a

13567

Comments

  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    zstillings wrote:
    This is easily explained. If you throw a baseball at a glass window it's going to leave a bigger hole than if you throw it at a wall.

    But it's not just a huge glass buiding, it was a steel structure.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • floyd1975
    floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    But it's not just a huge glass buiding, it was a steel structure.

    With a lot of glass to shatter and leave a big hole. The Pentagon was reinforced and had different glass and smaller windows. Basically, trying to compare the two impacts is like comparing apples and oranges.
  • even flow?
    even flow? Posts: 8,066
    zstillings wrote:
    You made the comment about the balsa wood plane. It helps to explain the impact of the building on the plane and the reason that there was not a cartoon cutout of an airplane left in the side of the building like Wile E. Coyote used to leave in the mountain.


    I get it. But......I just don't buy into the fact that the Pentagon was built of some super material as opposed to the skyscraper that we all seen swallow an airplane wings and all. Sure it is reenforced, just not to what you all believe it to be.
    You've changed your place in this world!
  • floyd1975
    floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    even flow? wrote:
    I get it. But......I just don't buy into the fact that the Pentagon was built of some super material as opposed to the skyscraper that we all seen swallow an airplane wings and all. Sure it is reenforced, just not to what you all believe it to be.

    It was much more solid than the top of a skyscraper. On top of that, as was mentioned earlier, the planes were travelling at different speeds.
  • even flow?
    even flow? Posts: 8,066
    zstillings wrote:
    With a lot of glass to shatter and leave a big hole. The Pentagon was reinforced and had different glass and smaller windows. Basically, trying to compare the two impacts is like comparing apples and oranges.


    I do respect almost all of your opinions until this. Sorry z-man, I just don't buy the fact that the wings disappeared into thin air. Even you should be able to accept that fact. Everything just disappeared and a perfect round hole was left from the fuselage that just kept on traveling through that armor, protected building. Sorry but I am laughing while entertaining myself at the thought that you or anybody else believes this.
    You've changed your place in this world!
  • even flow?
    even flow? Posts: 8,066
    zstillings wrote:
    It was much more solid than the top of a skyscraper. On top of that, as was mentioned earlier, the planes were travelling at different speeds.

    Sure! Two were travelling straight and made a beauty impact for the world to see. And one, dove down at a dizzying speed to nail a building and that was the one going slower. Right!
    You've changed your place in this world!
  • floyd1975
    floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    even flow? wrote:
    I do respect almost all of your opinions until this. Sorry z-man, I just don't buy the fact that the wings disappeared into thin air. Even you should be able to accept that fact. Everything just disappeared and a perfect round hole was left from the fuselage that just kept on traveling through that armor, protected building. Sorry but I am laughing while entertaining myself at the thought that you or anybody else believes this.

    The wings did not disappear. They were ripped apart. There is debris on the lawn.
  • floyd1975
    floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    even flow? wrote:
    Sure! Two were travelling straight and made a beauty impact for the world to see. And one, dove down at a dizzying speed to nail a building and that was the one going slower. Right!

    These were trained pilots. They were trying to accurately hit the Pentagon. It crashed into the side of the building, not the top.
  • audome25
    audome25 Posts: 163
    even flow? wrote:
    I get it. But......I just don't buy into the fact that the Pentagon was built of some super material as opposed to the skyscraper that we all seen swallow an airplane wings and all. Sure it is reenforced, just not to what you all believe it to be.


    so tell me why, me being a structural engineer why I am wrong again?
  • even flow?
    even flow? Posts: 8,066
    audome25 wrote:
    so tell me why, me being a structural engineer why I am wrong again?


    Same reason I am????? We both haven't flown a plane into a building. Have we?

    Let me know the next time you do a live test with a plane and a building like the Pentagon and you will be the first person I will take at face value. Your job has what to do with this then?
    You've changed your place in this world!
  • even flow?
    even flow? Posts: 8,066
    zstillings wrote:
    These were trained pilots. They were trying to accurately hit the Pentagon. It crashed into the side of the building, not the top.


    Okay! You win!


    You and the structural engineer have swayed my thoughts. :rolleyes:
    You've changed your place in this world!
  • floyd1975
    floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    even flow? wrote:
    Okay! You win!


    You and the structural engineer have swayed my thoughts. :rolleyes:

    Yay. ;)
  • audome25
    audome25 Posts: 163
    even flow? wrote:
    Same reason I am????? We both haven't flown a plane into a building. Have we?

    Let me know the next time you do a live test with a plane and a building like the Pentagon and you will be the first person I will take at face value. Your job has what to do with this then?


    as cool as that would be, the effects of aluminum and concrete have been tested before. same reason we don't sail aroud the world once a month to confirm it is still round.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    audome25 wrote:
    as cool as that would be, the effects of aluminum and concrete have been tested before. same reason we don't sail aroud the world once a month to confirm it is still round.

    Well, perhaps it could use more study considering the fact that they said the towers were built to withstand a plane crashing into them. But that's not what brought them down....
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • audome25
    audome25 Posts: 163
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Well, perhaps it could use more study considering the fact that they said the towers were built to withstand a plane crashing into them. But that's not what brought them down....


    they were built to withstand crashing into them. unfortunately 767's and 757's were designed after the towers were.
  • SVRDhand13
    SVRDhand13 Posts: 27,016
    all this talk about debris found around the pentagon yet no pictures put up?

    leads me to believe this "debris" isn't from a plane.
    severed hand thirteen
    2006: Gorge 7/23 2008: Hartford 6/27 Beacon 7/1 2009: Spectrum 10/30-31
    2010: Newark 5/18 MSG 5/20-21 2011: PJ20 9/3-4 2012: Made In America 9/2
    2013: Brooklyn 10/18-19 Philly 10/21-22 Hartford 10/25 2014: ACL10/12
    2015: NYC 9/23 2016: Tampa 4/11 Philly 4/28-29 MSG 5/1-2 Fenway 8/5+8/7
    2017: RRHoF 4/7   2018: Fenway 9/2+9/4   2021: Sea Hear Now 9/18 
    2022: MSG 9/11  2024: MSG 9/3-4 Philly 9/7+9/9 Fenway 9/15+9/17
    2025: Pittsburgh 5/16+5/18
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    why would they try to stonewall the investigation and 9/11 commision if the official version is all true?

    why lie?
    why cover up?
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    zstillings wrote:
    These were trained pilots. They were trying to accurately hit the Pentagon. It crashed into the side of the building, not the top.



    arizona flight school is now a highly "trained pilot" that can skip across the front lawn at 500 mph?

    i dont buy it
  • floyd1975
    floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    my2hands wrote:
    arizona flight school is now a highly "trained pilot" that can skip across the front lawn at 500 mph?

    i dont buy it

    I never said highly. That would be misquoting me. They are still trained pilots.
  • floyd1975
    floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    SVRDhand13 wrote:
    all this talk about debris found around the pentagon yet no pictures put up?

    leads me to believe this "debris" isn't from a plane.

    There was a website posted earlier. You can click on the blue link and see pictures of the debris.

Categories