|
Post by Moon Man on Dec 16, 2006 21:24:21 GMT -4
Aluminum planes don't pentetrate through steel. Copper and lead can penetrate steel. I do it all the time at the rifle range, with subsonic loads too. Lead is much more soft than steel, but not as dense as you. Ranb Okay, smart guy. Why did the planes that hit the towers not go right throught the tower like the plane that allegedly hit the reinforced Pentagon..? It went through several rings at the Pentagon.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Dec 17, 2006 0:42:25 GMT -4
Only the outer wall was reinforced. Not all of the plane went through that far. Only a piece of the landing gear, one of the most substantial parts of the plane made it the farthest. Some of the plane at the WTC did go all the way through. An engine and some of the landing gear was found blocks away.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 17, 2006 6:36:27 GMT -4
In short, Moon Man, what you keep asking--here and before, at BAUT--is "why didn't things happen the way I think they ought to have?" You never consider that it's because your expectations are wrong, do you?
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Dec 17, 2006 10:55:20 GMT -4
In short, Moon Man, what you keep asking--here and before, at BAUT--is "why didn't things happen the way I think they ought to have?" You never consider that it's because your expectations are wrong, do you? I think it would be scary to go through life where your own expectations of how things should happen are the only possible explanations for anything you see, no matter how complicated--like some Neanderthal 30,000 years ago cowering under a meteor shower. I'd see conspiracy under every bed too
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Dec 17, 2006 19:00:38 GMT -4
It went through several rings at the Pentagon.
It must be fun to argue from a position of ignorance. If you really are a lawyer, and you spend as little time researching your cases as you do Apollo or 9/11, or just looked at one side of the story the way you do, you'd get fleeced in the courtroom. The way you argue here it is quite clear you have no idea as to evidence, or studying up. If you took even the slightest bit of notice, you'd know that the bottom floor of the pentagon was open plan and had no walls between the outer wall of the A-ring and the inner wall of the C-ring, the plane only had to get through one wall, after which the shattered pices kept going through the open area until the heaviest pieces, the landing gear, blew through the C-ring wall. If you had bothered to watch the video I posted you'd know that, so it's quite clear you didn't bother doing so.
|
|
|
Post by Moon Man on Dec 17, 2006 21:08:52 GMT -4
Ha. So the landing gear caused the hole, eh. Then it evaporated after making the last hole, since it is no where to be found.
On Sept. 14, 2001 the FBI released the names of the alleged hijackers. The airlines released the passenger lists on Sept. 12. They said they removed the hijackers names out of respect for the dead.
Since the FBI only released the names of the alleged hijacked on Sept. 14 how did the airlines know who the hijackers were on Sept 12..?
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Dec 17, 2006 21:54:29 GMT -4
Since the FBI only released the names of the alleged hijacked on Sept. 14 how did the airlines know who the hijackers were on Sept 12..? Oh Jesus. Aren't YOU a crack investigation dude. LOL
|
|
|
Post by Moon Man on Dec 17, 2006 22:45:00 GMT -4
Answer the question, please.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Dec 17, 2006 23:13:38 GMT -4
Ha. So the landing gear caused the hole, eh. Then it evaporated after making the last hole, since it is no where to be found.
Wrong, go and look at the pictures available on the net that aren't from CT sites. Both wheels, large engine parts and the land gear all were recovered reasonably intact (well for having crashed through a building and been through a fire.)
On Sept. 14, 2001 the FBI released the names of the alleged hijackers. The airlines released the passenger lists on Sept. 12. They said they removed the hijackers names out of respect for the dead.
Since the FBI only released the names of the alleged hijacked on Sept. 14 how did the airlines know who the hijackers were on Sept 12..?
Got any evidence here?
|
|
|
Post by Moon Man on Dec 17, 2006 23:53:28 GMT -4
I'm just leaving. I'll post the evidence if it's still online in the coming days. In 2003 I posted some info from a Cleavland paper about flight 93 landing in Cleavland. The article was over 2 years old at the time yet within 10 minutes of me posting it on a well know site that was being monitored by the FBI the article was deleted.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Dec 18, 2006 0:09:52 GMT -4
Sure it did. And all of your evidence is just conveniently gone so you can't even prove it disappeared.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Dec 18, 2006 0:17:43 GMT -4
I wear many hats my friend. So far, the only hat I'm convinced that you wear is one of tinfoil.
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Dec 18, 2006 0:28:15 GMT -4
So far, the only hat I'm convinced that you wear is one of tinfoil. I'm pretty much certain he also has a tall point one with a big D on it, probably worn over the tin foil one.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Dec 18, 2006 9:16:35 GMT -4
On Sept. 14, 2001 the FBI released the names of the alleged hijackers. The airlines released the passenger lists on Sept. 12. They said they removed the hijackers names out of respect for the dead. Since the FBI only released the names of the alleged hijacked on Sept. 14 how did the airlines know who the hijackers were on Sept 12..? Even IF what you say is correct, and you need to back it up, how do you know that the FBI didn't release the names to the airlines a couple days before? I'm sure the airlines were intimately involved in the initial investigation and were probably privy to information that wasn't yet released to the general public. Your problem is that you WANT to see a conspiracy, so every little thing no matter how mundane or irrelevant seems suspicious to you. It's called predisposition, and it's anathema to real investigators.
|
|
|
Post by Moon Man on Dec 18, 2006 21:17:24 GMT -4
|
|