eh?


Whatever you say, fucktard.




>> >> I appreciate the proofreading.
>> >
>> > You asked for some contradictions on your site and I provided them.
>>
>>
>> No, you just made another loopy claim.
>
> LOL.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> The ASCE report also aids supporters of the 757 theory by
>> >> misrepresenting the width of the initial impact damage. While the
>> >> photograph in figure 3.8 indicates that only two windows, and a
>> >> single column are missing from the second floor, the drawing
>> >> placed beside it (figure 3.10) shows a total of four missing
>> >> windows. This illustration does not correspond to any known
>> >> photograph. Its inclusion is yet another reason to doubt the
>> >> veracity of the report.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Nope, I think you have a comprehension problem.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The ambiguous presence of the two windows on the second floor are
>> >> revealed only under magnification. No columns are shown on the
>> >> bottom floor.
>> >
>> > Then you need your eyes checked. Looking at the ASCE report
>> > (http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf) Fig. 3.10
>> > the windows are plain as can be.
>>
>>
>> Print the PDF and tell me how apparent they are without
>> magnification.
>
> Ah, so you lied again - now it's your printout that needs to be
> magnified in order for you to see the windows. Perhaps you should
> upgrade from dot-matrix. I have no difficulty in seeing the windows,
> and of course no attempt was ever made to hide them. For you to try to
> make a point you had to lie. Tch, tch, tch.


Or so you claim.



>> Try to be honest.
>>
>>
>> >> >> > but there's enough there to
>> >> >> > address your claims above. As just one example, you claim
>> >> >> > that the entry hole is just one window, but
>> >> >> > www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce clearly shows this is not the
>> >> >> > case.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Correct, it's a whacking two windows high at the top.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, I know I'm correct.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Two windows wide. That's quite a tidy plane crash, eh?
>> >
>> > Eh? You said the entry hole was just one widow, to which I replied
>> > "but www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce clearly shows this is not the
>> > case."
>>
>>
>> Of course, you're a drooling moron, because it says right above your
>> reponse, "Eh?", "two windows wide". Go up two lines before that, and
>> it says "two windows wide". Google me two years ago, and I said "two
>> windows wide". Now, where on earth did you get this "one window wide"
>> claim?
>
> Well which is it? I said you claimed the entry hole was just one
> window wide and you said "correct" as in agreement.



Numbnuts. You are correct in that bedoper.com/pentagon/asce shows a hole
two windows wide.


Now, please present any claim where I said the hole was one window wide.

>> >> >> Correct, it's a whacking two windows high at the top.


Or just read slower, I guess.



> Do pay attention.
> Not that it matters because the entry hole you're referring to is far
> larger than that, as the pictures on your website prove.


Larger than two windows wide?




>> Dumbfuck.
>>
>>
>> >> >> Less than 20 feet, in other words. That's the "fuselage" hole.
>> >> >
>> >> > Oh? I thought you claimed that was "the actual entry hole." Are
>> >> > you now admitting that there are other holes?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You really suck at this. You were claiming some fantastic 120-foot
>> >> wide hole. I pointed out that it's really a series of holes.
>> >> Please quit frothing and concentrate.
>> >
>> > LOL. You still can't seem to make up your mind between "actual
>> > entry hole" (which you use to support your so-called argument) and
>> > now "series of holes" (which you use to nitpick despite it
>> > contradicting your claim). Which is it?
>>
>>
>> You seem to have an enormous amount of trouble with language.
>>
>> The center, "fuselage hole" is the "actual entry hole". The rest is
>> facade damage.
>
> But you said there were a series of holes. Which is it? One hole or a
> series of holes?


Yawn.



>
>>
>>
>> You're really grasping at straws, aren't you?
>>
>>
>>
>> >> The damage to the first floor columns, based on photographic
>> >> evidence
>> >> and the ASCE report text, shows only 5 columns were removed at
>> >> that point. However, figure 3.10, again, seems to show a much
>> >> larger area of damage. This confusion aids many 757 theorists by
>> >> enabling them to claim, falsely, that the entry hole into the
>> >> Pentagon was one hundred to one hundred and twenty feet wide. This
>> >> figure, as revealed in the ASCE text (section 6.1), actually
>> >> refers to damage to the Pentagon's façade, and not the actual
>> >> entry hole.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> And quit kooking over "actual entry hole", simpleton. It doesn't
>> >> serve you well.
>> >
>> > *YOU* depend on this "actual entry hole" as the cornerstone of your
>> > argument - you describe it as "crucial, as the small size of the
>> > initial entry point, along with the stunning lack of debris, is the
>> > main reason so many doubt the claim that a 757 struck the Pentagon
>> > to begin with."
>>
>>
>> Ok...
>>
>>
>> > And you've now contradicted your own claim a number of times here.
>> > Is there only this "actual entry hole" that is "somewhere between
>> > sixteen and twenty feet.
>>
>>
>> No, dummy. There is also a lot of facade damage.
>
> What kind of facade damage?


Pentagon facade damage?


>> No tail damage, though. No right side engine damage/entry hole.
>>
>> Is there?
>
> Is that what the ASCE report says?


Who cares?

I asked you, fucky.




>> > Of course, part of the top of the column is still
>> > evident in photographs, which calls into question the possibility
>> > that a massive 757 inflicted the damage," or is it that you
>> > "pointed out that it's really a series of holes" that extends much
>> > farther than you want to admit (for obvious reasons) but do so
>> > anyway via the pictures on your website?
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry, I don't speak kookbabble. Try and reparse that so it makes
>> more sense.
>
> Well the quotes came directly from you either from your website or
> from your posts.


And then were passed through the blender that is Paul's head.



>> >> >> >> I think the last one is the most probable. Ther was a C-130
>> >> >> >> plane on that day on the air.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I don't want to discuss Pentagone strike, because that is
>> >> >> >> not me who found that, I analysed the question and decided
>> >> >> >> that there was no large plane on the Pentagone. There are
>> >> >> >> enough web sites that explain it. And my
>> >> >> > arguments
>> >> >> >> to justify the absence of large plane on the Pentagone are
>> >> >> >> on my web site.
>> >> >> > I
>> >> >> >> can explain my arguments if you have any question on.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> http://users.swing.be/muhammadcolumbo/
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I really liked your assertion that vegetation hides crash
>> >> >> > noise.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Almost as good as the claim "the 757 ripped the antenna off of
>> >> >> a Jeep Cherokee, and I was 6 feet away from the engine".
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm surprised you aren't jumping all over that claim as evidence
>> >> > supporting your claim. After all, that witness refers to "the
>> >> > engine" and not "the left engine" or "right engine." How'd you
>> >> > miss that?
>> >>
>> >> If you'd done your homework, you'd know he is in fact referring to
>> >> a mythical right side engine.
>> >
>> > Oh, okay. The engine that took a bite out of the generator thing.
>>
>>
>> And then disappeared?
>>
>> And also flew over the Pentagon?
>>
>> And didn't enter the Pentagon through the facade?
>>
>>
>> Andy Carol says, "Hi!".
>>
>>
>> >> Thanks for playing, Paul. We are amused.
>> >
>> > Who else is in there with you?
>>
>> Your fat mother?
>>
>>
>> BTW, your group line tricks are amateur, at best. What do you have to
>> hide?
>
> Paul Nixon

There seem to be a lot of questions you don't have the balls to answer,
Paul.
khobar
2005-09-16 01:52:34 UTC
Permalink
"Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com>
wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
> "khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
> news:gWoWe.23798$***@fed1read02:
>
> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> "khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
> >> news:7MgWe.23773$***@fed1read02:
> >>
> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >> "khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
> >> >> news:Xi5We.79477$***@fed1read06:
> >> >>
> >> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> >> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >> >> "khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> news:eD0We.79446$***@fed1read06:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > "MuhammadColumbo" <***@swing.be> wrote in
> >> >> >> > message news:43287486$1$2545$***@news.skynet.be...
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> "tw" <***@no.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> >> >> >> >> dg8pdc$mpg$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se...
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > "MuhammadColumbo" <***@swing.be> wrote in
> >> >> >> >> > message news:4326ec91$0$29283$***@news.skynet.be...
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> >> >> >> >> >> <***@yahoo.com>
> >> >> >> > a
> >> >> >> >> >> écrit dans le message de news:
> >> >> >> > ***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >> >> >> >> > "James Of Tucson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> >> >> > news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.c
> >> >> >> >> >> > om:
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Lack of a plane, doesn't make your case for a cruise
> >> >> >> >> >> >> missile.
> >> >> >> > You're
> >> >> >> >> >> >> not done until you come up with evidence. Like pieces
> >> >> >> >> >> >> of a cruise missle. Or a missing cruise missle. Or
> >> >> >> >> >> >> maybe we'd settle for open testimony from the
> >> >> >> >> >> >> commander who gave an order to fire a cruise missile
> >> >> >> >> >> >> at the Pentagon.
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > The unofficially released stills seem to support a
> >> >> >> >> >> > missile fired from close range by an F-16 type plane.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Not so close range. Because the cruise missile need some
> >> >> >> >> >> distance tostabilise its guidance regulator before being
> >> >> >> >> >> precisely guided.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > "Guidance regulator"?! LOL!
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Why LOL? Do you think the cruise missiles have no guidance
> >> >> >> >> regulator? If
> >> >> >> > so,
> >> >> >> >> how it finds its target?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> As they used cruise missile type guidance for the plane ,
> >> >> >> >> >> they probably
> >> >> >> >> > used the same
> >> >> >> >> >> kind of missile to manage all the weapons by the same
> >> >> >> >> >> work desk. That's
> >> >> >> >> > why
> >> >> >> >> >> the UA93 waited the strike on Pentagone (minus 3 minutes)
> >> >> >> >> >> before
> >> >> >> > deviate
> >> >> >> >> >> from its flight route.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > So how come so many people saw a large passenger plane,
> >> >> >> >> > (and large passenger
> >> >> >> >> > plane-sized damage was caused to the Pentagon), yet no one
> >> >> >> >> > reports
> >> >> >> > seeing
> >> >> >> >> > fighter jets firing missiles?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> The damages caused to the Pentagone are very very very small
> >> >> >> >> with regard
> >> >> >> > to
> >> >> >> >> a passenger sized plane. The entry hole is just ONE WINDOW,
> >> >> >> >> the upper
> >> >> >> > floor
> >> >> >> >> windows are not damaged, glass not broken, even if they are
> >> >> >> >> reinforced, their frame will be broken. And as the depth of
> >> >> >> >> the damages reached 6
> >> >> >> > walls
> >> >> >> >> (three rings of the Pentagone) , it is impossible that to be
> >> >> >> >> a large
> >> >> >> > plane.
> >> >> >> >> So we have several possibilities :
> >> >> >> >> 1- The witnesses are all liars.
> >> >> >> >> 2- People who reported that are liars.
> >> >> >> >> 3- There was a large plane, but it did't hit the Pentagone.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > You need to take a look at www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce as
> >> >> >> > it clearly shows the damage was quite extensive with an entry
> >> >> >> > hole not quite the width of a 757 wingtip to wingtip.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Please don't use my website to lie. The "entry hole" you're
> >> >> >> referring to is actually "facade damage".
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Not according to the pictures on your website.
> >> >>
> >> >> People can see for themselves, can't they?
> >> >>
> >> >> ; )
> >> >
> >> > Yes, indeed they can.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Are you saying there is no facade damage?
> >> >
> >> > Eh?
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Are you saying there are not columns in the single hole you claim
> >> >> exists?
> >> >
> >> > Eh?
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Tell me more about this, please.
> >> >
> >> > More about what?
> >>
> >>
> >> You're officially dull.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Entry holes" tend to not have standing columns in them. That
> >> >> >> would make them a series of holes, at best.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Then you should probably remove some of the pictures on your
> >> >> > website. As it is now, there are pictures there that show
> >> >> > clearly the damage was very extensive.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> And another shill begs me to remove my site...
> >> >
> >> > I said "you should probably remove some of the pictures on your
> >> > website. As it is now, there are pictures there that show
> >> > clearly the damage was very extensive."
> >>
> >>
> >> Which is a pretty stupid thing to say.
> >
> > Stupid or not, it proves you can't read.
>
>
> Clearly, I can read, dipshit.

Obviously not.

>
> Telling me to remove anything from my site is absurd.

See, you're proving my point that you don't know how to read. Once again, I
said "you should probably remove some of the pictures on your website. As it
is now, there are pictures there that show clearly the damage was very
extensive."

To which you replied, "And another shill begs me to remove my site..."

And you followed up with, "Telling me to remove anything from my site is
absurd."

Clearly, I neither begged you to do anything nor told you to do anything.
Obvious conclusion: you can't read.

>
> But go ahead and quibble.
>
>
>
> >> >> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> "The damage was very extensive" is hollow, empty and meaningless.
> >> >
> >> > Not so - you provide pictures on your website proving that the
> >> > statement is not hollow, empty, or meaningless.
> >>
> >>
> >> It's a null statement. Has anyone ever contested that there was
> >> extensive damage at the Pentagon?
> >>
> >>
> >> I certainly haven't.
> >
> > LOL. Don't you read your own website?
>
>
> Can you cite this claim for us?

Sure: http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce

>
>
>
> >> >> If the photos support a 757, then what's your concern?
> >> >
> >> > Now you're trying to dodge the issue, eh?
> >>
> >>
> >> What issue? The burning issue of extensive damage at the Pentagon on
> >> 9/11?
> >
> > LOL. Your claim that the ASCE report supports you.
>
>
> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>
> It doesn't support a 757...

Only in your opinion.

>
>
> >> >> >> > It's a bit of a goofy site full of
> >> >> >> > contradictions to the author's claims,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Surely you can cite a few for us all?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > For one, you title the page "Problems With the ASCE Report On
> >> >> > The Pentagon Cast Further Doubt on 757 Story" but you rely on
> >> >> > the *accuracy and completeness* of that report, contradicting
> >> >> > your claim that it is problems with the report that support your
> >> >> > claim.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I rely on the *accuracy and completeness* of the report?
> >> >
> >> > Absolutely.
> >>
> >>
> >> Even though the report is inaccurate and incomplete, as my essay
> >> shows?
> >
> > Your so-called "essay" hasn't shown that at all.
>
>
> Then what are you worried about?

LOL.

>
>
> >> >> Problems with the report support my claim that no 757 hit the
> >> >> Pentagon.
> >> >
> >> > So far any so-called "problems" have been manufactured by you.
> >> > Otherwise clearly the ASCE report does not support your premise.
> >>
> >>
> >> Whatever you say, champ.
> >>
> >> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >> Squirm.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > For another, you claim there is something called "the actual
> >> >> > entry hole", but your site clearly contradicts this claim as
> >> >> > evidenced by the photos you posted.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> The photos contradict what, exactly?
> >> >
> >> > This "the actual entry hole" of yours.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes, that is your claim.
> >>
> >> Yawn.
> >
> > It's not my claim: it's at http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>
>
> This would be more fun if you were coherent.

If you need help with http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce, let me know and
I'll see if I can clear things up for you.

>
>
> >> >> > And for another, you claim the ASCE report " is the only place I
> >> >> > have seen this bumpy, irregular smoke trail referred to as a
> >> >> > 757" which is contradicted by the pictures on your website which
> >> >> > clearly shows the blob is not referred to as a 757. I do note,
> >> >> > however, that you refer to the blob as "a bumpy, irregular smoke
> >> >> > trail" with no substantiation whatsoever.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> The cloud is referred to as "incoming plane". That plane being a
> >> >> 757.
> >> >
> >> > It's referred to as approaching aircraft, and since you just
> >> > admitted the reference actually comes from you, thank you for
> >> > admitting that you lied when you said the ASCE was where the
> >> > reference came from.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> You're just not very bright, I'm afraid.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >> Is this too hard for you?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> The most serious error in the ASCE report can be found in section
> >> >> 3,
> >> >> "Review of Crash Information". Figure 3.3, a still frame from the
> >> >> unofficial, yet released Pentagon security camera footage,
> >> >> incorrectly labels the white smoke trail in the still "Approaching
> >> >> Aircraft". If the many building performance experts on the panel
> >> >> who assembled the report cannot tell the difference between a
> >> >> white, bumpy smoke trail and a 757, their credibility is
> >> >> questionable, at best.
> >> >
> >> > Let's have that again: "The most serious error in the ASCE report
> >> > can be found in section 3, "Review of Crash Information". Figure
> >> > 3.3, a still frame from the unofficial, yet released Pentagon
> >> > security camera footage, incorrectly labels the white smoke trail
> >> > in the still "Approaching Aircraft".
> >> >
> >> > This "most serious error" depends *entirely* on your biased opinion
> >> > which, btw, doesn't actually affect anything.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> So you're saying that bumpy, irregular smoke trail is a 757?
> >
> > Must be difficult for you to go through life so challenged, eh? I said
> > this "most serious error" depends *entirely* on your biased opinion
> > which, btw, doesn't actually affect anything.
>
>
> Why are you unable to answer this simple question?

Unable to? It's your so-called "essay".

>
>
>
> >> >> > And for yet another, you claim that Fig 3.10 shows 4 missing
> >> >> > windows from the second floor when your own website demonstrates
> >> >> > that Fig 3.10 shows only 2. In fact you even point out that Fig.
> >> >> > 3.10 does, in fact, show those two windows. Hello?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I could go on but that is sufficient.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> You may have found a misstatement, and I shall rectify it, if so.
> >> >
> >> > I found many lies, contradictions, and misstatements, and since
> >> > I've only provided a few of them for you how do you propose to
> >> > rectify it especially considering that doing so will leave your
> >> > site saying something you don't want it to?
> >>
> >>
> >> I can't let fucktards dictate the content of my site, sorry. Come up
> >> with something valid.
> >
> > You're the one who invited me to point out contradictions, and you're
> > the one who volunteers to rectify your website. As for your problem
> > with "fucktards", I can't help you there. Perhaps if you were less you
> > you wouldn't attract them, eh?
>
>
> Whatever you say, fucktard.

Well, I am right.

>
>
>
>
> >> >> I appreciate the proofreading.
> >> >
> >> > You asked for some contradictions on your site and I provided them.
> >>
> >>
> >> No, you just made another loopy claim.
> >
> > LOL.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >> The ASCE report also aids supporters of the 757 theory by
> >> >> misrepresenting the width of the initial impact damage. While the
> >> >> photograph in figure 3.8 indicates that only two windows, and a
> >> >> single column are missing from the second floor, the drawing
> >> >> placed beside it (figure 3.10) shows a total of four missing
> >> >> windows. This illustration does not correspond to any known
> >> >> photograph. Its inclusion is yet another reason to doubt the
> >> >> veracity of the report.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Nope, I think you have a comprehension problem.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> The ambiguous presence of the two windows on the second floor are
> >> >> revealed only under magnification. No columns are shown on the
> >> >> bottom floor.
> >> >
> >> > Then you need your eyes checked. Looking at the ASCE report
> >> > (http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf) Fig. 3.10
> >> > the windows are plain as can be.
> >>
> >>
> >> Print the PDF and tell me how apparent they are without
> >> magnification.
> >
> > Ah, so you lied again - now it's your printout that needs to be
> > magnified in order for you to see the windows. Perhaps you should
> > upgrade from dot-matrix. I have no difficulty in seeing the windows,
> > and of course no attempt was ever made to hide them. For you to try to
> > make a point you had to lie. Tch, tch, tch.
>
>
> Or so you claim.

No, the fact that you lied is obvious.

>
>
>
> >> Try to be honest.
> >>
> >>
> >> >> >> > but there's enough there to
> >> >> >> > address your claims above. As just one example, you claim
> >> >> >> > that the entry hole is just one window, but
> >> >> >> > www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce clearly shows this is not the
> >> >> >> > case.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Correct, it's a whacking two windows high at the top.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Yes, I know I'm correct.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Two windows wide. That's quite a tidy plane crash, eh?
> >> >
> >> > Eh? You said the entry hole was just one widow, to which I replied
> >> > "but www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce clearly shows this is not the
> >> > case."
> >>
> >>
> >> Of course, you're a drooling moron, because it says right above your
> >> reponse, "Eh?", "two windows wide". Go up two lines before that, and
> >> it says "two windows wide". Google me two years ago, and I said "two
> >> windows wide". Now, where on earth did you get this "one window wide"
> >> claim?
> >
> > Well which is it? I said you claimed the entry hole was just one
> > window wide and you said "correct" as in agreement.
>
>
>
> Numbnuts. You are correct in that bedoper.com/pentagon/asce shows a hole
> two windows wide.

Ah, the benefits of hindsight (and yours is a little different than most).

>
> Now, please present any claim where I said the hole was one window wide.

You agreed when I said you claimed the hole was one window wide. Now that
I've put you on to that, you're trying to save face. How typical.

>
> >> >> >> Correct, it's a whacking two windows high at the top.
>
>
> Or just read slower, I guess.
>
>
>
> > Do pay attention.
> > Not that it matters because the entry hole you're referring to is far
> > larger than that, as the pictures on your website prove.
>
>
> Larger than two windows wide?

Yup.

>
>
>
>
> >> Dumbfuck.
> >>
> >>
> >> >> >> Less than 20 feet, in other words. That's the "fuselage" hole.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Oh? I thought you claimed that was "the actual entry hole." Are
> >> >> > you now admitting that there are other holes?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> You really suck at this. You were claiming some fantastic 120-foot
> >> >> wide hole. I pointed out that it's really a series of holes.
> >> >> Please quit frothing and concentrate.
> >> >
> >> > LOL. You still can't seem to make up your mind between "actual
> >> > entry hole" (which you use to support your so-called argument) and
> >> > now "series of holes" (which you use to nitpick despite it
> >> > contradicting your claim). Which is it?
> >>
> >>
> >> You seem to have an enormous amount of trouble with language.
> >>
> >> The center, "fuselage hole" is the "actual entry hole". The rest is
> >> facade damage.
> >
> > But you said there were a series of holes. Which is it? One hole or a
> > series of holes?
>
>
> Yawn.

Well, which is it? Why are you afraid of answering this question?

>
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> You're really grasping at straws, aren't you?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >> The damage to the first floor columns, based on photographic
> >> >> evidence
> >> >> and the ASCE report text, shows only 5 columns were removed at
> >> >> that point. However, figure 3.10, again, seems to show a much
> >> >> larger area of damage. This confusion aids many 757 theorists by
> >> >> enabling them to claim, falsely, that the entry hole into the
> >> >> Pentagon was one hundred to one hundred and twenty feet wide. This
> >> >> figure, as revealed in the ASCE text (section 6.1), actually
> >> >> refers to damage to the Pentagon's façade, and not the actual
> >> >> entry hole.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> And quit kooking over "actual entry hole", simpleton. It doesn't
> >> >> serve you well.
> >> >
> >> > *YOU* depend on this "actual entry hole" as the cornerstone of your
> >> > argument - you describe it as "crucial, as the small size of the
> >> > initial entry point, along with the stunning lack of debris, is the
> >> > main reason so many doubt the claim that a 757 struck the Pentagon
> >> > to begin with."
> >>
> >>
> >> Ok...
> >>
> >>
> >> > And you've now contradicted your own claim a number of times here.
> >> > Is there only this "actual entry hole" that is "somewhere between
> >> > sixteen and twenty feet.
> >>
> >>
> >> No, dummy. There is also a lot of facade damage.
> >
> > What kind of facade damage?
>
>
> Pentagon facade damage?

Dodge noted.

The question still stands.

>
>
> >> No tail damage, though. No right side engine damage/entry hole.
> >>
> >> Is there?
> >
> > Is that what the ASCE report says?
>
>
> Who cares?

Well you're the one who wrote the so-called "essay".

>
> I asked you, fucky.
>
>
>
>
> >> > Of course, part of the top of the column is still
> >> > evident in photographs, which calls into question the possibility
> >> > that a massive 757 inflicted the damage," or is it that you
> >> > "pointed out that it's really a series of holes" that extends much
> >> > farther than you want to admit (for obvious reasons) but do so
> >> > anyway via the pictures on your website?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Sorry, I don't speak kookbabble. Try and reparse that so it makes
> >> more sense.
> >
> > Well the quotes came directly from you either from your website or
> > from your posts.
>
>
> And then were passed through the blender that is Paul's head.

Dodge noted.

>
>
>
> >> >> >> >> I think the last one is the most probable. Ther was a C-130
> >> >> >> >> plane on that day on the air.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I don't want to discuss Pentagone strike, because that is
> >> >> >> >> not me who found that, I analysed the question and decided
> >> >> >> >> that there was no large plane on the Pentagone. There are
> >> >> >> >> enough web sites that explain it. And my
> >> >> >> > arguments
> >> >> >> >> to justify the absence of large plane on the Pentagone are
> >> >> >> >> on my web site.
> >> >> >> > I
> >> >> >> >> can explain my arguments if you have any question on.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> http://users.swing.be/muhammadcolumbo/
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I really liked your assertion that vegetation hides crash
> >> >> >> > noise.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Almost as good as the claim "the 757 ripped the antenna off of
> >> >> >> a Jeep Cherokee, and I was 6 feet away from the engine".
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I'm surprised you aren't jumping all over that claim as evidence
> >> >> > supporting your claim. After all, that witness refers to "the
> >> >> > engine" and not "the left engine" or "right engine." How'd you
> >> >> > miss that?
> >> >>
> >> >> If you'd done your homework, you'd know he is in fact referring to
> >> >> a mythical right side engine.
> >> >
> >> > Oh, okay. The engine that took a bite out of the generator thing.
> >>
> >>
> >> And then disappeared?
> >>
> >> And also flew over the Pentagon?
> >>
> >> And didn't enter the Pentagon through the facade?
> >>
> >>
> >> Andy Carol says, "Hi!".
> >>
> >>
> >> >> Thanks for playing, Paul. We are amused.
> >> >
> >> > Who else is in there with you?
> >>
> >> Your fat mother?
> >>
> >>
> >> BTW, your group line tricks are amateur, at best. What do you have to
> >> hide?
> >
> > Paul Nixon
>
> There seem to be a lot of questions you don't have the balls to answer,
> Paul.

You're the one with the so-called "essay". You're the one who asked me to
cite some contradictions, and now you're the one afraid to face those
contradictions and are desperately trying to turn things around so you don't
have to. LOL. Dodge noted.

Paul Nixon
Black People Don't Care About George Bush
2005-09-16 02:10:03 UTC
Permalink
"khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:gApWe.23802$***@fed1read02:

> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> "khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
>> news:gWoWe.23798$***@fed1read02:
>>
>> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> "khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
>> >> news:7MgWe.23773$***@fed1read02:
>> >>
>> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> >> "khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
>> >> >> news:Xi5We.79477$***@fed1read06:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> >> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> >> >> "khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
>> >> >> >> news:eD0We.79446$***@fed1read06:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > "MuhammadColumbo" <***@swing.be> wrote in
>> >> >> >> > message news:43287486$1$2545$***@news.skynet.be...
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> "tw" <***@no.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
>> >> >> >> >> dg8pdc$mpg$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se...
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > "MuhammadColumbo" <***@swing.be> wrote in
>> >> >> >> >> > message
>> >> >> >> >> > news:4326ec91$0$29283$***@news.skynet.be...
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> >> >> >> >> >> <***@yahoo.com>
>> >> >> >> > a
>> >> >> >> >> >> écrit dans le message de news:
>> >> >> >> > ***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> >> >> >> >> > "James Of Tucson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >> >> >> >> >> > news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroup
>> >> >> >> >> >> > s.c om:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Lack of a plane, doesn't make your case for a
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> cruise missile.
>> >> >> >> > You're
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> not done until you come up with evidence. Like
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> pieces of a cruise missle. Or a missing cruise
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> missle. Or maybe we'd settle for open testimony
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> from the commander who gave an order to fire a
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> cruise missile at the Pentagon.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > The unofficially released stills seem to support a
>> >> >> >> >> >> > missile fired from close range by an F-16 type
>> >> >> >> >> >> > plane.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Not so close range. Because the cruise missile need
>> >> >> >> >> >> some distance tostabilise its guidance regulator
>> >> >> >> >> >> before being precisely guided.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > "Guidance regulator"?! LOL!
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Why LOL? Do you think the cruise missiles have no
>> >> >> >> >> guidance regulator? If
>> >> >> >> > so,
>> >> >> >> >> how it finds its target?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> As they used cruise missile type guidance for the
>> >> >> >> >> >> plane , they probably
>> >> >> >> >> > used the same
>> >> >> >> >> >> kind of missile to manage all the weapons by the same
>> >> >> >> >> >> work desk. That's
>> >> >> >> >> > why
>> >> >> >> >> >> the UA93 waited the strike on Pentagone (minus 3
>> >> >> >> >> >> minutes) before
>> >> >> >> > deviate
>> >> >> >> >> >> from its flight route.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > So how come so many people saw a large passenger plane,
>> >> >> >> >> > (and large passenger
>> >> >> >> >> > plane-sized damage was caused to the Pentagon), yet no
>> >> >> >> >> > one reports
>> >> >> >> > seeing
>> >> >> >> >> > fighter jets firing missiles?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> The damages caused to the Pentagone are very very very
>> >> >> >> >> small with regard
>> >> >> >> > to
>> >> >> >> >> a passenger sized plane. The entry hole is just ONE
>> >> >> >> >> WINDOW, the upper
>> >> >> >> > floor
>> >> >> >> >> windows are not damaged, glass not broken, even if they
>> >> >> >> >> are reinforced, their frame will be broken. And as the
>> >> >> >> >> depth of the damages reached 6
>> >> >> >> > walls
>> >> >> >> >> (three rings of the Pentagone) , it is impossible that to
>> >> >> >> >> be a large
>> >> >> >> > plane.
>> >> >> >> >> So we have several possibilities :
>> >> >> >> >> 1- The witnesses are all liars.
>> >> >> >> >> 2- People who reported that are liars.
>> >> >> >> >> 3- There was a large plane, but it did't hit the
>> >> >> >> >> Pentagone.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > You need to take a look at www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>> >> >> >> > as it clearly shows the damage was quite extensive with an
>> >> >> >> > entry hole not quite the width of a 757 wingtip to
>> >> >> >> > wingtip.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Please don't use my website to lie. The "entry hole" you're
>> >> >> >> referring to is actually "facade damage".
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Not according to the pictures on your website.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> People can see for themselves, can't they?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ; )
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, indeed they can.
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Are you saying there is no facade damage?
>> >> >
>> >> > Eh?
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Are you saying there are not columns in the single hole you
>> >> >> claim exists?
>> >> >
>> >> > Eh?
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Tell me more about this, please.
>> >> >
>> >> > More about what?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You're officially dull.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "Entry holes" tend to not have standing columns in them.
>> >> >> >> That would make them a series of holes, at best.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Then you should probably remove some of the pictures on your
>> >> >> > website. As it is now, there are pictures there that show
>> >> >> > clearly the damage was very extensive.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And another shill begs me to remove my site...
>> >> >
>> >> > I said "you should probably remove some of the pictures on your
>> >> > website. As it is now, there are pictures there that show
>> >> > clearly the damage was very extensive."
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Which is a pretty stupid thing to say.
>> >
>> > Stupid or not, it proves you can't read.
>>
>>
>> Clearly, I can read, dipshit.
>
> Obviously not.
>
>>
>> Telling me to remove anything from my site is absurd.
>
> See, you're proving my point that you don't know how to read. Once
> again, I said "you should probably remove some of the pictures on your
> website. As it is now, there are pictures there that show clearly the
> damage was very extensive."
>
> To which you replied, "And another shill begs me to remove my site..."
>
> And you followed up with, "Telling me to remove anything from my site
> is absurd."
>
> Clearly, I neither begged you to do anything nor told you to do
> anything. Obvious conclusion: you can't read.


Yes, Paul. I can't read.





>> But go ahead and quibble.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "The damage was very extensive" is hollow, empty and
>> >> >> meaningless.
>> >> >
>> >> > Not so - you provide pictures on your website proving that the
>> >> > statement is not hollow, empty, or meaningless.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> It's a null statement. Has anyone ever contested that there was
>> >> extensive damage at the Pentagon?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I certainly haven't.
>> >
>> > LOL. Don't you read your own website?
>>
>>
>> Can you cite this claim for us?
>
> Sure: http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce



Care to narrow it down?




>> >> >> If the photos support a 757, then what's your concern?
>> >> >
>> >> > Now you're trying to dodge the issue, eh?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> What issue? The burning issue of extensive damage at the Pentagon
>> >> on 9/11?
>> >
>> > LOL. Your claim that the ASCE report supports you.
>>
>>
>> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>>
>> It doesn't support a 757...
>
> Only in your opinion.


Am I the only one?



>> >> >> >> > It's a bit of a goofy site full of
>> >> >> >> > contradictions to the author's claims,
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Surely you can cite a few for us all?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > For one, you title the page "Problems With the ASCE Report On
>> >> >> > The Pentagon Cast Further Doubt on 757 Story" but you rely on
>> >> >> > the *accuracy and completeness* of that report, contradicting
>> >> >> > your claim that it is problems with the report that support
>> >> >> > your claim.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I rely on the *accuracy and completeness* of the report?
>> >> >
>> >> > Absolutely.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Even though the report is inaccurate and incomplete, as my essay
>> >> shows?
>> >
>> > Your so-called "essay" hasn't shown that at all.
>>
>>
>> Then what are you worried about?
>
> LOL.


Nervous tic?


>> >> >> Problems with the report support my claim that no 757 hit the
>> >> >> Pentagon.
>> >> >
>> >> > So far any so-called "problems" have been manufactured by you.
>> >> > Otherwise clearly the ASCE report does not support your premise.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Whatever you say, champ.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> Squirm.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > For another, you claim there is something called "the actual
>> >> >> > entry hole", but your site clearly contradicts this claim as
>> >> >> > evidenced by the photos you posted.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The photos contradict what, exactly?
>> >> >
>> >> > This "the actual entry hole" of yours.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Yes, that is your claim.
>> >>
>> >> Yawn.
>> >
>> > It's not my claim: it's at http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>>
>>
>> This would be more fun if you were coherent.
>
> If you need help with http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce, let me
> know and I'll see if I can clear things up for you.


Knock yourself out.



>> >> >> > And for another, you claim the ASCE report " is the only
>> >> >> > place I have seen this bumpy, irregular smoke trail referred
>> >> >> > to as a 757" which is contradicted by the pictures on your
>> >> >> > website which clearly shows the blob is not referred to as a
>> >> >> > 757. I do note, however, that you refer to the blob as "a
>> >> >> > bumpy, irregular smoke trail" with no substantiation
>> >> >> > whatsoever.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The cloud is referred to as "incoming plane". That plane being
>> >> >> a 757.
>> >> >
>> >> > It's referred to as approaching aircraft, and since you just
>> >> > admitted the reference actually comes from you, thank you for
>> >> > admitting that you lied when you said the ASCE was where the
>> >> > reference came from.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You're just not very bright, I'm afraid.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> Is this too hard for you?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The most serious error in the ASCE report can be found in
>> >> >> section 3,
>> >> >> "Review of Crash Information". Figure 3.3, a still frame from
>> >> >> the unofficial, yet released Pentagon security camera footage,
>> >> >> incorrectly labels the white smoke trail in the still
>> >> >> "Approaching Aircraft". If the many building performance
>> >> >> experts on the panel who assembled the report cannot tell the
>> >> >> difference between a white, bumpy smoke trail and a 757, their
>> >> >> credibility is questionable, at best.
>> >> >
>> >> > Let's have that again: "The most serious error in the ASCE
>> >> > report can be found in section 3, "Review of Crash Information".
>> >> > Figure 3.3, a still frame from the unofficial, yet released
>> >> > Pentagon security camera footage, incorrectly labels the white
>> >> > smoke trail in the still "Approaching Aircraft".
>> >> >
>> >> > This "most serious error" depends *entirely* on your biased
>> >> > opinion which, btw, doesn't actually affect anything.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> So you're saying that bumpy, irregular smoke trail is a 757?
>> >
>> > Must be difficult for you to go through life so challenged, eh? I
>> > said this "most serious error" depends *entirely* on your biased
>> > opinion which, btw, doesn't actually affect anything.
>>
>>
>> Why are you unable to answer this simple question?
>
> Unable to? It's your so-called "essay".



>> >> So you're saying that bumpy, irregular smoke trail is a 757?


The above is a question. Can you answer it?




>> >> >> > And for yet another, you claim that Fig 3.10 shows 4 missing
>> >> >> > windows from the second floor when your own website
>> >> >> > demonstrates that Fig 3.10 shows only 2. In fact you even
>> >> >> > point out that Fig. 3.10 does, in fact, show those two
>> >> >> > windows. Hello?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I could go on but that is sufficient.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You may have found a misstatement, and I shall rectify it, if
>> >> >> so.
>> >> >
>> >> > I found many lies, contradictions, and misstatements, and since
>> >> > I've only provided a few of them for you how do you propose to
>> >> > rectify it especially considering that doing so will leave your
>> >> > site saying something you don't want it to?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I can't let fucktards dictate the content of my site, sorry. Come
>> >> up with something valid.
>> >
>> > You're the one who invited me to point out contradictions, and
>> > you're the one who volunteers to rectify your website. As for your
>> > problem with "fucktards", I can't help you there. Perhaps if you
>> > were less you you wouldn't attract them, eh?
>>
>>
>> Whatever you say, fucktard.
>
> Well, I am right.


Of course you are. Now go watch cartoons.


>> >> >> I appreciate the proofreading.
>> >> >
>> >> > You asked for some contradictions on your site and I provided
>> >> > them.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No, you just made another loopy claim.
>> >
>> > LOL.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> The ASCE report also aids supporters of the 757 theory by
>> >> >> misrepresenting the width of the initial impact damage. While
>> >> >> the photograph in figure 3.8 indicates that only two windows,
>> >> >> and a single column are missing from the second floor, the
>> >> >> drawing placed beside it (figure 3.10) shows a total of four
>> >> >> missing windows. This illustration does not correspond to any
>> >> >> known photograph. Its inclusion is yet another reason to doubt
>> >> >> the veracity of the report.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Nope, I think you have a comprehension problem.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The ambiguous presence of the two windows on the second floor
>> >> >> are revealed only under magnification. No columns are shown on
>> >> >> the bottom floor.
>> >> >
>> >> > Then you need your eyes checked. Looking at the ASCE report
>> >> > (http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf) Fig. 3.10
>> >> > the windows are plain as can be.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Print the PDF and tell me how apparent they are without
>> >> magnification.
>> >
>> > Ah, so you lied again - now it's your printout that needs to be
>> > magnified in order for you to see the windows. Perhaps you should
>> > upgrade from dot-matrix. I have no difficulty in seeing the
>> > windows, and of course no attempt was ever made to hide them. For
>> > you to try to make a point you had to lie. Tch, tch, tch.
>>
>>
>> Or so you claim.
>
> No, the fact that you lied is obvious.


Erm, isn't that "your opinion"?

Say, if I'm lying, just promote that URL everywhere and tell them that
it's a lie. Discredit it.

By all means.



>> >> Try to be honest.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> >> > but there's enough there to
>> >> >> >> > address your claims above. As just one example, you claim
>> >> >> >> > that the entry hole is just one window, but
>> >> >> >> > www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce clearly shows this is not
>> >> >> >> > the case.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Correct, it's a whacking two windows high at the top.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Yes, I know I'm correct.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Two windows wide. That's quite a tidy plane crash, eh?
>> >> >
>> >> > Eh? You said the entry hole was just one widow, to which I
>> >> > replied "but www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce clearly shows this is
>> >> > not the case."
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Of course, you're a drooling moron, because it says right above
>> >> your reponse, "Eh?", "two windows wide". Go up two lines before
>> >> that, and it says "two windows wide". Google me two years ago, and
>> >> I said "two windows wide". Now, where on earth did you get this
>> >> "one window wide" claim?
>> >
>> > Well which is it? I said you claimed the entry hole was just one
>> > window wide and you said "correct" as in agreement.
>>
>>
>>
>> Numbnuts. You are correct in that bedoper.com/pentagon/asce shows a
>> hole two windows wide.
>
> Ah, the benefits of hindsight (and yours is a little different than
> most).


You're an utter moron, Paul.



>> Now, please present any claim where I said the hole was one window
>> wide.
>
> You agreed when I said you claimed the hole was one window wide. Now
> that I've put you on to that, you're trying to save face. How typical.


No, Paul. You're really reaching. Just because I say "correct", doesn't
mean you can selectively apply that reply to any portion of your
statement.

Please get a grip.

Now, when and where did I claim the hole was one window wide?


Cite?


>> >> >> >> Correct, it's a whacking two windows high at the top.
>>
>>
>> Or just read slower, I guess.


Dipshit...


>> > Do pay attention.
>> > Not that it matters because the entry hole you're referring to is
>> > far larger than that, as the pictures on your website prove.
>>
>>
>> Larger than two windows wide?
>
> Yup.


Cite?


>> >> Dumbfuck.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> >> Less than 20 feet, in other words. That's the "fuselage"
>> >> >> >> hole.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Oh? I thought you claimed that was "the actual entry hole."
>> >> >> > Are you now admitting that there are other holes?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You really suck at this. You were claiming some fantastic
>> >> >> 120-foot wide hole. I pointed out that it's really a series of
>> >> >> holes. Please quit frothing and concentrate.
>> >> >
>> >> > LOL. You still can't seem to make up your mind between "actual
>> >> > entry hole" (which you use to support your so-called argument)
>> >> > and now "series of holes" (which you use to nitpick despite it
>> >> > contradicting your claim). Which is it?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You seem to have an enormous amount of trouble with language.
>> >>
>> >> The center, "fuselage hole" is the "actual entry hole". The rest
>> >> is facade damage.
>> >
>> > But you said there were a series of holes. Which is it? One hole or
>> > a series of holes?
>>
>>
>> Yawn.
>
> Well, which is it? Why are you afraid of answering this question?


It's a series of holes. Please pay more attention. This is boring.




>> >> You're really grasping at straws, aren't you?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> The damage to the first floor columns, based on photographic
>> >> >> evidence
>> >> >> and the ASCE report text, shows only 5 columns were removed at
>> >> >> that point. However, figure 3.10, again, seems to show a much
>> >> >> larger area of damage. This confusion aids many 757 theorists
>> >> >> by enabling them to claim, falsely, that the entry hole into
>> >> >> the Pentagon was one hundred to one hundred and twenty feet
>> >> >> wide. This figure, as revealed in the ASCE text (section 6.1),
>> >> >> actually refers to damage to the Pentagon's façade, and not the
>> >> >> actual entry hole.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And quit kooking over "actual entry hole", simpleton. It
>> >> >> doesn't serve you well.
>> >> >
>> >> > *YOU* depend on this "actual entry hole" as the cornerstone of
>> >> > your argument - you describe it as "crucial, as the small size
>> >> > of the initial entry point, along with the stunning lack of
>> >> > debris, is the main reason so many doubt the claim that a 757
>> >> > struck the Pentagon to begin with."
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Ok...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > And you've now contradicted your own claim a number of times
>> >> > here. Is there only this "actual entry hole" that is "somewhere
>> >> > between sixteen and twenty feet.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No, dummy. There is also a lot of facade damage.
>> >
>> > What kind of facade damage?
>>
>>
>> Pentagon facade damage?
>
> Dodge noted.
>
> The question still stands.



"What kind of facade damage?"


Why don't you just save time and tell us "what kind" of facade damage you
see?




>> >> No tail damage, though. No right side engine damage/entry hole.
>> >>
>> >> Is there?
>> >
>> > Is that what the ASCE report says?
>>
>>
>> Who cares?
>
> Well you're the one who wrote the so-called "essay".


Indeed I am. And you're my fan. See below.



>> I asked you, fucky.


See above. I'm quite familiar with the ASCE report.


>> >> > Of course, part of the top of the column is still
>> >> > evident in photographs, which calls into question the
>> >> > possibility that a massive 757 inflicted the damage," or is it
>> >> > that you "pointed out that it's really a series of holes" that
>> >> > extends much farther than you want to admit (for obvious
>> >> > reasons) but do so anyway via the pictures on your website?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Sorry, I don't speak kookbabble. Try and reparse that so it makes
>> >> more sense.
>> >
>> > Well the quotes came directly from you either from your website or
>> > from your posts.
>>
>>
>> And then were passed through the blender that is Paul's head.
>
> Dodge noted.


Your 8th grade english teacher was a failure.



>> >> >> >> >> I think the last one is the most probable. Ther was a
>> >> >> >> >> C-130 plane on that day on the air.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> I don't want to discuss Pentagone strike, because that is
>> >> >> >> >> not me who found that, I analysed the question and
>> >> >> >> >> decided that there was no large plane on the Pentagone.
>> >> >> >> >> There are enough web sites that explain it. And my
>> >> >> >> > arguments
>> >> >> >> >> to justify the absence of large plane on the Pentagone
>> >> >> >> >> are on my web site.
>> >> >> >> > I
>> >> >> >> >> can explain my arguments if you have any question on.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> http://users.swing.be/muhammadcolumbo/
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > I really liked your assertion that vegetation hides crash
>> >> >> >> > noise.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Almost as good as the claim "the 757 ripped the antenna off
>> >> >> >> of a Jeep Cherokee, and I was 6 feet away from the engine".
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I'm surprised you aren't jumping all over that claim as
>> >> >> > evidence supporting your claim. After all, that witness
>> >> >> > refers to "the engine" and not "the left engine" or "right
>> >> >> > engine." How'd you miss that?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If you'd done your homework, you'd know he is in fact referring
>> >> >> to a mythical right side engine.
>> >> >
>> >> > Oh, okay. The engine that took a bite out of the generator
>> >> > thing.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> And then disappeared?
>> >>
>> >> And also flew over the Pentagon?
>> >>
>> >> And didn't enter the Pentagon through the facade?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Andy Carol says, "Hi!".


Man, you sure do have trouble answering questions...



>> >> >> Thanks for playing, Paul. We are amused.
>> >> >
>> >> > Who else is in there with you?
>> >>
>> >> Your fat mother?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> BTW, your group line tricks are amateur, at best. What do you have
>> >> to hide?
>> >
>> > Paul Nixon
>>
>> There seem to be a lot of questions you don't have the balls to
>> answer, Paul.
>
> You're the one with the so-called "essay". You're the one who asked me
> to cite some contradictions, and now you're the one afraid to face
> those contradictions and are desperately trying to turn things around
> so you don't have to. LOL. Dodge noted.

If only these "contradictions" weren't imaginary, Paul.

No 757 Hit The Pentagon
http://www.bedoper.com
khobar
2005-09-16 02:50:50 UTC
Permalink
"Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com>
wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
> "khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
> news:gApWe.23802$***@fed1read02:
>
> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> "khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
> >> news:gWoWe.23798$***@fed1read02:
> >>
> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >> "khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
> >> >> news:7MgWe.23773$***@fed1read02:
> >> >>
> >> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> >> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >> >> "khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> news:Xi5We.79477$***@fed1read06:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> >> >> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >> >> >> "khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> >> news:eD0We.79446$***@fed1read06:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > "MuhammadColumbo" <***@swing.be> wrote in
> >> >> >> >> > message news:43287486$1$2545$***@news.skynet.be...
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> "tw" <***@no.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> >> >> >> >> >> dg8pdc$mpg$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se...
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > "MuhammadColumbo" <***@swing.be> wrote in
> >> >> >> >> >> > message
> >> >> >> >> >> > news:4326ec91$0$29283$***@news.skynet.be...
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> >> >> >> >> >> >> <***@yahoo.com>
> >> >> >> >> > a
> >> >> >> >> >> >> écrit dans le message de news:
> >> >> >> >> > ***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > "James Of Tucson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroup
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > s.c om:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Lack of a plane, doesn't make your case for a
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> cruise missile.
> >> >> >> >> > You're
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> not done until you come up with evidence. Like
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> pieces of a cruise missle. Or a missing cruise
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> missle. Or maybe we'd settle for open testimony
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> from the commander who gave an order to fire a
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> cruise missile at the Pentagon.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > The unofficially released stills seem to support a
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > missile fired from close range by an F-16 type
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > plane.
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Not so close range. Because the cruise missile need
> >> >> >> >> >> >> some distance tostabilise its guidance regulator
> >> >> >> >> >> >> before being precisely guided.
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > "Guidance regulator"?! LOL!
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Why LOL? Do you think the cruise missiles have no
> >> >> >> >> >> guidance regulator? If
> >> >> >> >> > so,
> >> >> >> >> >> how it finds its target?
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> As they used cruise missile type guidance for the
> >> >> >> >> >> >> plane , they probably
> >> >> >> >> >> > used the same
> >> >> >> >> >> >> kind of missile to manage all the weapons by the same
> >> >> >> >> >> >> work desk. That's
> >> >> >> >> >> > why
> >> >> >> >> >> >> the UA93 waited the strike on Pentagone (minus 3
> >> >> >> >> >> >> minutes) before
> >> >> >> >> > deviate
> >> >> >> >> >> >> from its flight route.
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > So how come so many people saw a large passenger plane,
> >> >> >> >> >> > (and large passenger
> >> >> >> >> >> > plane-sized damage was caused to the Pentagon), yet no
> >> >> >> >> >> > one reports
> >> >> >> >> > seeing
> >> >> >> >> >> > fighter jets firing missiles?
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> The damages caused to the Pentagone are very very very
> >> >> >> >> >> small with regard
> >> >> >> >> > to
> >> >> >> >> >> a passenger sized plane. The entry hole is just ONE
> >> >> >> >> >> WINDOW, the upper
> >> >> >> >> > floor
> >> >> >> >> >> windows are not damaged, glass not broken, even if they
> >> >> >> >> >> are reinforced, their frame will be broken. And as the
> >> >> >> >> >> depth of the damages reached 6
> >> >> >> >> > walls
> >> >> >> >> >> (three rings of the Pentagone) , it is impossible that to
> >> >> >> >> >> be a large
> >> >> >> >> > plane.
> >> >> >> >> >> So we have several possibilities :
> >> >> >> >> >> 1- The witnesses are all liars.
> >> >> >> >> >> 2- People who reported that are liars.
> >> >> >> >> >> 3- There was a large plane, but it did't hit the
> >> >> >> >> >> Pentagone.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > You need to take a look at www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
> >> >> >> >> > as it clearly shows the damage was quite extensive with an
> >> >> >> >> > entry hole not quite the width of a 757 wingtip to
> >> >> >> >> > wingtip.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Please don't use my website to lie. The "entry hole" you're
> >> >> >> >> referring to is actually "facade damage".
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Not according to the pictures on your website.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> People can see for themselves, can't they?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ; )
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Yes, indeed they can.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Are you saying there is no facade damage?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Eh?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Are you saying there are not columns in the single hole you
> >> >> >> claim exists?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Eh?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Tell me more about this, please.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > More about what?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> You're officially dull.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> "Entry holes" tend to not have standing columns in them.
> >> >> >> >> That would make them a series of holes, at best.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Then you should probably remove some of the pictures on your
> >> >> >> > website. As it is now, there are pictures there that show
> >> >> >> > clearly the damage was very extensive.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> And another shill begs me to remove my site...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I said "you should probably remove some of the pictures on your
> >> >> > website. As it is now, there are pictures there that show
> >> >> > clearly the damage was very extensive."
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Which is a pretty stupid thing to say.
> >> >
> >> > Stupid or not, it proves you can't read.
> >>
> >>
> >> Clearly, I can read, dipshit.
> >
> > Obviously not.
> >
> >>
> >> Telling me to remove anything from my site is absurd.
> >
> > See, you're proving my point that you don't know how to read. Once
> > again, I said "you should probably remove some of the pictures on your
> > website. As it is now, there are pictures there that show clearly the
> > damage was very extensive."
> >
> > To which you replied, "And another shill begs me to remove my site..."
> >
> > And you followed up with, "Telling me to remove anything from my site
> > is absurd."
> >
> > Clearly, I neither begged you to do anything nor told you to do
> > anything. Obvious conclusion: you can't read.
>
>
> Yes, Paul. I can't read.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> But go ahead and quibble.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >> >> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "The damage was very extensive" is hollow, empty and
> >> >> >> meaningless.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Not so - you provide pictures on your website proving that the
> >> >> > statement is not hollow, empty, or meaningless.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> It's a null statement. Has anyone ever contested that there was
> >> >> extensive damage at the Pentagon?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I certainly haven't.
> >> >
> >> > LOL. Don't you read your own website?
> >>
> >>
> >> Can you cite this claim for us?
> >
> > Sure: http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>
>
>
> Care to narrow it down?

No where in http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce do you use the word
"extensive". And you conveniently left out the word "severe" which is how
the ASCE report section 6.1 actually characterizes the damage to the
façade. Oops.

> >> >> >> If the photos support a 757, then what's your concern?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Now you're trying to dodge the issue, eh?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> What issue? The burning issue of extensive damage at the Pentagon
> >> >> on 9/11?
> >> >
> >> > LOL. Your claim that the ASCE report supports you.
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
> >>
> >> It doesn't support a 757...
> >
> > Only in your opinion.
>
>
> Am I the only one?

Did you write that so-called essay by yourself or were there others who
helped?

>
>
>
> >> >> >> >> > It's a bit of a goofy site full of
> >> >> >> >> > contradictions to the author's claims,
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Surely you can cite a few for us all?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > For one, you title the page "Problems With the ASCE Report On
> >> >> >> > The Pentagon Cast Further Doubt on 757 Story" but you rely on
> >> >> >> > the *accuracy and completeness* of that report, contradicting
> >> >> >> > your claim that it is problems with the report that support
> >> >> >> > your claim.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I rely on the *accuracy and completeness* of the report?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Absolutely.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Even though the report is inaccurate and incomplete, as my essay
> >> >> shows?
> >> >
> >> > Your so-called "essay" hasn't shown that at all.
> >>
> >>
> >> Then what are you worried about?
> >
> > LOL.
>
>
> Nervous tic?
>
>
> >> >> >> Problems with the report support my claim that no 757 hit the
> >> >> >> Pentagon.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So far any so-called "problems" have been manufactured by you.
> >> >> > Otherwise clearly the ASCE report does not support your premise.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Whatever you say, champ.
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >> Squirm.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > For another, you claim there is something called "the actual
> >> >> >> > entry hole", but your site clearly contradicts this claim as
> >> >> >> > evidenced by the photos you posted.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The photos contradict what, exactly?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This "the actual entry hole" of yours.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, that is your claim.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yawn.
> >> >
> >> > It's not my claim: it's at http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
> >>
> >>
> >> This would be more fun if you were coherent.
> >
> > If you need help with http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce, let me
> > know and I'll see if I can clear things up for you.
>
>
> Knock yourself out.
>
>
>
> >> >> >> > And for another, you claim the ASCE report " is the only
> >> >> >> > place I have seen this bumpy, irregular smoke trail referred
> >> >> >> > to as a 757" which is contradicted by the pictures on your
> >> >> >> > website which clearly shows the blob is not referred to as a
> >> >> >> > 757. I do note, however, that you refer to the blob as "a
> >> >> >> > bumpy, irregular smoke trail" with no substantiation
> >> >> >> > whatsoever.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The cloud is referred to as "incoming plane". That plane being
> >> >> >> a 757.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It's referred to as approaching aircraft, and since you just
> >> >> > admitted the reference actually comes from you, thank you for
> >> >> > admitting that you lied when you said the ASCE was where the
> >> >> > reference came from.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> You're just not very bright, I'm afraid.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >> Is this too hard for you?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The most serious error in the ASCE report can be found in
> >> >> >> section 3,
> >> >> >> "Review of Crash Information". Figure 3.3, a still frame from
> >> >> >> the unofficial, yet released Pentagon security camera footage,
> >> >> >> incorrectly labels the white smoke trail in the still
> >> >> >> "Approaching Aircraft". If the many building performance
> >> >> >> experts on the panel who assembled the report cannot tell the
> >> >> >> difference between a white, bumpy smoke trail and a 757, their
> >> >> >> credibility is questionable, at best.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Let's have that again: "The most serious error in the ASCE
> >> >> > report can be found in section 3, "Review of Crash Information".
> >> >> > Figure 3.3, a still frame from the unofficial, yet released
> >> >> > Pentagon security camera footage, incorrectly labels the white
> >> >> > smoke trail in the still "Approaching Aircraft".
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This "most serious error" depends *entirely* on your biased
> >> >> > opinion which, btw, doesn't actually affect anything.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> So you're saying that bumpy, irregular smoke trail is a 757?
> >> >
> >> > Must be difficult for you to go through life so challenged, eh? I
> >> > said this "most serious error" depends *entirely* on your biased
> >> > opinion which, btw, doesn't actually affect anything.
> >>
> >>
> >> Why are you unable to answer this simple question?
> >
> > Unable to? It's your so-called "essay".
>
>
>
> >> >> So you're saying that bumpy, irregular smoke trail is a 757?
>
>
> The above is a question. Can you answer it?

As I said, it's your so-called essay, and you're the one who claims it's a
bumpy, irregular smoke trail. You're the one who has not substantiated that
claim, and I pointed that out. You can try to redirect all you like - squirm
as long as you want - makes no difference.

>
>
>
>
> >> >> >> > And for yet another, you claim that Fig 3.10 shows 4 missing
> >> >> >> > windows from the second floor when your own website
> >> >> >> > demonstrates that Fig 3.10 shows only 2. In fact you even
> >> >> >> > point out that Fig. 3.10 does, in fact, show those two
> >> >> >> > windows. Hello?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I could go on but that is sufficient.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You may have found a misstatement, and I shall rectify it, if
> >> >> >> so.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I found many lies, contradictions, and misstatements, and since
> >> >> > I've only provided a few of them for you how do you propose to
> >> >> > rectify it especially considering that doing so will leave your
> >> >> > site saying something you don't want it to?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I can't let fucktards dictate the content of my site, sorry. Come
> >> >> up with something valid.
> >> >
> >> > You're the one who invited me to point out contradictions, and
> >> > you're the one who volunteers to rectify your website. As for your
> >> > problem with "fucktards", I can't help you there. Perhaps if you
> >> > were less you you wouldn't attract them, eh?
> >>
> >>
> >> Whatever you say, fucktard.
> >
> > Well, I am right.
>
>
> Of course you are. Now go watch cartoons.

Actually not such a bad idea, Patrick.

>
>
> >> >> >> I appreciate the proofreading.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You asked for some contradictions on your site and I provided
> >> >> > them.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> No, you just made another loopy claim.
> >> >
> >> > LOL.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >> The ASCE report also aids supporters of the 757 theory by
> >> >> >> misrepresenting the width of the initial impact damage. While
> >> >> >> the photograph in figure 3.8 indicates that only two windows,
> >> >> >> and a single column are missing from the second floor, the
> >> >> >> drawing placed beside it (figure 3.10) shows a total of four
> >> >> >> missing windows. This illustration does not correspond to any
> >> >> >> known photograph. Its inclusion is yet another reason to doubt
> >> >> >> the veracity of the report.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Nope, I think you have a comprehension problem.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The ambiguous presence of the two windows on the second floor
> >> >> >> are revealed only under magnification. No columns are shown on
> >> >> >> the bottom floor.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Then you need your eyes checked. Looking at the ASCE report
> >> >> > (http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf) Fig. 3.10
> >> >> > the windows are plain as can be.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Print the PDF and tell me how apparent they are without
> >> >> magnification.
> >> >
> >> > Ah, so you lied again - now it's your printout that needs to be
> >> > magnified in order for you to see the windows. Perhaps you should
> >> > upgrade from dot-matrix. I have no difficulty in seeing the
> >> > windows, and of course no attempt was ever made to hide them. For
> >> > you to try to make a point you had to lie. Tch, tch, tch.
> >>
> >>
> >> Or so you claim.
> >
> > No, the fact that you lied is obvious.
>
>
> Erm, isn't that "your opinion"?

No, by your own admission.

>
> Say, if I'm lying, just promote that URL everywhere and tell them that
> it's a lie. Discredit it.

Well, I do promote your website quite a bit actually. I believe the more
people who see it, the better.

> By all means.
>
>
>
> >> >> Try to be honest.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > but there's enough there to
> >> >> >> >> > address your claims above. As just one example, you claim
> >> >> >> >> > that the entry hole is just one window, but
> >> >> >> >> > www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce clearly shows this is not
> >> >> >> >> > the case.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Correct, it's a whacking two windows high at the top.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Yes, I know I'm correct.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Two windows wide. That's quite a tidy plane crash, eh?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Eh? You said the entry hole was just one widow, to which I
> >> >> > replied "but www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce clearly shows this is
> >> >> > not the case."
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course, you're a drooling moron, because it says right above
> >> >> your reponse, "Eh?", "two windows wide". Go up two lines before
> >> >> that, and it says "two windows wide". Google me two years ago, and
> >> >> I said "two windows wide". Now, where on earth did you get this
> >> >> "one window wide" claim?
> >> >
> >> > Well which is it? I said you claimed the entry hole was just one
> >> > window wide and you said "correct" as in agreement.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Numbnuts. You are correct in that bedoper.com/pentagon/asce shows a
> >> hole two windows wide.
> >
> > Ah, the benefits of hindsight (and yours is a little different than
> > most).
>
>
> You're an utter moron, Paul.
>
>
>
> >> Now, please present any claim where I said the hole was one window
> >> wide.
> >
> > You agreed when I said you claimed the hole was one window wide. Now
> > that I've put you on to that, you're trying to save face. How typical.
>
>
> No, Paul. You're really reaching. Just because I say "correct", doesn't
> mean you can selectively apply that reply to any portion of your
> statement.

LOL. Let's review: I said "You need to take a look at
www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce as it clearly shows
the damage was quite extensive with an entry hole not quite the width of a
757 wingtip to wingtip. It's a bit of a goofy site full of contradictions to
the author's claims, but there's enough there to address your claims above.
As just one example, you claim that the entry hole is just one window, but
www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce clearly shows this is not the case."

To which you replied: "Correct, it's a whacking two windows high at the
top."

I never mentioned height, so your "correct" could not be agreement with
something I didn't mention. You could be agreeing that the damage was quite
extensive, but that would contradict what you followed up with. You could be
agreeing that it's a bit of a goofy site full of contradictions to the
author's claims, and while that is true I don't think even you would want to
choose that option. That leaves the last sentence I wrote in my reply.

>
> Please get a grip.
>
> Now, when and where did I claim the hole was one window wide?
>
>
> Cite?

See above.

>
>
> >> >> >> >> Correct, it's a whacking two windows high at the top.
> >>
> >>
> >> Or just read slower, I guess.
>
>
> Dipshit...

Now you do realize you're replying to yourself, eh?

>
>
> >> > Do pay attention.
> >> > Not that it matters because the entry hole you're referring to is
> >> > far larger than that, as the pictures on your website prove.
> >>
> >>
> >> Larger than two windows wide?
> >
> > Yup.
>
>
> Cite?

http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce

>
>
> >> >> Dumbfuck.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Less than 20 feet, in other words. That's the "fuselage"
> >> >> >> >> hole.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Oh? I thought you claimed that was "the actual entry hole."
> >> >> >> > Are you now admitting that there are other holes?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You really suck at this. You were claiming some fantastic
> >> >> >> 120-foot wide hole. I pointed out that it's really a series of
> >> >> >> holes. Please quit frothing and concentrate.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > LOL. You still can't seem to make up your mind between "actual
> >> >> > entry hole" (which you use to support your so-called argument)
> >> >> > and now "series of holes" (which you use to nitpick despite it
> >> >> > contradicting your claim). Which is it?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> You seem to have an enormous amount of trouble with language.
> >> >>
> >> >> The center, "fuselage hole" is the "actual entry hole". The rest
> >> >> is facade damage.
> >> >
> >> > But you said there were a series of holes. Which is it? One hole or
> >> > a series of holes?
> >>
> >>
> >> Yawn.
> >
> > Well, which is it? Why are you afraid of answering this question?
>
>
> It's a series of holes. Please pay more attention. This is boring.

Now that wasn't so hard, was it? So it's a series of holes and not just one
hole like you claim on your site.

>
>
>
>
> >> >> You're really grasping at straws, aren't you?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >> The damage to the first floor columns, based on photographic
> >> >> >> evidence
> >> >> >> and the ASCE report text, shows only 5 columns were removed at
> >> >> >> that point. However, figure 3.10, again, seems to show a much
> >> >> >> larger area of damage. This confusion aids many 757 theorists
> >> >> >> by enabling them to claim, falsely, that the entry hole into
> >> >> >> the Pentagon was one hundred to one hundred and twenty feet
> >> >> >> wide. This figure, as revealed in the ASCE text (section 6.1),
> >> >> >> actually refers to damage to the Pentagon's façade, and not the
> >> >> >> actual entry hole.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> And quit kooking over "actual entry hole", simpleton. It
> >> >> >> doesn't serve you well.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > *YOU* depend on this "actual entry hole" as the cornerstone of
> >> >> > your argument - you describe it as "crucial, as the small size
> >> >> > of the initial entry point, along with the stunning lack of
> >> >> > debris, is the main reason so many doubt the claim that a 757
> >> >> > struck the Pentagon to begin with."
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Ok...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > And you've now contradicted your own claim a number of times
> >> >> > here. Is there only this "actual entry hole" that is "somewhere
> >> >> > between sixteen and twenty feet.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> No, dummy. There is also a lot of facade damage.
> >> >
> >> > What kind of facade damage?
> >>
> >>
> >> Pentagon facade damage?
> >
> > Dodge noted.
> >
> > The question still stands.
>
>
>
> "What kind of facade damage?"
>
>
> Why don't you just save time and tell us "what kind" of facade damage you
> see?

Because it's your so-called essay. Why are you afraid of answering the
question?

>
>
>
>
> >> >> No tail damage, though. No right side engine damage/entry hole.
> >> >>
> >> >> Is there?
> >> >
> >> > Is that what the ASCE report says?
> >>
> >>
> >> Who cares?
> >
> > Well you're the one who wrote the so-called "essay".
>
>
> Indeed I am. And you're my fan. See below.
>
>
>
> >> I asked you, fucky.
>
>
> See above. I'm quite familiar with the ASCE report.
>
>
> >> >> > Of course, part of the top of the column is still
> >> >> > evident in photographs, which calls into question the
> >> >> > possibility that a massive 757 inflicted the damage," or is it
> >> >> > that you "pointed out that it's really a series of holes" that
> >> >> > extends much farther than you want to admit (for obvious
> >> >> > reasons) but do so anyway via the pictures on your website?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Sorry, I don't speak kookbabble. Try and reparse that so it makes
> >> >> more sense.
> >> >
> >> > Well the quotes came directly from you either from your website or
> >> > from your posts.
> >>
> >>
> >> And then were passed through the blender that is Paul's head.
> >
> > Dodge noted.
>
>
> Your 8th grade english teacher was a failure.

Dodge still noted.

>
>
>
> >> >> >> >> >> I think the last one is the most probable. Ther was a
> >> >> >> >> >> C-130 plane on that day on the air.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> I don't want to discuss Pentagone strike, because that is
> >> >> >> >> >> not me who found that, I analysed the question and
> >> >> >> >> >> decided that there was no large plane on the Pentagone.
> >> >> >> >> >> There are enough web sites that explain it. And my
> >> >> >> >> > arguments
> >> >> >> >> >> to justify the absence of large plane on the Pentagone
> >> >> >> >> >> are on my web site.
> >> >> >> >> > I
> >> >> >> >> >> can explain my arguments if you have any question on.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> http://users.swing.be/muhammadcolumbo/
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > I really liked your assertion that vegetation hides crash
> >> >> >> >> > noise.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Almost as good as the claim "the 757 ripped the antenna off
> >> >> >> >> of a Jeep Cherokee, and I was 6 feet away from the engine".
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I'm surprised you aren't jumping all over that claim as
> >> >> >> > evidence supporting your claim. After all, that witness
> >> >> >> > refers to "the engine" and not "the left engine" or "right
> >> >> >> > engine." How'd you miss that?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> If you'd done your homework, you'd know he is in fact referring
> >> >> >> to a mythical right side engine.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Oh, okay. The engine that took a bite out of the generator
> >> >> > thing.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> And then disappeared?
> >> >>
> >> >> And also flew over the Pentagon?
> >> >>
> >> >> And didn't enter the Pentagon through the facade?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Andy Carol says, "Hi!".
>
>
> Man, you sure do have trouble answering questions...

Again you're responding to yourself.

>
>
>
> >> >> >> Thanks for playing, Paul. We are amused.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Who else is in there with you?
> >> >>
> >> >> Your fat mother?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> BTW, your group line tricks are amateur, at best. What do you have
> >> >> to hide?
> >> >
> >> > Paul Nixon
> >>
> >> There seem to be a lot of questions you don't have the balls to
> >> answer, Paul.
> >
> > You're the one with the so-called "essay". You're the one who asked me
> > to cite some contradictions, and now you're the one afraid to face
> > those contradictions and are desperately trying to turn things around
> > so you don't have to. LOL. Dodge noted.
>
> If only these "contradictions" weren't imaginary, Paul.

Dodge noted.

Paul Nixon
Black People Don't Care About George Bush
2005-09-16 13:06:40 UTC
Permalink
"khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:RqqWe.23808$***@fed1read02:

> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> "khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
>> news:gApWe.23802$***@fed1read02:
>>
>> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> "khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
>> >> news:gWoWe.23798$***@fed1read02:
>> >>
>> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> >> "khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
>> >> >> news:7MgWe.23773$***@fed1read02:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> >> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> >> >> "khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
>> >> >> >> news:Xi5We.79477$***@fed1read06:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> >> >> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> >> >> >> "khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
>> >> >> >> >> news:eD0We.79446$***@fed1read06:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > "MuhammadColumbo" <***@swing.be> wrote in
>> >> >> >> >> > message news:43287486$1$2545$***@news.skynet.be...
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> "tw" <***@no.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
>> >> >> >> >> >> dg8pdc$mpg$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se...
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > "MuhammadColumbo" <***@swing.be> wrote
>> >> >> >> >> >> > in message
>> >> >> >> >> >> > news:4326ec91$0$29283$***@news.skynet.be...
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> <***@yahoo.com>
>> >> >> >> >> > a
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> écrit dans le message de news:
>> >> >> >> >> > ***@207.14.113.17...
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > "James Of Tucson" <***@gmail.com> wrote
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > in
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegr
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > oup s.c om:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Lack of a plane, doesn't make your case for a
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> cruise missile.
>> >> >> >> >> > You're
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> not done until you come up with evidence. Like
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> pieces of a cruise missle. Or a missing cruise
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> missle. Or maybe we'd settle for open testimony
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> from the commander who gave an order to fire a
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> cruise missile at the Pentagon.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > The unofficially released stills seem to support
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > a missile fired from close range by an F-16 type
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > plane.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Not so close range. Because the cruise missile need
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> some distance tostabilise its guidance regulator
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> before being precisely guided.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > "Guidance regulator"?! LOL!
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Why LOL? Do you think the cruise missiles have no
>> >> >> >> >> >> guidance regulator? If
>> >> >> >> >> > so,
>> >> >> >> >> >> how it finds its target?
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> As they used cruise missile type guidance for the
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> plane , they probably
>> >> >> >> >> >> > used the same
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> kind of missile to manage all the weapons by the
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> same work desk. That's
>> >> >> >> >> >> > why
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> the UA93 waited the strike on Pentagone (minus 3
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> minutes) before
>> >> >> >> >> > deviate
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> from its flight route.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > So how come so many people saw a large passenger
>> >> >> >> >> >> > plane, (and large passenger
>> >> >> >> >> >> > plane-sized damage was caused to the Pentagon), yet
>> >> >> >> >> >> > no one reports
>> >> >> >> >> > seeing
>> >> >> >> >> >> > fighter jets firing missiles?
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> The damages caused to the Pentagone are very very very
>> >> >> >> >> >> small with regard
>> >> >> >> >> > to
>> >> >> >> >> >> a passenger sized plane. The entry hole is just ONE
>> >> >> >> >> >> WINDOW, the upper
>> >> >> >> >> > floor
>> >> >> >> >> >> windows are not damaged, glass not broken, even if
>> >> >> >> >> >> they are reinforced, their frame will be broken. And
>> >> >> >> >> >> as the depth of the damages reached 6
>> >> >> >> >> > walls
>> >> >> >> >> >> (three rings of the Pentagone) , it is impossible that
>> >> >> >> >> >> to be a large
>> >> >> >> >> > plane.
>> >> >> >> >> >> So we have several possibilities :
>> >> >> >> >> >> 1- The witnesses are all liars.
>> >> >> >> >> >> 2- People who reported that are liars.
>> >> >> >> >> >> 3- There was a large plane, but it did't hit the
>> >> >> >> >> >> Pentagone.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > You need to take a look at
>> >> >> >> >> > www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce as it clearly shows the
>> >> >> >> >> > damage was quite extensive with an entry hole not quite
>> >> >> >> >> > the width of a 757 wingtip to wingtip.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Please don't use my website to lie. The "entry hole"
>> >> >> >> >> you're referring to is actually "facade damage".
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Not according to the pictures on your website.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> People can see for themselves, can't they?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> ; )
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Yes, indeed they can.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Are you saying there is no facade damage?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Eh?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Are you saying there are not columns in the single hole you
>> >> >> >> claim exists?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Eh?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Tell me more about this, please.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > More about what?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You're officially dull.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> "Entry holes" tend to not have standing columns in them.
>> >> >> >> >> That would make them a series of holes, at best.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Then you should probably remove some of the pictures on
>> >> >> >> > your website. As it is now, there are pictures there that
>> >> >> >> > show clearly the damage was very extensive.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> And another shill begs me to remove my site...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I said "you should probably remove some of the pictures on
>> >> >> > your website. As it is now, there are pictures there that
>> >> >> > show clearly the damage was very extensive."
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Which is a pretty stupid thing to say.
>> >> >
>> >> > Stupid or not, it proves you can't read.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Clearly, I can read, dipshit.
>> >
>> > Obviously not.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Telling me to remove anything from my site is absurd.
>> >
>> > See, you're proving my point that you don't know how to read. Once
>> > again, I said "you should probably remove some of the pictures on
>> > your website. As it is now, there are pictures there that show
>> > clearly the damage was very extensive."
>> >
>> > To which you replied, "And another shill begs me to remove my
>> > site..."
>> >
>> > And you followed up with, "Telling me to remove anything from my
>> > site is absurd."
>> >
>> > Clearly, I neither begged you to do anything nor told you to do
>> > anything. Obvious conclusion: you can't read.
>>
>>
>> Yes, Paul. I can't read.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> But go ahead and quibble.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> >> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "The damage was very extensive" is hollow, empty and
>> >> >> >> meaningless.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Not so - you provide pictures on your website proving that
>> >> >> > the statement is not hollow, empty, or meaningless.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It's a null statement. Has anyone ever contested that there was
>> >> >> extensive damage at the Pentagon?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I certainly haven't.
>> >> >
>> >> > LOL. Don't you read your own website?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Can you cite this claim for us?
>> >
>> > Sure: http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>>
>>
>>
>> Care to narrow it down?
>
> No where in http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce do you use the word
> "extensive". And you conveniently left out the word "severe" which is
> how the ASCE report section 6.1 actually characterizes the damage to
> the façade. Oops.


Bzzzzt.


You're really weak, Paul. Damn.


Your argument is that because I didn't use the words extensive or severe,
I'm claiming there wasn't extensive damage to the Pentagon?

The section of building collased, Paul. That's pretty fucking extensive.

Sort of self-evident, really. Are you that desperate?






>> >> >> >> If the photos support a 757, then what's your concern?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Now you're trying to dodge the issue, eh?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What issue? The burning issue of extensive damage at the
>> >> >> Pentagon on 9/11?
>> >> >
>> >> > LOL. Your claim that the ASCE report supports you.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>> >>
>> >> It doesn't support a 757...
>> >
>> > Only in your opinion.
>>
>>
>> Am I the only one?
>
> Did you write that so-called essay by yourself or were there others
> who helped?


Of course I wrote it alone.


Again, Paul, answer the question.

Am I the only person who thinks the ASCE report doesn't support a 757?



>> >> >> >> >> > It's a bit of a goofy site full of
>> >> >> >> >> > contradictions to the author's claims,
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Surely you can cite a few for us all?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > For one, you title the page "Problems With the ASCE Report
>> >> >> >> > On The Pentagon Cast Further Doubt on 757 Story" but you
>> >> >> >> > rely on the *accuracy and completeness* of that report,
>> >> >> >> > contradicting your claim that it is problems with the
>> >> >> >> > report that support your claim.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I rely on the *accuracy and completeness* of the report?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Absolutely.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Even though the report is inaccurate and incomplete, as my
>> >> >> essay shows?
>> >> >
>> >> > Your so-called "essay" hasn't shown that at all.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Then what are you worried about?
>> >
>> > LOL.
>>
>>
>> Nervous tic?
>>
>>
>> >> >> >> Problems with the report support my claim that no 757 hit
>> >> >> >> the Pentagon.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So far any so-called "problems" have been manufactured by
>> >> >> > you. Otherwise clearly the ASCE report does not support your
>> >> >> > premise.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Whatever you say, champ.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Squirm.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > For another, you claim there is something called "the
>> >> >> >> > actual entry hole", but your site clearly contradicts this
>> >> >> >> > claim as evidenced by the photos you posted.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The photos contradict what, exactly?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > This "the actual entry hole" of yours.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes, that is your claim.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yawn.
>> >> >
>> >> > It's not my claim: it's at http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> This would be more fun if you were coherent.
>> >
>> > If you need help with http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce, let me
>> > know and I'll see if I can clear things up for you.
>>
>>
>> Knock yourself out.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> >> > And for another, you claim the ASCE report " is the only
>> >> >> >> > place I have seen this bumpy, irregular smoke trail
>> >> >> >> > referred to as a 757" which is contradicted by the
>> >> >> >> > pictures on your website which clearly shows the blob is
>> >> >> >> > not referred to as a 757. I do note, however, that you
>> >> >> >> > refer to the blob as "a bumpy, irregular smoke trail" with
>> >> >> >> > no substantiation whatsoever.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The cloud is referred to as "incoming plane". That plane
>> >> >> >> being a 757.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > It's referred to as approaching aircraft, and since you just
>> >> >> > admitted the reference actually comes from you, thank you for
>> >> >> > admitting that you lied when you said the ASCE was where the
>> >> >> > reference came from.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You're just not very bright, I'm afraid.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Is this too hard for you?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The most serious error in the ASCE report can be found in
>> >> >> >> section 3,
>> >> >> >> "Review of Crash Information". Figure 3.3, a still frame
>> >> >> >> from the unofficial, yet released Pentagon security camera
>> >> >> >> footage, incorrectly labels the white smoke trail in the
>> >> >> >> still "Approaching Aircraft". If the many building
>> >> >> >> performance experts on the panel who assembled the report
>> >> >> >> cannot tell the difference between a white, bumpy smoke
>> >> >> >> trail and a 757, their credibility is questionable, at best.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Let's have that again: "The most serious error in the ASCE
>> >> >> > report can be found in section 3, "Review of Crash
>> >> >> > Information". Figure 3.3, a still frame from the unofficial,
>> >> >> > yet released Pentagon security camera footage, incorrectly
>> >> >> > labels the white smoke trail in the still "Approaching
>> >> >> > Aircraft".
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > This "most serious error" depends *entirely* on your biased
>> >> >> > opinion which, btw, doesn't actually affect anything.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So you're saying that bumpy, irregular smoke trail is a 757?
>> >> >
>> >> > Must be difficult for you to go through life so challenged, eh?
>> >> > I said this "most serious error" depends *entirely* on your
>> >> > biased opinion which, btw, doesn't actually affect anything.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Why are you unable to answer this simple question?
>> >
>> > Unable to? It's your so-called "essay".
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> So you're saying that bumpy, irregular smoke trail is a 757?
>>
>>
>> The above is a question. Can you answer it?
>
> As I said, it's your so-called essay, and you're the one who claims
> it's a bumpy, irregular smoke trail. You're the one who has not
> substantiated that claim, and I pointed that out. You can try to
> redirect all you like - squirm as long as you want - makes no
> difference.


Again, Paul, it is self-evident. Use your eyes. Try and use your brain.
It is clearly a smoke trail. In fact, some of your fellow travelers use
that very smoke trail to try and prop up the 757 story.

You fellows should work together more closely to avoid mistakes like this
one.


Then look at the frame after the one in question. See the dissipating
smoke trail?


And why won't you go on record regarding this smoke trail?

Do you think it's a 757, or not?


Are you too much of a pussy to commit fully to your half-baked idea?





>> >> >> >> > And for yet another, you claim that Fig 3.10 shows 4
>> >> >> >> > missing windows from the second floor when your own
>> >> >> >> > website demonstrates that Fig 3.10 shows only 2. In fact
>> >> >> >> > you even point out that Fig. 3.10 does, in fact, show
>> >> >> >> > those two windows. Hello?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > I could go on but that is sufficient.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> You may have found a misstatement, and I shall rectify it,
>> >> >> >> if so.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I found many lies, contradictions, and misstatements, and
>> >> >> > since I've only provided a few of them for you how do you
>> >> >> > propose to rectify it especially considering that doing so
>> >> >> > will leave your site saying something you don't want it to?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I can't let fucktards dictate the content of my site, sorry.
>> >> >> Come up with something valid.
>> >> >
>> >> > You're the one who invited me to point out contradictions, and
>> >> > you're the one who volunteers to rectify your website. As for
>> >> > your problem with "fucktards", I can't help you there. Perhaps
>> >> > if you were less you you wouldn't attract them, eh?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Whatever you say, fucktard.
>> >
>> > Well, I am right.
>>
>>
>> Of course you are. Now go watch cartoons.
>
> Actually not such a bad idea, Patrick.


Rip a few bong hits while you're at it, Squidward.



>> >> >> >> I appreciate the proofreading.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You asked for some contradictions on your site and I provided
>> >> >> > them.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, you just made another loopy claim.
>> >> >
>> >> > LOL.
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The ASCE report also aids supporters of the 757 theory by
>> >> >> >> misrepresenting the width of the initial impact damage.
>> >> >> >> While the photograph in figure 3.8 indicates that only two
>> >> >> >> windows, and a single column are missing from the second
>> >> >> >> floor, the drawing placed beside it (figure 3.10) shows a
>> >> >> >> total of four missing windows. This illustration does not
>> >> >> >> correspond to any known photograph. Its inclusion is yet
>> >> >> >> another reason to doubt the veracity of the report.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Nope, I think you have a comprehension problem.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The ambiguous presence of the two windows on the second
>> >> >> >> floor are revealed only under magnification. No columns are
>> >> >> >> shown on the bottom floor.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Then you need your eyes checked. Looking at the ASCE report
>> >> >> > (http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf) Fig.
>> >> >> > 3.10 the windows are plain as can be.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Print the PDF and tell me how apparent they are without
>> >> >> magnification.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ah, so you lied again - now it's your printout that needs to be
>> >> > magnified in order for you to see the windows. Perhaps you
>> >> > should upgrade from dot-matrix. I have no difficulty in seeing
>> >> > the windows, and of course no attempt was ever made to hide
>> >> > them. For you to try to make a point you had to lie. Tch, tch,
>> >> > tch.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Or so you claim.
>> >
>> > No, the fact that you lied is obvious.
>>
>>
>> Erm, isn't that "your opinion"?
>
> No, by your own admission.


But I don't lie, Paul. I certainly didn't lie regarding the Pentagon.

You're just claiming I did.


The article stands. Cry me a river.



>> Say, if I'm lying, just promote that URL everywhere and tell them
>> that it's a lie. Discredit it.
>
> Well, I do promote your website quite a bit actually. I believe the
> more people who see it, the better.


Word up. If I move to some Google AdSense revenue thing, I'll have to
give you a royalty.


>> By all means.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> Try to be honest.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > but there's enough there to
>> >> >> >> >> > address your claims above. As just one example, you
>> >> >> >> >> > claim that the entry hole is just one window, but
>> >> >> >> >> > www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce clearly shows this is not
>> >> >> >> >> > the case.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Correct, it's a whacking two windows high at the top.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Yes, I know I'm correct.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Two windows wide. That's quite a tidy plane crash, eh?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Eh? You said the entry hole was just one widow, to which I
>> >> >> > replied "but www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce clearly shows this
>> >> >> > is not the case."
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Of course, you're a drooling moron, because it says right above
>> >> >> your reponse, "Eh?", "two windows wide". Go up two lines before
>> >> >> that, and it says "two windows wide". Google me two years ago,
>> >> >> and I said "two windows wide". Now, where on earth did you get
>> >> >> this "one window wide" claim?
>> >> >
>> >> > Well which is it? I said you claimed the entry hole was just one
>> >> > window wide and you said "correct" as in agreement.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Numbnuts. You are correct in that bedoper.com/pentagon/asce shows
>> >> a hole two windows wide.
>> >
>> > Ah, the benefits of hindsight (and yours is a little different than
>> > most).
>>
>>
>> You're an utter moron, Paul.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Now, please present any claim where I said the hole was one window
>> >> wide.
>> >
>> > You agreed when I said you claimed the hole was one window wide.
>> > Now that I've put you on to that, you're trying to save face. How
>> > typical.
>>
>>
>> No, Paul. You're really reaching. Just because I say "correct",
>> doesn't mean you can selectively apply that reply to any portion of
>> your statement.
>
> LOL. Let's review: I said "You need to take a look at
> www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce as it clearly shows
> the damage was quite extensive with an entry hole not quite the width
> of a 757 wingtip to wingtip. It's a bit of a goofy site full of
> contradictions to the author's claims, but there's enough there to
> address your claims above. As just one example, you claim that the
> entry hole is just one window, but www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
> clearly shows this is not the case."
>
> To which you replied: "Correct, it's a whacking two windows high at
> the top."
>
> I never mentioned height,


Wide. WIDE. WiDE.

Fuck, you're jumping on a typo as proof?


Don't you realise how weak that makes your case?





> so your "correct" could not be agreement
> with something I didn't mention. You could be agreeing that the damage
> was quite extensive, but that would contradict what you followed up
> with. You could be agreeing that it's a bit of a goofy site full of
> contradictions to the author's claims, and while that is true I don't
> think even you would want to choose that option. That leaves the last
> sentence I wrote in my reply.



Two windows wide, Dilbert. Just like my site has said for a year. Just
like eveyone, including you, says.


WIDE WIDE WIDE.




>> Please get a grip.
>>
>> Now, when and where did I claim the hole was one window wide?
>>
>>
>> Cite?
>
> See above.



And this is the best you can do?



>> >> >> >> >> Correct, it's a whacking two windows high at the top.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Or just read slower, I guess.
>>
>>
>> Dipshit...
>
> Now you do realize you're replying to yourself, eh?


No, Paul, I'm replying to you.



>> >> > Do pay attention.
>> >> > Not that it matters because the entry hole you're referring to
>> >> > is far larger than that, as the pictures on your website prove.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Larger than two windows wide?
>> >
>> > Yup.
>>
>>
>> Cite?
>
> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce



Home of the "two windows wide" photo.


Very bright of you.



>> >> >> Dumbfuck.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Less than 20 feet, in other words. That's the "fuselage"
>> >> >> >> >> hole.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Oh? I thought you claimed that was "the actual entry
>> >> >> >> > hole." Are you now admitting that there are other holes?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> You really suck at this. You were claiming some fantastic
>> >> >> >> 120-foot wide hole. I pointed out that it's really a series
>> >> >> >> of holes. Please quit frothing and concentrate.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > LOL. You still can't seem to make up your mind between
>> >> >> > "actual entry hole" (which you use to support your so-called
>> >> >> > argument) and now "series of holes" (which you use to nitpick
>> >> >> > despite it contradicting your claim). Which is it?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You seem to have an enormous amount of trouble with language.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The center, "fuselage hole" is the "actual entry hole". The
>> >> >> rest is facade damage.
>> >> >
>> >> > But you said there were a series of holes. Which is it? One hole
>> >> > or a series of holes?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Yawn.
>> >
>> > Well, which is it? Why are you afraid of answering this question?
>>
>>
>> It's a series of holes. Please pay more attention. This is boring.
>
> Now that wasn't so hard, was it? So it's a series of holes and not
> just one hole like you claim on your site.



Paul, you were the one claiming a single, giant hole. Please quit
spanking yourself. It's hard to watch.




>> >> >> You're really grasping at straws, aren't you?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The damage to the first floor columns, based on
>> >> >> >> photographic evidence
>> >> >> >> and the ASCE report text, shows only 5 columns were removed
>> >> >> >> at that point. However, figure 3.10, again, seems to show a
>> >> >> >> much larger area of damage. This confusion aids many 757
>> >> >> >> theorists by enabling them to claim, falsely, that the entry
>> >> >> >> hole into the Pentagon was one hundred to one hundred and
>> >> >> >> twenty feet wide. This figure, as revealed in the ASCE text
>> >> >> >> (section 6.1), actually refers to damage to the Pentagon's
>> >> >> >> façade, and not the actual entry hole.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> And quit kooking over "actual entry hole", simpleton. It
>> >> >> >> doesn't serve you well.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > *YOU* depend on this "actual entry hole" as the cornerstone
>> >> >> > of your argument - you describe it as "crucial, as the small
>> >> >> > size of the initial entry point, along with the stunning lack
>> >> >> > of debris, is the main reason so many doubt the claim that a
>> >> >> > 757 struck the Pentagon to begin with."
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Ok...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > And you've now contradicted your own claim a number of times
>> >> >> > here. Is there only this "actual entry hole" that is
>> >> >> > "somewhere between sixteen and twenty feet.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, dummy. There is also a lot of facade damage.
>> >> >
>> >> > What kind of facade damage?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Pentagon facade damage?
>> >
>> > Dodge noted.
>> >
>> > The question still stands.
>>
>>
>>
>> "What kind of facade damage?"
>>
>>
>> Why don't you just save time and tell us "what kind" of facade damage
>> you see?
>
> Because it's your so-called essay. Why are you afraid of answering the
> question?


I'm just not good at stupid questions, Paul. Why don't you instead try
and clarify for me?



>> >> >> No tail damage, though. No right side engine damage/entry hole.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Is there?



Can't answer the question, spankard?



>> >> >
>> >> > Is that what the ASCE report says?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Who cares?
>> >
>> > Well you're the one who wrote the so-called "essay".
>>
>>
>> Indeed I am. And you're my fan. See below.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> I asked you, fucky.
>>
>>
>> See above. I'm quite familiar with the ASCE report.
>>
>>
>> >> >> > Of course, part of the top of the column is still
>> >> >> > evident in photographs, which calls into question the
>> >> >> > possibility that a massive 757 inflicted the damage," or is
>> >> >> > it that you "pointed out that it's really a series of holes"
>> >> >> > that extends much farther than you want to admit (for obvious
>> >> >> > reasons) but do so anyway via the pictures on your website?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Sorry, I don't speak kookbabble. Try and reparse that so it
>> >> >> makes more sense.
>> >> >
>> >> > Well the quotes came directly from you either from your website
>> >> > or from your posts.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> And then were passed through the blender that is Paul's head.
>> >
>> > Dodge noted.
>>
>>
>> Your 8th grade english teacher was a failure.
>
> Dodge still noted.


When you make sense, I'll answer you. Fuzzy thoughts, Paul, do not lead
to solid conclusions.



>> >> >> >> >> >> I think the last one is the most probable. Ther was a
>> >> >> >> >> >> C-130 plane on that day on the air.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> I don't want to discuss Pentagone strike, because that
>> >> >> >> >> >> is not me who found that, I analysed the question and
>> >> >> >> >> >> decided that there was no large plane on the
>> >> >> >> >> >> Pentagone. There are enough web sites that explain it.
>> >> >> >> >> >> And my
>> >> >> >> >> > arguments
>> >> >> >> >> >> to justify the absence of large plane on the Pentagone
>> >> >> >> >> >> are on my web site.
>> >> >> >> >> > I
>> >> >> >> >> >> can explain my arguments if you have any question on.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> http://users.swing.be/muhammadcolumbo/
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > I really liked your assertion that vegetation hides
>> >> >> >> >> > crash noise.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Almost as good as the claim "the 757 ripped the antenna
>> >> >> >> >> off of a Jeep Cherokee, and I was 6 feet away from the
>> >> >> >> >> engine".
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > I'm surprised you aren't jumping all over that claim as
>> >> >> >> > evidence supporting your claim. After all, that witness
>> >> >> >> > refers to "the engine" and not "the left engine" or "right
>> >> >> >> > engine." How'd you miss that?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> If you'd done your homework, you'd know he is in fact
>> >> >> >> referring to a mythical right side engine.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Oh, okay. The engine that took a bite out of the generator
>> >> >> > thing.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And then disappeared?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And also flew over the Pentagon?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And didn't enter the Pentagon through the facade?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Andy Carol says, "Hi!".
>>
>>
>> Man, you sure do have trouble answering questions...
>
> Again you're responding to yourself.


You're clearly too dumb to converse with.




>> >> >> >> Thanks for playing, Paul. We are amused.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Who else is in there with you?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Your fat mother?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> BTW, your group line tricks are amateur, at best. What do you
>> >> >> have to hide?
>> >> >
>> >> > Paul Nixon
>> >>
>> >> There seem to be a lot of questions you don't have the balls to
>> >> answer, Paul.
>> >
>> > You're the one with the so-called "essay". You're the one who asked
>> > me to cite some contradictions, and now you're the one afraid to
>> > face those contradictions and are desperately trying to turn things
>> > around so you don't have to. LOL. Dodge noted.
>>
>> If only these "contradictions" weren't imaginary, Paul.
>
> Dodge noted.

Chant your mantra.
khobar
2005-09-16 20:20:15 UTC
Permalink
"Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com>
wrote in message news:***@207.14.113.17...
> "khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
> news:RqqWe.23808$***@fed1read02:
>
> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> "khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
> >> news:gApWe.23802$***@fed1read02:
> >>
> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >> "khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
> >> >> news:gWoWe.23798$***@fed1read02:
> >> >>
> >> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> >> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >> >> "khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> news:7MgWe.23773$***@fed1read02:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> >> >> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >> >> >> "khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> >> news:Xi5We.79477$***@fed1read06:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> >> >> >> >> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> > news:***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >> >> >> >> "khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> >> >> news:eD0We.79446$***@fed1read06:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> > "MuhammadColumbo" <***@swing.be> wrote in
> >> >> >> >> >> > message news:43287486$1$2545$***@news.skynet.be...
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> "tw" <***@no.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> dg8pdc$mpg$***@news.al.sw.ericsson.se...
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > "MuhammadColumbo" <***@swing.be> wrote
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > in message
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > news:4326ec91$0$29283$***@news.skynet.be...
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> <***@yahoo.com>
> >> >> >> >> >> > a
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> écrit dans le message de news:
> >> >> >> >> >> > ***@207.14.113.17...
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > "James Of Tucson" <***@gmail.com> wrote
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > in
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegr
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > oup s.c om:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Lack of a plane, doesn't make your case for a
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> cruise missile.
> >> >> >> >> >> > You're
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> not done until you come up with evidence. Like
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> pieces of a cruise missle. Or a missing cruise
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> missle. Or maybe we'd settle for open testimony
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> from the commander who gave an order to fire a
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> cruise missile at the Pentagon.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > The unofficially released stills seem to support
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > a missile fired from close range by an F-16 type
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > plane.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Not so close range. Because the cruise missile need
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> some distance tostabilise its guidance regulator
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> before being precisely guided.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > "Guidance regulator"?! LOL!
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Why LOL? Do you think the cruise missiles have no
> >> >> >> >> >> >> guidance regulator? If
> >> >> >> >> >> > so,
> >> >> >> >> >> >> how it finds its target?
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> As they used cruise missile type guidance for the
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> plane , they probably
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > used the same
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> kind of missile to manage all the weapons by the
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> same work desk. That's
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > why
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the UA93 waited the strike on Pentagone (minus 3
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> minutes) before
> >> >> >> >> >> > deviate
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> from its flight route.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > So how come so many people saw a large passenger
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > plane, (and large passenger
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > plane-sized damage was caused to the Pentagon), yet
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > no one reports
> >> >> >> >> >> > seeing
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > fighter jets firing missiles?
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> The damages caused to the Pentagone are very very very
> >> >> >> >> >> >> small with regard
> >> >> >> >> >> > to
> >> >> >> >> >> >> a passenger sized plane. The entry hole is just ONE
> >> >> >> >> >> >> WINDOW, the upper
> >> >> >> >> >> > floor
> >> >> >> >> >> >> windows are not damaged, glass not broken, even if
> >> >> >> >> >> >> they are reinforced, their frame will be broken. And
> >> >> >> >> >> >> as the depth of the damages reached 6
> >> >> >> >> >> > walls
> >> >> >> >> >> >> (three rings of the Pentagone) , it is impossible that
> >> >> >> >> >> >> to be a large
> >> >> >> >> >> > plane.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> So we have several possibilities :
> >> >> >> >> >> >> 1- The witnesses are all liars.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2- People who reported that are liars.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> 3- There was a large plane, but it did't hit the
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Pentagone.
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > You need to take a look at
> >> >> >> >> >> > www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce as it clearly shows the
> >> >> >> >> >> > damage was quite extensive with an entry hole not quite
> >> >> >> >> >> > the width of a 757 wingtip to wingtip.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Please don't use my website to lie. The "entry hole"
> >> >> >> >> >> you're referring to is actually "facade damage".
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Not according to the pictures on your website.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> People can see for themselves, can't they?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> ; )
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Yes, indeed they can.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Are you saying there is no facade damage?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Eh?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Are you saying there are not columns in the single hole you
> >> >> >> >> claim exists?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Eh?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Tell me more about this, please.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > More about what?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You're officially dull.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> "Entry holes" tend to not have standing columns in them.
> >> >> >> >> >> That would make them a series of holes, at best.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Then you should probably remove some of the pictures on
> >> >> >> >> > your website. As it is now, there are pictures there that
> >> >> >> >> > show clearly the damage was very extensive.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> And another shill begs me to remove my site...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I said "you should probably remove some of the pictures on
> >> >> >> > your website. As it is now, there are pictures there that
> >> >> >> > show clearly the damage was very extensive."
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Which is a pretty stupid thing to say.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Stupid or not, it proves you can't read.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Clearly, I can read, dipshit.
> >> >
> >> > Obviously not.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Telling me to remove anything from my site is absurd.
> >> >
> >> > See, you're proving my point that you don't know how to read. Once
> >> > again, I said "you should probably remove some of the pictures on
> >> > your website. As it is now, there are pictures there that show
> >> > clearly the damage was very extensive."
> >> >
> >> > To which you replied, "And another shill begs me to remove my
> >> > site..."
> >> >
> >> > And you followed up with, "Telling me to remove anything from my
> >> > site is absurd."
> >> >
> >> > Clearly, I neither begged you to do anything nor told you to do
> >> > anything. Obvious conclusion: you can't read.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes, Paul. I can't read.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >> But go ahead and quibble.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> "The damage was very extensive" is hollow, empty and
> >> >> >> >> meaningless.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Not so - you provide pictures on your website proving that
> >> >> >> > the statement is not hollow, empty, or meaningless.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It's a null statement. Has anyone ever contested that there was
> >> >> >> extensive damage at the Pentagon?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I certainly haven't.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > LOL. Don't you read your own website?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Can you cite this claim for us?
> >> >
> >> > Sure: http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Care to narrow it down?
> >
> > No where in http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce do you use the word
> > "extensive". And you conveniently left out the word "severe" which is
> > how the ASCE report section 6.1 actually characterizes the damage to
> > the façade. Oops.
>
>
> Bzzzzt.
>
>
> You're really weak, Paul. Damn.
>
>
> Your argument is that because I didn't use the words extensive or severe,
> I'm claiming there wasn't extensive damage to the Pentagon?

Your site attempts to diminish the type and extent of the damage. That is
the premise of your essay. Duh!

>
> The section of building collased, Paul. That's pretty fucking extensive.
>
> Sort of self-evident, really. Are you that desperate?

Your site neither shows nor makes mention of the collapse. Oops.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >> >> If the photos support a 757, then what's your concern?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Now you're trying to dodge the issue, eh?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What issue? The burning issue of extensive damage at the
> >> >> >> Pentagon on 9/11?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > LOL. Your claim that the ASCE report supports you.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
> >> >>
> >> >> It doesn't support a 757...
> >> >
> >> > Only in your opinion.
> >>
> >>
> >> Am I the only one?
> >
> > Did you write that so-called essay by yourself or were there others
> > who helped?
>
>
> Of course I wrote it alone.

Which explains, in part, the goofiness aspect.

>
>
> Again, Paul, answer the question.
>
> Am I the only person who thinks the ASCE report doesn't support a 757?

As far as I know, you're the only one.

>
>
>
> >> >> >> >> >> > It's a bit of a goofy site full of
> >> >> >> >> >> > contradictions to the author's claims,
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Surely you can cite a few for us all?
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > For one, you title the page "Problems With the ASCE Report
> >> >> >> >> > On The Pentagon Cast Further Doubt on 757 Story" but you
> >> >> >> >> > rely on the *accuracy and completeness* of that report,
> >> >> >> >> > contradicting your claim that it is problems with the
> >> >> >> >> > report that support your claim.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I rely on the *accuracy and completeness* of the report?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Absolutely.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Even though the report is inaccurate and incomplete, as my
> >> >> >> essay shows?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Your so-called "essay" hasn't shown that at all.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Then what are you worried about?
> >> >
> >> > LOL.
> >>
> >>
> >> Nervous tic?
> >>
> >>
> >> >> >> >> Problems with the report support my claim that no 757 hit
> >> >> >> >> the Pentagon.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > So far any so-called "problems" have been manufactured by
> >> >> >> > you. Otherwise clearly the ASCE report does not support your
> >> >> >> > premise.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Whatever you say, champ.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Squirm.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > For another, you claim there is something called "the
> >> >> >> >> > actual entry hole", but your site clearly contradicts this
> >> >> >> >> > claim as evidenced by the photos you posted.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> The photos contradict what, exactly?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > This "the actual entry hole" of yours.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Yes, that is your claim.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Yawn.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It's not my claim: it's at http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> This would be more fun if you were coherent.
> >> >
> >> > If you need help with http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce, let me
> >> > know and I'll see if I can clear things up for you.
> >>
> >>
> >> Knock yourself out.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >> >> >> > And for another, you claim the ASCE report " is the only
> >> >> >> >> > place I have seen this bumpy, irregular smoke trail
> >> >> >> >> > referred to as a 757" which is contradicted by the
> >> >> >> >> > pictures on your website which clearly shows the blob is
> >> >> >> >> > not referred to as a 757. I do note, however, that you
> >> >> >> >> > refer to the blob as "a bumpy, irregular smoke trail" with
> >> >> >> >> > no substantiation whatsoever.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> The cloud is referred to as "incoming plane". That plane
> >> >> >> >> being a 757.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > It's referred to as approaching aircraft, and since you just
> >> >> >> > admitted the reference actually comes from you, thank you for
> >> >> >> > admitting that you lied when you said the ASCE was where the
> >> >> >> > reference came from.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You're just not very bright, I'm afraid.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Is this too hard for you?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> The most serious error in the ASCE report can be found in
> >> >> >> >> section 3,
> >> >> >> >> "Review of Crash Information". Figure 3.3, a still frame
> >> >> >> >> from the unofficial, yet released Pentagon security camera
> >> >> >> >> footage, incorrectly labels the white smoke trail in the
> >> >> >> >> still "Approaching Aircraft". If the many building
> >> >> >> >> performance experts on the panel who assembled the report
> >> >> >> >> cannot tell the difference between a white, bumpy smoke
> >> >> >> >> trail and a 757, their credibility is questionable, at best.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Let's have that again: "The most serious error in the ASCE
> >> >> >> > report can be found in section 3, "Review of Crash
> >> >> >> > Information". Figure 3.3, a still frame from the unofficial,
> >> >> >> > yet released Pentagon security camera footage, incorrectly
> >> >> >> > labels the white smoke trail in the still "Approaching
> >> >> >> > Aircraft".
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > This "most serious error" depends *entirely* on your biased
> >> >> >> > opinion which, btw, doesn't actually affect anything.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> So you're saying that bumpy, irregular smoke trail is a 757?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Must be difficult for you to go through life so challenged, eh?
> >> >> > I said this "most serious error" depends *entirely* on your
> >> >> > biased opinion which, btw, doesn't actually affect anything.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Why are you unable to answer this simple question?
> >> >
> >> > Unable to? It's your so-called "essay".
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >> >> So you're saying that bumpy, irregular smoke trail is a 757?
> >>
> >>
> >> The above is a question. Can you answer it?
> >
> > As I said, it's your so-called essay, and you're the one who claims
> > it's a bumpy, irregular smoke trail. You're the one who has not
> > substantiated that claim, and I pointed that out. You can try to
> > redirect all you like - squirm as long as you want - makes no
> > difference.
>
>
> Again, Paul, it is self-evident. Use your eyes. Try and use your brain.
> It is clearly a smoke trail. In fact, some of your fellow travelers use
> that very smoke trail to try and prop up the 757 story.

It looks like a smoke trail thus it must be a smoke trail? IOW, you have no
proof that it is a smoke trail - you just proclaim it is because you believe
doing so somehow helps your story. LOL. As I've said before, whether it is a
smoke trail or not has no effect on the fact that a 757 crashed into the
Pentagon.

>
> You fellows should work together more closely to avoid mistakes like this
> one.
>
>
> Then look at the frame after the one in question. See the dissipating
> smoke trail?

1) I see that the bumpy, irregular "thing" is no longer there. If the object
in the first frame is a smoke trail it should still be there in the second
frame, but it isn't. LOL.

2) That must be magic smoke to dissipate that quickly.

3) Sure doesn't look like smoke here:
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/TW_pent2.jpg

>
>
> And why won't you go on record regarding this smoke trail?
>
> Do you think it's a 757, or not?

It's still your so-called essay making the claim. If you can't support your
claim, well...

>
>
> Are you too much of a pussy to commit fully to your half-baked idea?

Funny *you* should ask that when you are desperately trying to redirect.
LOL.

>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >> >> > And for yet another, you claim that Fig 3.10 shows 4
> >> >> >> >> > missing windows from the second floor when your own
> >> >> >> >> > website demonstrates that Fig 3.10 shows only 2. In fact
> >> >> >> >> > you even point out that Fig. 3.10 does, in fact, show
> >> >> >> >> > those two windows. Hello?
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > I could go on but that is sufficient.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> You may have found a misstatement, and I shall rectify it,
> >> >> >> >> if so.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I found many lies, contradictions, and misstatements, and
> >> >> >> > since I've only provided a few of them for you how do you
> >> >> >> > propose to rectify it especially considering that doing so
> >> >> >> > will leave your site saying something you don't want it to?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I can't let fucktards dictate the content of my site, sorry.
> >> >> >> Come up with something valid.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You're the one who invited me to point out contradictions, and
> >> >> > you're the one who volunteers to rectify your website. As for
> >> >> > your problem with "fucktards", I can't help you there. Perhaps
> >> >> > if you were less you you wouldn't attract them, eh?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Whatever you say, fucktard.
> >> >
> >> > Well, I am right.
> >>
> >>
> >> Of course you are. Now go watch cartoons.
> >
> > Actually not such a bad idea, Patrick.
>
>
> Rip a few bong hits while you're at it, Squidward.

Well now, we have an idea as to your age.

>
>
>
> >> >> >> >> I appreciate the proofreading.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > You asked for some contradictions on your site and I provided
> >> >> >> > them.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No, you just made another loopy claim.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > LOL.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> The ASCE report also aids supporters of the 757 theory by
> >> >> >> >> misrepresenting the width of the initial impact damage.
> >> >> >> >> While the photograph in figure 3.8 indicates that only two
> >> >> >> >> windows, and a single column are missing from the second
> >> >> >> >> floor, the drawing placed beside it (figure 3.10) shows a
> >> >> >> >> total of four missing windows. This illustration does not
> >> >> >> >> correspond to any known photograph. Its inclusion is yet
> >> >> >> >> another reason to doubt the veracity of the report.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Nope, I think you have a comprehension problem.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> The ambiguous presence of the two windows on the second
> >> >> >> >> floor are revealed only under magnification. No columns are
> >> >> >> >> shown on the bottom floor.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Then you need your eyes checked. Looking at the ASCE report
> >> >> >> > (http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf) Fig.
> >> >> >> > 3.10 the windows are plain as can be.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Print the PDF and tell me how apparent they are without
> >> >> >> magnification.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Ah, so you lied again - now it's your printout that needs to be
> >> >> > magnified in order for you to see the windows. Perhaps you
> >> >> > should upgrade from dot-matrix. I have no difficulty in seeing
> >> >> > the windows, and of course no attempt was ever made to hide
> >> >> > them. For you to try to make a point you had to lie. Tch, tch,
> >> >> > tch.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Or so you claim.
> >> >
> >> > No, the fact that you lied is obvious.
> >>
> >>
> >> Erm, isn't that "your opinion"?
> >
> > No, by your own admission.
>
>
> But I don't lie, Paul. I certainly didn't lie regarding the Pentagon.

But you did. You claimed that the presence of the two windows still in place
was only apparent under magnification - that was a lie as they are clearly
visible even at *negative* magnification. You then admitted that the problem
is not with the ASCE report but with *your* printout.


>
> You're just claiming I did.
>
>
> The article stands. Cry me a river.
>
>
>
> >> Say, if I'm lying, just promote that URL everywhere and tell them
> >> that it's a lie. Discredit it.
> >
> > Well, I do promote your website quite a bit actually. I believe the
> > more people who see it, the better.
>
>
> Word up. If I move to some Google AdSense revenue thing, I'll have to
> give you a royalty.

That your site exists for all to laugh at is payment enough.

>
>
> >> By all means.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >> >> Try to be honest.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> > but there's enough there to
> >> >> >> >> >> > address your claims above. As just one example, you
> >> >> >> >> >> > claim that the entry hole is just one window, but
> >> >> >> >> >> > www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce clearly shows this is not
> >> >> >> >> >> > the case.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Correct, it's a whacking two windows high at the top.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Yes, I know I'm correct.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Two windows wide. That's quite a tidy plane crash, eh?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Eh? You said the entry hole was just one widow, to which I
> >> >> >> > replied "but www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce clearly shows this
> >> >> >> > is not the case."
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Of course, you're a drooling moron, because it says right above
> >> >> >> your reponse, "Eh?", "two windows wide". Go up two lines before
> >> >> >> that, and it says "two windows wide". Google me two years ago,
> >> >> >> and I said "two windows wide". Now, where on earth did you get
> >> >> >> this "one window wide" claim?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Well which is it? I said you claimed the entry hole was just one
> >> >> > window wide and you said "correct" as in agreement.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Numbnuts. You are correct in that bedoper.com/pentagon/asce shows
> >> >> a hole two windows wide.
> >> >
> >> > Ah, the benefits of hindsight (and yours is a little different than
> >> > most).
> >>
> >>
> >> You're an utter moron, Paul.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >> Now, please present any claim where I said the hole was one window
> >> >> wide.
> >> >
> >> > You agreed when I said you claimed the hole was one window wide.
> >> > Now that I've put you on to that, you're trying to save face. How
> >> > typical.
> >>
> >>
> >> No, Paul. You're really reaching. Just because I say "correct",
> >> doesn't mean you can selectively apply that reply to any portion of
> >> your statement.
> >
> > LOL. Let's review: I said "You need to take a look at
> > www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce as it clearly shows
> > the damage was quite extensive with an entry hole not quite the width
> > of a 757 wingtip to wingtip. It's a bit of a goofy site full of
> > contradictions to the author's claims, but there's enough there to
> > address your claims above. As just one example, you claim that the
> > entry hole is just one window, but www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
> > clearly shows this is not the case."
> >
> > To which you replied: "Correct, it's a whacking two windows high at
> > the top."
> >
> > I never mentioned height,
>
>
> Wide. WIDE. WiDE.

But you didn't write "Wide. WIDE. WiDE."

>
> Fuck, you're jumping on a typo as proof?

There's that hindsight again. Perhaps now would be a good time to ask
someone why I lobbed this one at you.

>
>
> Don't you realise how weak that makes your case?
>
>
>
>
>
> > so your "correct" could not be agreement
> > with something I didn't mention. You could be agreeing that the damage
> > was quite extensive, but that would contradict what you followed up
> > with. You could be agreeing that it's a bit of a goofy site full of
> > contradictions to the author's claims, and while that is true I don't
> > think even you would want to choose that option. That leaves the last
> > sentence I wrote in my reply.
>
>
>
> Two windows wide, Dilbert. Just like my site has said for a year. Just
> like eveyone, including you, says.

See above.

>
> WIDE WIDE WIDE.

But you didn't write "WIDE WIDE WIDE" either.

>
>
>
>
> >> Please get a grip.
> >>
> >> Now, when and where did I claim the hole was one window wide?
> >>
> >>
> >> Cite?
> >
> > See above.
>
>
>
> And this is the best you can do?

Best I can do?

>
>
>
> >> >> >> >> >> Correct, it's a whacking two windows high at the top.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Or just read slower, I guess.
> >>
> >>
> >> Dipshit...
> >
> > Now you do realize you're replying to yourself, eh?
>
>
> No, Paul, I'm replying to you.

You said "Or just read slower, I guess."
Then you followed up with "Dipshit"

I don't see anything from me in between, so as I said you were replying to
yourself.

LOL.


>
>
>
> >> >> > Do pay attention.
> >> >> > Not that it matters because the entry hole you're referring to
> >> >> > is far larger than that, as the pictures on your website prove.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Larger than two windows wide?
> >> >
> >> > Yup.
> >>
> >>
> >> Cite?
> >
> > http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>
>
>
> Home of the "two windows wide" photo.

Are you now claiming that you took that photo? Hmmmmm?????

Of course the photo in question is cropped, and it's contradicted by another
photo on your site.

BTW, what's that under the "two windows" and what is it obscuring?

>
>
> Very bright of you.

You're the one with the contradictory "evidence" on your site...

>
>
>
> >> >> >> Dumbfuck.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Less than 20 feet, in other words. That's the "fuselage"
> >> >> >> >> >> hole.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Oh? I thought you claimed that was "the actual entry
> >> >> >> >> > hole." Are you now admitting that there are other holes?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> You really suck at this. You were claiming some fantastic
> >> >> >> >> 120-foot wide hole. I pointed out that it's really a series
> >> >> >> >> of holes. Please quit frothing and concentrate.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > LOL. You still can't seem to make up your mind between
> >> >> >> > "actual entry hole" (which you use to support your so-called
> >> >> >> > argument) and now "series of holes" (which you use to nitpick
> >> >> >> > despite it contradicting your claim). Which is it?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You seem to have an enormous amount of trouble with language.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The center, "fuselage hole" is the "actual entry hole". The
> >> >> >> rest is facade damage.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > But you said there were a series of holes. Which is it? One hole
> >> >> > or a series of holes?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Yawn.
> >> >
> >> > Well, which is it? Why are you afraid of answering this question?
> >>
> >>
> >> It's a series of holes. Please pay more attention. This is boring.
> >
> > Now that wasn't so hard, was it? So it's a series of holes and not
> > just one hole like you claim on your site.
>
>
>
> Paul, you were the one claiming a single, giant hole. Please quit
> spanking yourself. It's hard to watch.

Well there is certainly one very large hole as evidenced by
http://bedoper.com/pentagon/asce/. Of course that does not preclude the fact
that there are other holes too.


>
>
>
>
> >> >> >> You're really grasping at straws, aren't you?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> The damage to the first floor columns, based on
> >> >> >> >> photographic evidence
> >> >> >> >> and the ASCE report text, shows only 5 columns were removed
> >> >> >> >> at that point. However, figure 3.10, again, seems to show a
> >> >> >> >> much larger area of damage. This confusion aids many 757
> >> >> >> >> theorists by enabling them to claim, falsely, that the entry
> >> >> >> >> hole into the Pentagon was one hundred to one hundred and
> >> >> >> >> twenty feet wide. This figure, as revealed in the ASCE text
> >> >> >> >> (section 6.1), actually refers to damage to the Pentagon's
> >> >> >> >> façade, and not the actual entry hole.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> And quit kooking over "actual entry hole", simpleton. It
> >> >> >> >> doesn't serve you well.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > *YOU* depend on this "actual entry hole" as the cornerstone
> >> >> >> > of your argument - you describe it as "crucial, as the small
> >> >> >> > size of the initial entry point, along with the stunning lack
> >> >> >> > of debris, is the main reason so many doubt the claim that a
> >> >> >> > 757 struck the Pentagon to begin with."
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Ok...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > And you've now contradicted your own claim a number of times
> >> >> >> > here. Is there only this "actual entry hole" that is
> >> >> >> > "somewhere between sixteen and twenty feet.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No, dummy. There is also a lot of facade damage.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What kind of facade damage?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Pentagon facade damage?
> >> >
> >> > Dodge noted.
> >> >
> >> > The question still stands.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "What kind of facade damage?"
> >>
> >>
> >> Why don't you just save time and tell us "what kind" of facade damage
> >> you see?
> >
> > Because it's your so-called essay. Why are you afraid of answering the
> > question?
>
>
> I'm just not good at stupid questions, Paul. Why don't you instead try
> and clarify for me?

Dodge noted.

>
>
>
> >> >> >> No tail damage, though. No right side engine damage/entry hole.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Is there?
>
>
>
> Can't answer the question, spankard?

It's your so-called essay and your claim. If you're too chicken to back up
your claims just say so.

>
>
>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Is that what the ASCE report says?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Who cares?
> >> >
> >> > Well you're the one who wrote the so-called "essay".
> >>
> >>
> >> Indeed I am. And you're my fan. See below.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >> I asked you, fucky.
> >>
> >>
> >> See above. I'm quite familiar with the ASCE report.
> >>
> >>
> >> >> >> > Of course, part of the top of the column is still
> >> >> >> > evident in photographs, which calls into question the
> >> >> >> > possibility that a massive 757 inflicted the damage," or is
> >> >> >> > it that you "pointed out that it's really a series of holes"
> >> >> >> > that extends much farther than you want to admit (for obvious
> >> >> >> > reasons) but do so anyway via the pictures on your website?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Sorry, I don't speak kookbabble. Try and reparse that so it
> >> >> >> makes more sense.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Well the quotes came directly from you either from your website
> >> >> > or from your posts.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> And then were passed through the blender that is Paul's head.
> >> >
> >> > Dodge noted.
> >>
> >>
> >> Your 8th grade english teacher was a failure.
> >
> > Dodge still noted.
>
>
> When you make sense, I'll answer you. Fuzzy thoughts, Paul, do not lead
> to solid conclusions.

Dodge still noted.

>
>
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> I think the last one is the most probable. Ther was a
> >> >> >> >> >> >> C-130 plane on that day on the air.
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> I don't want to discuss Pentagone strike, because that
> >> >> >> >> >> >> is not me who found that, I analysed the question and
> >> >> >> >> >> >> decided that there was no large plane on the
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Pentagone. There are enough web sites that explain it.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> And my
> >> >> >> >> >> > arguments
> >> >> >> >> >> >> to justify the absence of large plane on the Pentagone
> >> >> >> >> >> >> are on my web site.
> >> >> >> >> >> > I
> >> >> >> >> >> >> can explain my arguments if you have any question on.
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://users.swing.be/muhammadcolumbo/
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > I really liked your assertion that vegetation hides
> >> >> >> >> >> > crash noise.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Almost as good as the claim "the 757 ripped the antenna
> >> >> >> >> >> off of a Jeep Cherokee, and I was 6 feet away from the
> >> >> >> >> >> engine".
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > I'm surprised you aren't jumping all over that claim as
> >> >> >> >> > evidence supporting your claim. After all, that witness
> >> >> >> >> > refers to "the engine" and not "the left engine" or "right
> >> >> >> >> > engine." How'd you miss that?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> If you'd done your homework, you'd know he is in fact
> >> >> >> >> referring to a mythical right side engine.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Oh, okay. The engine that took a bite out of the generator
> >> >> >> > thing.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> And then disappeared?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> And also flew over the Pentagon?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> And didn't enter the Pentagon through the facade?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Andy Carol says, "Hi!".
> >>
> >>
> >> Man, you sure do have trouble answering questions...
> >
> > Again you're responding to yourself.
>
>
> You're clearly too dumb to converse with.

Dodge noted.

>
>
>
>
> >> >> >> >> Thanks for playing, Paul. We are amused.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Who else is in there with you?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Your fat mother?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> BTW, your group line tricks are amateur, at best. What do you
> >> >> >> have to hide?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Paul Nixon
> >> >>
> >> >> There seem to be a lot of questions you don't have the balls to
> >> >> answer, Paul.
> >> >
> >> > You're the one with the so-called "essay". You're the one who asked
> >> > me to cite some contradictions, and now you're the one afraid to
> >> > face those contradictions and are desperately trying to turn things
> >> > around so you don't have to. LOL. Dodge noted.
> >>
> >> If only these "contradictions" weren't imaginary, Paul.
> >
> > Dodge noted.
>
> Chant your mantra.

Since you are unable to support any of the claims you make at
www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce, I have to wonder if you believe what you're
saying because the Magic Conch Shell told you so.

Paul Nixon
MuhammadColumbo
2005-09-15 20:43:08 UTC
Permalink
"Black People Don't Care About George Bush" <***@yahoo.com> a
écrit dans le message de news: ***@207.14.113.17...
> "khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
> news:eD0We.79446$***@fed1read06:
>
>>> can explain my arguments if you have any question on.
>>>
>>> http://users.swing.be/muhammadcolumbo/
>>
>> I really liked your assertion that vegetation hides crash noise.
>
> Almost as good as the claim "the 757 ripped the antenna off of a Jeep
> Cherokee, and I was 6 feet away from the engine".

Do you mean you were near the Pentagone on 9/11/2001 when the explosion
happened?
Black People Don't Care About George Bush
2005-09-15 21:23:06 UTC
Permalink
"MuhammadColumbo" <***@swing.be> wrote in
news:4329de93$1$18299$***@news.skynet.be:

>
> "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"
> <***@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> ***@207.14.113.17...
>> "khobar" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in
>> news:eD0We.79446$***@fed1read06:
>>
>>>> can explain my arguments if you have any question on.
>>>>
>>>> http://users.swing.be/muhammadcolumbo/
>>>
>>> I really liked your assertion that vegetation hides crash noise.
>>
>> Almost as good as the claim "the 757 ripped the antenna off of a Jeep
>> Cherokee, and I was 6 feet away from the engine".
>
> Do you mean you were near the Pentagone on 9/11/2001 when the
> explosion happened?

No, that is the loopy claim of a shill.

Tim Timmerman? No one has ever located him again.
MuhammadColumbo
2005-09-15 20:37:14 UTC
Permalink
"khobar" <***@nowhere.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
eD0We.79446$***@fed1read06...
> "MuhammadColumbo" <***@swing.be> wrote in message
> news:43287486$1$2545$***@news.skynet.be...
>>
>> The damages caused to the Pentagone are very very very small with regard
> to
>> a passenger sized plane. The entry hole is just ONE WINDOW, the upper
> floor
>> windows are not damaged, glass not broken, even if they are reinforced,
>> their frame will be broken. And as the depth of the damages reached 6
> walls
>> (three rings of the Pentagone) , it is impossible that to be a large
> plane.
>> So we have several possibilities :
>> 1- The witnesses are all liars.
>> 2- People who reported that are liars.
>> 3- There was a large plane, but it did't hit the Pentagone.
>
> You need to take a look at www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce as it clearly
> shows
> the damage was quite extensive with an entry hole not quite the width of a
> 757 wingtip to wingtip. It's a bit of a goofy site full of contradictions
> to
> the author's claims, but there's enough there to address your claims
> above.
> As just one example, you claim that the entry hole is just one window, but
> www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce clearly shows this is not the case.

Ok. Not ONE but TWO WINDOWS while the central column is damaged but still in
place, see the phote on your link. The ground level hole wideness is due to
the second explosion made in the ground level of the building. Missile
entered from the basement of the floor and immediatly broken the floor to go
to teh ground level where the second explosion happened. Does that changes
any thing to the fact that the entry hole is too much smaller than a plane.
NOT AT ALL.

SO, it is not a matter to speak on small details. It is clear that there is
no plane on the Pentagone. Decision is made, conclusion is clear, it is
useless to come back on that. Then let's analyse the conclusions.

>> I think the last one is the most probable. Ther was a C-130 plane on that
>> day on the air.
>>
>> I don't want to discuss Pentagone strike, because that is not me who
>> found
>> that, I analysed the question and decided that there was no large plane
>> on
>> the Pentagone. There are enough web sites that explain it. And my
> arguments
>> to justify the absence of large plane on the Pentagone are on my web
>> site.
> I
>> can explain my arguments if you have any question on.
>>
>> http://users.swing.be/muhammadcolumbo/
>
> I really liked your assertion that vegetation hides crash noise.

That don't means 0 decibels at 1m from the crash side. But if the crash
happened on mountains where there are no vegetation, where there is only
rocks, the noise will be heard from more long distances. The difference can
very important.
Laurence Doering
2005-09-15 22:21:43 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:37:14 +0200, MuhammadColumbo <***@swing.be> wrote:
>
> Ok. Not ONE but TWO WINDOWS while the central column is damaged but still in
> place, see the phote on your link. The ground level hole wideness is due to
> the second explosion made in the ground level of the building. Missile
> entered from the basement of the floor and immediatly broken the floor to go
> to teh ground level where the second explosion happened.

A missile was launched from the Pentagon's *basement* and exploded on
the first floor? That's a new one.

If you really think a missile did the damage to the Pentagon, don't
forget to explain these details:

1) How could a missile do extensive damage to more than a hundred
feet of the Pentagon's facade on the first floor while causing
much less damage to the second floor? Wouldn't the area affected
by the explosion of a missile's warhead be roughly spherical?

2) How did a missile's high explosive warhead cause the large low-
velocity fireball observed outside the Pentagon after the explosion?
Isn't the crash of an airplane and the deflagration of a large amount
of jet fuel a better explanation for the fireball?

> Does that changes any thing to the fact that the entry hole is too much
> smaller than a plane.
> NOT AT ALL.

The hole on the first floor of the Pentagon was about two-thirds the
width of the wingspan of a 757, not "too much smaller than a plane."

>>> [khobar wrote]
>>
>> I really liked your assertion that vegetation hides crash noise.
>
> That don't means 0 decibels at 1m from the crash side. But if the crash
> happened on mountains where there are no vegetation, where there is only
> rocks, the noise will be heard from more long distances. The difference can
> very important.

A co-worker of mine lived in Alexandria, VA in September 2001, was out
walking his dog when the Pentagon was hit, and heard the explosion.
He was about 4 or 5 miles away, so I guess there must not have been
any vegetation between him and the Pentagon.


ljd
Pooh Bear
2005-09-16 00:22:13 UTC
Permalink
Laurence Doering wrote:

> 2) How did a missile's high explosive warhead cause the large low-
> velocity fireball observed outside the Pentagon after the explosion?
> Isn't the crash of an airplane and the deflagration of a large amount
> of jet fuel a better explanation for the fireball?

Hey, Jason has seen Hollywood movies ! He 'knows' all explosions look the same just like
on the films. ;-)

Graham
Black People Don't Care About George Bush
2005-09-16 00:48:38 UTC
Permalink
Pooh Bear <***@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:***@hotmail.com:

>
>
> Laurence Doering wrote:
>
>> 2) How did a missile's high explosive warhead cause the large low-
>> velocity fireball observed outside the Pentagon after the
>> explosion? Isn't the crash of an airplane and the deflagration of
>> a large amount of jet fuel a better explanation for the fireball?
>
> Hey, Jason has seen Hollywood movies ! He 'knows' all explosions look
> the same just like on the films. ;-)

Can you kooks at least limit things to throwing my name into the mix when
appropriate?

I"m not 'MohammedColumbo', shitstain.
Pooh Bear
2005-09-16 03:41:07 UTC
Permalink
Black People Don't Care About George Bush wrote:

> Pooh Bear <***@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:***@hotmail.com:
>
> > Laurence Doering wrote:
> >
> >> 2) How did a missile's high explosive warhead cause the large low-
> >> velocity fireball observed outside the Pentagon after the
> >> explosion? Isn't the crash of an airplane and the deflagration of
> >> a large amount of jet fuel a better explanation for the fireball?
> >
> > Hey, Jason has seen Hollywood movies ! He 'knows' all explosions look
> > the same just like on the films. ;-)
>
> Can you kooks at least limit things to throwing my name into the mix when
> appropriate?
>
> I"m not 'MohammedColumbo', shitstain.

Who said you were ? Your use of " shitstain " makes you look rather pathetic
btw.

Do you normally use personal abuse in a futile attempt to make your idiotic
infantile ideas seem more credible ?

Graham
khobar
2005-09-16 03:55:44 UTC
Permalink
"Pooh Bear" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@hotmail.com...
>
> Black People Don't Care About George Bush wrote:
>
> > Pooh Bear <***@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > news:***@hotmail.com:
> >
> > > Laurence Doering wrote:
> > >
> > >> 2) How did a missile's high explosive warhead cause the large low-
> > >> velocity fireball observed outside the Pentagon after the
> > >> explosion? Isn't the crash of an airplane and the deflagration of
> > >> a large amount of jet fuel a better explanation for the fireball?
> > >
> > > Hey, Jason has seen Hollywood movies ! He 'knows' all explosions look
> > > the same just like on the films. ;-)
> >
> > Can you kooks at least limit things to throwing my name into the mix
when
> > appropriate?
> >
> > I"m not 'MohammedColumbo', shitstain.
>
> Who said you were ? Your use of " shitstain " makes you look rather
pathetic
> btw.
>
> Do you normally use personal abuse in a futile attempt to make your
idiotic
> infantile ideas seem more credible ?
>

Have you not been following along? Sheesh!

Paul Nixon
±
2005-09-16 04:11:46 UTC
Permalink
Pooh Bear wrote:
>
> Black People Don't Care About George Bush wrote:
>
> > Pooh Bear <***@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > news:***@hotmail.com:
> >
> > > Laurence Doering wrote:
> > >
> > >> 2) How did a missile's high explosive warhead cause the large low-
> > >> velocity fireball observed outside the Pentagon after the
> > >> explosion? Isn't the crash of an airplane and the deflagration of
> > >> a large amount of jet fuel a better explanation for the fireball?
> > >
> > > Hey, Jason has seen Hollywood movies ! He 'knows' all explosions look
> > > the same just like on the films. ;-)
> >
> > Can you kooks at least limit things to throwing my name into the mix when
> > appropriate?
> >
> > I"m not 'MohammedColumbo', shitstain.
>
> Who said you were ? Your use of " shitstain " makes you look rather pathetic
> btw.
>
> Do you normally use personal abuse in a futile attempt to make your idiotic
> infantile ideas seem more credible ?

Are you getting ready to netKKKop again, Graham?

>
> Graham


--
http://www.bedoper.com/snuh



-------
/ \
/ \ /-----\
| (@) | | SnuH |
| (O) | \_ ___/
| / | ||
| \ /_ / //
\ \____/ / /
\ /
\_____,
Pooh Bear
2005-09-16 04:22:00 UTC
Permalink
± wrote:

> Pooh Bear wrote:
> >
> > Black People Don't Care About George Bush wrote:
> >
> > > Pooh Bear <***@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > news:***@hotmail.com:
> > >
> > > > Laurence Doering wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> 2) How did a missile's high explosive warhead cause the large low-
> > > >> velocity fireball observed outside the Pentagon after the
> > > >> explosion? Isn't the crash of an airplane and the deflagration of
> > > >> a large amount of jet fuel a better explanation for the fireball?
> > > >
> > > > Hey, Jason has seen Hollywood movies ! He 'knows' all explosions look
> > > > the same just like on the films. ;-)
> > >
> > > Can you kooks at least limit things to throwing my name into the mix when
> > > appropriate?
> > >
> > > I"m not 'MohammedColumbo', shitstain.
> >
> > Who said you were ? Your use of " shitstain " makes you look rather pathetic
> > btw.
> >
> > Do you normally use personal abuse in a futile attempt to make your idiotic
> > infantile ideas seem more credible ?
>
> Are you getting ready to netKKKop again, Graham?
>

Just here for amusement value ( if you can even call it that ).

Graham
±
2005-09-16 04:26:53 UTC
Permalink
Pooh Bear wrote:
>
> ± wrote:
>
> > Pooh Bear wrote:
> > >
> > > Black People Don't Care About George Bush wrote:
> > >
> > > > Pooh Bear <***@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > news:***@hotmail.com:
> > > >
> > > > > Laurence Doering wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> 2) How did a missile's high explosive warhead cause the large low-
> > > > >> velocity fireball observed outside the Pentagon after the
> > > > >> explosion? Isn't the crash of an airplane and the deflagration of
> > > > >> a large amount of jet fuel a better explanation for the fireball?
> > > > >
> > > > > Hey, Jason has seen Hollywood movies ! He 'knows' all explosions look
> > > > > the same just like on the films. ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Can you kooks at least limit things to throwing my name into the mix when
> > > > appropriate?
> > > >
> > > > I"m not 'MohammedColumbo', shitstain.
> > >
> > > Who said you were ? Your use of " shitstain " makes you look rather pathetic
> > > btw.
> > >
> > > Do you normally use personal abuse in a futile attempt to make your idiotic
> > > infantile ideas seem more credible ?
> >
> > Are you getting ready to netKKKop again, Graham?
> >
>
> Just here for amusement value ( if you can even call it that ).

What constitutes "abuse"?




> Graham


--
http://www.bedoper.com/snuh



-------
/ \
/ \ /-----\
| (@) | | SnuH |
| (O) | \_ ___/
| / | ||
| \ /_ / //
\ \____/ / /
\ /
\_____,
Pooh Bear
2005-09-16 04:54:35 UTC
Permalink
± wrote:

> Pooh Bear wrote:
> >
> > ± wrote:
> >
> > > Pooh Bear wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Black People Don't Care About George Bush wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Pooh Bear <***@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > news:***@hotmail.com:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Laurence Doering wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> 2) How did a missile's high explosive warhead cause the large low-
> > > > > >> velocity fireball observed outside the Pentagon after the
> > > > > >> explosion? Isn't the crash of an airplane and the deflagration of
> > > > > >> a large amount of jet fuel a better explanation for the fireball?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hey, Jason has seen Hollywood movies ! He 'knows' all explosions look
> > > > > > the same just like on the films. ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you kooks at least limit things to throwing my name into the mix when
> > > > > appropriate?
> > > > >
> > > > > I"m not 'MohammedColumbo', shitstain.
> > > >
> > > > Who said you were ? Your use of " shitstain " makes you look rather pathetic
> > > > btw.
> > > >
> > > > Do you normally use personal abuse in a futile attempt to make your idiotic
> > > > infantile ideas seem more credible ?
> > >
> > > Are you getting ready to netKKKop again, Graham?
> > >
> >
> > Just here for amusement value ( if you can even call it that ).
>
> What constitutes "abuse"?

In the context of Usenet ? I would allow myself to be guided by ISPs terms, conditions
and acceptable use policy.

I'm pretty laid back about receiving 'abusive comments' - or what might be seen to
that kind of thing btw. It's par for the course on Usenet. I prefer sensible debate
of course..

Graham
±
2005-09-17 19:59:12 UTC
Permalink
Pooh Bear wrote:
>
> ± wrote:
>
> > Pooh Bear wrote:
> > >
> > > ± wrote:
> > >
> > > > Pooh Bear wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Black People Don't Care About George Bush wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Pooh Bear <***@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > > news:***@hotmail.com:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Laurence Doering wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> 2) How did a missile's high explosive warhead cause the large low-
> > > > > > >> velocity fireball observed outside the Pentagon after the
> > > > > > >> explosion? Isn't the crash of an airplane and the deflagration of
> > > > > > >> a large amount of jet fuel a better explanation for the fireball?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hey, Jason has seen Hollywood movies ! He 'knows' all explosions look
> > > > > > > the same just like on the films. ;-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can you kooks at least limit things to throwing my name into the mix when
> > > > > > appropriate?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I"m not 'MohammedColumbo', shitstain.
> > > > >
> > > > > Who said you were ? Your use of " shitstain " makes you look rather pathetic
> > > > > btw.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you normally use personal abuse in a futile attempt to make your idiotic
> > > > > infantile ideas seem more credible ?
> > > >
> > > > Are you getting ready to netKKKop again, Graham?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Just here for amusement value ( if you can even call it that ).
> >
> > What constitutes "abuse"?
>
> In the context of Usenet ? I would allow myself to be guided by ISPs terms, conditions
> and acceptable use policy.

How "guided" are you by ISP's TOS's and AUP's?

> I'm pretty laid back about receiving 'abusive comments'

"Laid back"?

I don't associate you with that description.

> - or what might be seen to
> that kind of thing btw. It's par for the course on Usenet. I prefer sensible debate
> of course..

Of course.



>
> Graham


--
http://www.bedoper.com/snuh



-------
/ \
/ \ /-----\
| (@) | | SnuH |
| (O) | \_ ___/
| / | ||
| \ /_ / //
\ \____/ / /
\ /
\_____,
Peter Parsnip
2005-09-17 22:44:00 UTC
Permalink
Be still! and revere ±, who blessed us with their presence on 17 Sep
2005...

> Pooh Bear wrote:
>>
>> ± wrote:
>>
>> > Pooh Bear wrote:
>> > >
>> > > ± wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Pooh Bear wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Black People Don't Care About George Bush wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Pooh Bear <***@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> > > > > > news:***@hotmail.com:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Laurence Doering wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> 2) How did a missile's high explosive warhead cause the
>> > > > > > >> large low-
>> > > > > > >> velocity fireball observed outside the Pentagon after
>> > > > > > >> the explosion? Isn't the crash of an airplane and the
>> > > > > > >> deflagration of a large amount of jet fuel a better
>> > > > > > >> explanation for the fireball?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Hey, Jason has seen Hollywood movies ! He 'knows' all
>> > > > > > > explosions look the same just like on the films.
>> > > > > > > ;-)
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Can you kooks at least limit things to throwing my name into
>> > > > > > the mix when appropriate?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I"m not 'MohammedColumbo', shitstain.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Who said you were ? Your use of " shitstain " makes you look
>> > > > > rather pathetic btw.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Do you normally use personal abuse in a futile attempt to make
>> > > > > your idiotic infantile ideas seem more credible ?
>> > > >
>> > > > Are you getting ready to netKKKop again, Graham?
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > Just here for amusement value ( if you can even call it that ).
>> >
>> > What constitutes "abuse"?
>>
>> In the context of Usenet ? I would allow myself to be guided by ISPs
>> terms, conditions and acceptable use policy.
>
> How "guided" are you by ISP's TOS's and AUP's?

He believes they are Teh Gospel Truth!

It is amusing that you have x-posted this, as only earlier I was
reminiscing about the Glory Days! Oh, Graham was given a good spnaking
back then.

>> I'm pretty laid back about receiving 'abusive comments'
>
> "Laid back"?
>
> I don't associate you with that description.

He's a paranoid, over-zealous fuck.

>> - or what might be seen to
>> that kind of thing btw. It's par for the course on Usenet. I prefer
>> sensible debate of course..
>
> Of course.

That's the impression he likes to give off. Meanwhile, he's firing off
dozens of abuse reports containing lies like "I will raise a UDP against
you if you do not stop this poster from posting."

Graham is a lying, cheating fraudster.

--
1> Peter Parsnip
2> Compliance
3> Further compliance
4> At the limit of compliance
5> Non-compliant. As always.
Black People Don't Care About George Bush
2005-09-16 13:09:26 UTC
Permalink
Pooh Bear <***@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:***@hotmail.com:

>
> Black People Don't Care About George Bush wrote:
>
>> Pooh Bear <***@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:***@hotmail.com:
>>
>> > Laurence Doering wrote:
>> >
>> >> 2) How did a missile's high explosive warhead cause the large low-
>> >> velocity fireball observed outside the Pentagon after the
>> >> explosion? Isn't the crash of an airplane and the deflagration
>> >> of a large amount of jet fuel a better explanation for the
>> >> fireball?
>> >
>> > Hey, Jason has seen Hollywood movies ! He 'knows' all explosions
>> > look the same just like on the films. ;-)
>>
>> Can you kooks at least limit things to throwing my name into the mix
>> when appropriate?
>>
>> I"m not 'MohammedColumbo', shitstain.
>
> Who said you were ?

You, when you worked my name into a thread in which Larry was replying to
him.


> Your use of " shitstain " makes you look rather
> pathetic btw.

I know it's not particularly inventive. I don't always feel like inventing
new words, thimbledick.


> Do you normally use personal abuse in a futile attempt to make your
> idiotic infantile ideas seem more credible ?


The idea that I am not MohammedColumbo?
Bertie the Bunyip
2005-09-16 00:52:14 UTC
Permalink
Pooh Bear <***@hotmail.com>
sednews:***@hotmail.com:

>
>
> Laurence Doering wrote:
>
>> 2) How did a missile's high explosive warhead cause the large low-
>> velocity fireball observed outside the Pentagon after the
>> explosion? Isn't the crash of an airplane and the deflagration of
>> a large amount of jet fuel a better explanation for the fireball?
>
> Hey, Jason has seen Hollywood movies ! He 'knows' all explosions look
> the same just like on the films.

Wheras Brits blow up people as experiments. they have as many names for th
ecarnage as the eskimos have for snow.





Bertie
MuhammadColumbo
2005-09-16 20:26:55 UTC
Permalink
"Laurence Doering" <***@bcpl.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
***@individual.net...
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:37:14 +0200, MuhammadColumbo
> <***@swing.be> wrote:
>>
>> Ok. Not ONE but TWO WINDOWS while the central column is damaged but still
>> in
>> place, see the phote on your link. The ground level hole wideness is due
>> to
>> the second explosion made in the ground level of the building. Missile
>> entered from the basement of the floor and immediatly broken the floor to
>> go
>> to teh ground level where the second explosion happened.
>
> A missile was launched from the Pentagon's *basement* and exploded on
> the first floor? That's a new one.

I never told that, you misunderstand. Missile was not launched from the
Pentagone. Is that clear?

> If you really think a missile did the damage to the Pentagon, don't
> forget to explain these details:
>
> 1) How could a missile do extensive damage to more than a hundred
> feet of the Pentagon's facade on the first floor while causing
> much less damage to the second floor? Wouldn't the area affected
> by the explosion of a missile's warhead be roughly spherical?

When you analyse the entry hole and the exit hole, and the damages, you can
conclude that the missile entered about 2 feets above the first floor
(=ground floor). As its direction was downward, and its diameter of roughly
about 2 feets, it immediatly brake the concrete between first and second
floor and entered to the ground floor where the second explosion happened.
That explosion made the hole that measures about 2/3 of the 757 wingspan
(your report). I presume that the conrete between two floors is strong
enough to avoid the axplosion damages the second floor. And finally as the
damage hole is small, the missile got small resistance and reached the 6th
wall on its path.

> 2) How did a missile's high explosive warhead cause the large low-
> velocity fireball observed outside the Pentagon after the explosion?
> Isn't the crash of an airplane and the deflagration of a large amount
> of jet fuel a better explanation for the fireball?

The explosion is exactly what it can be with a missile, not with a plane.
With a plane, it will be more darker (the first explosion is almost yellow,
more hotter than red), it will be wider.

>> Does that changes any thing to the fact that the entry hole is too much
>> smaller than a plane.
>> NOT AT ALL.
>
> The hole on the first floor of the Pentagon was about two-thirds the
> width of the wingspan of a 757, not "too much smaller than a plane."

See here up.

>>>> [khobar wrote]
>>>
>>> I really liked your assertion that vegetation hides crash noise.
>>
>> That don't means 0 decibels at 1m from the crash side. But if the crash
>> happened on mountains where there are no vegetation, where there is only
>> rocks, the noise will be heard from more long distances. The difference
>> can
>> very important.
>
> A co-worker of mine lived in Alexandria, VA in September 2001, was out
> walking his dog when the Pentagon was hit, and heard the explosion.
> He was about 4 or 5 miles away, so I guess there must not have been
> any vegetation between him and the Pentagon.

4 or 5 miles is nothing while speaking on explosion sound propagation
distance. Without vegetation, and on highly situated rocks, depending on its
size, an explosion can be heard from 50miles.
Sky King
2005-09-16 22:58:20 UTC
Permalink
MuhammadColumbo wrote:
> "Laurence Doering" <***@bcpl.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
> ***@individual.net...
> > On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:37:14 +0200, MuhammadColumbo
> > <***@swing.be> wrote:
> >>
> >> Ok. Not ONE but TWO WINDOWS while the central column is damaged but still
> >> in
> >> place, see the phote on your link. The ground level hole wideness is due
> >> to
> >> the second explosion made in the ground level of the building. Missile
> >> entered from the basement of the floor and immediatly broken the floor to
> >> go
> >> to teh ground level where the second explosion happened.
> >
> > A missile was launched from the Pentagon's *basement* and exploded on
> > the first floor? That's a new one.
>
> I never told that, you misunderstand. Missile was not launched from the
> Pentagone. Is that clear?

There was no missle.

>
> > If you really think a missile did the damage to the Pentagon, don't
> > forget to explain these details:
> >
> > 1) How could a missile do extensive damage to more than a hundred
> > feet of the Pentagon's facade on the first floor while causing
> > much less damage to the second floor? Wouldn't the area affected
> > by the explosion of a missile's warhead be roughly spherical?
>
> When you analyse the entry hole and the exit hole, and the damages, you can
> conclude that the missile entered about 2 feets above the first floor
> (=ground floor).

There was no missle. The damage was consistent with the fact that the
wreakage was that of a Boeing 757, AA77. You remember, Muhammad, the
very flight you could not tell us where it flew to because you have no
evidence and are AFRAID to ask for that evidence.


> As its direction was downward, and its diameter of roughly
> about 2 feets, it immediatly brake the concrete between first and second
> floor and entered to the ground floor where the second explosion happened.

There was missle and no one, including you has provided anything to
refute the evidence that AA77 did in fact hit the Pentagon.

> That explosion made the hole that measures about 2/3 of the 757 wingspan
> (your report). I presume that the conrete between two floors is strong
> enough to avoid the axplosion damages the second floor. And finally as the
> damage hole is small, the missile got small resistance and reached the 6th
> wall on its path.

Impossible.

>
> > 2) How did a missile's high explosive warhead cause the large low-
> > velocity fireball observed outside the Pentagon after the explosion?
> > Isn't the crash of an airplane and the deflagration of a large amount
> > of jet fuel a better explanation for the fireball?
>
> The explosion is exactly what it can be with a missile, not with a plane.
> With a plane, it will be more darker (the first explosion is almost yellow,
> more hotter than red), it will be wider.

Cite?

>
> >> Does that changes any thing to the fact that the entry hole is too much
> >> smaller than a plane.
> >> NOT AT ALL.
> >
> > The hole on the first floor of the Pentagon was about two-thirds the
> > width of the wingspan of a 757, not "too much smaller than a plane."
>
> See here up.
>
> >>>> [khobar wrote]
> >>>
> >>> I really liked your assertion that vegetation hides crash noise.
> >>
> >> That don't means 0 decibels at 1m from the crash side. But if the crash
> >> happened on mountains where there are no vegetation, where there is only
> >> rocks, the noise will be heard from more long distances. The difference
> >> can
> >> very important.
> >
> > A co-worker of mine lived in Alexandria, VA in September 2001, was out
> > walking his dog when the Pentagon was hit, and heard the explosion.
> > He was about 4 or 5 miles away, so I guess there must not have been
> > any vegetation between him and the Pentagon.
>
> 4 or 5 miles is nothing while speaking on explosion sound propagation
> distance. Without vegetation, and on highly situated rocks, depending on its
> size, an explosion can be heard from 50miles.

So much for your assertion that AA77 crashed in the mountains and NO
ONE HEARD IT, Muhammad. No wonder you cannot sell your science-fiction
scenario to Hollywood!

By now, Muhammad, you must sit down, take a deep breath, and give up
your fantasies. You are making such a fool of yourself.
h***@aol.com
2005-09-17 02:28:26 UTC
Permalink
Addressing again the eyewitness thing. Huge lots of total freaked out and
scared people zooming down a highway that has an obstructed view of the
Building...maybe. These are hardly credible eyewitnesses. even IF you could
see the event. even IF it was a plane. The amount of people that saw
something occur in a that blink of an eye is a couple dozen at the very
most.

People when alerted to danger can react in many ways. Thousands of people
saw UFO's in Mexico City they weren't all kooks they were not all liars. The
crowd got excited at some anomaly in the sky and fever increased more came
to see more thought it was aliens. Look how the country reacted to Orson
Well's War of the Worlds.


I dont hink anybody whom was driving by the pentegon was lying I just think
they dont know what they saw.
Loading...