What hit the Pentagon? 9/11

[ruksak]

Quote by: ZNFYRH ruksak has me on ignore because he doesn't understand the difference between questions and theories.

Awww, I took you off ignore because I missed ya, you big sweetie pie.

[Enlightenee]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Enlightenee The problem is that you can't wonder about motivation until you have definitely confirmed action. It's like arresting someone for murdering their wife simply because he found out she was having an affair. You can't assess motivation until you have confirmed action. That's why I don't offer theories... because I don't know yet that the official story is incorrect. As long as there is no video, and there are inconsistencies and contradictions, I'll wait for something better to come along. ruksak has me on ignore because he doesn't understand the difference between questions and theories.

I am assuming the action , for example the US launched the assault, was confirmed.
Then I'm looking into motive.
If there is no motive then of course there is probably no action.
I like to assume things, thats the best way i can rule out actions

[ruksak]

Quote by: Enlightenee I am assuming the action , for example the US launched the assault, was confirmed. Then I'm looking into motive. If there is no motive then of course there is probably no action. I like to assume things, thats the best way i can rule out actions

The motive isn't whats important to me. Its the logic, the logistics of such a plan. The motive can be easily laid out, which is often the first mutterings of any conspiracist, what they believe the motivation to be.

Actually doing this from the perspective of the American government and accounting for the logistics, is another thing altogether.

ZNFYRH's proposal is interesting and was defiantly worth review. A mechanical/engineering approach that addresses the physics and probability factors of the objects involved, actually being able to cause the damage and penetration that we saw.

He has done this in spite of the logic and theories involved with the perpetrators. Which I can respect. He put alot of work into contriving a formula that goes against the actual outcome as described. So I doubt hes going to address anything from a motivation standpoint.

[ZNFYRH]

And I've already said why I won't address motivation.

First I need to know what it was that made the impossible possible.

Once you show me a video of the plane going through the walls... or you show me that the walls were actually thin and not concrete reinforced... then I'll ask about motivation.

This is the equivalent of asking a man why he beat his wife when they haven't proven he was the one who beaten her yet.

Get the evidence and then find out the motivation.

[Enlightenee]

Well, we've reached a stalemate gentlemen.
Whilst I'm still adamant nothing sinister occured, your maths is proving me wrong.
Despite this, there is no way anyone can disprove or prove anything happened. We know bugger all.
I think we should let this slid. After all its not a debate anymore as a
"What the hell did this?"

[ruksak]

Quote by: Enlightenee Whilst I'm still adamant nothing sinister occured, your maths is proving me wrong.

No. The only thing he's proved with math is that he isn't capable of adding the explosion into his formula. I have asked him repeatedly to do so. His only attempt to address the explosion was by separating the two events, impact and explosion.

In all fairness its impossible for him to do so. As has been stated many times. No one here has the resources to do so.

[ZNFYRH]

I explained it to you repeatedly and you still haven't understood.

The explosion happened after the initial impact.

So the explosion could not have lent any force to the initial, and subsequently most difficult, wall breach.

Your inability to understand me doesn't make me wrong. It means you don't understand.

[triad]

Someone may have already 'debunked' this question, but here is what troubles me the most:

Engine rotor found at crash site:




Engine rotor of a 757:




That piece may not be the jet's engine rotor, but what is it then?


Sorry if this has been brought up already.

[ZNFYRH]

triad

It has been addressed.

I myself showed the statistics for the size of a PW-2000 series engine and how it that picture does not show a part of the engine.

[triad]

Quote by: ZNFYRH triad It has been addressed. I myself showed the statistics for the size of a PW-2000 series engine and how it that picture does not show a part of the engine.

My question was, what is it then? The APU of a boeing 757 is much smaller than that part, and the rotor stripped down is still significantly larger than what is shown from the crash.

Would the people who say that a 757 did infact crash into the pentagon please try to explain what that part is? I just can't find anything that matches that part to that of a 757.:rolleyes:

[ZNFYRH]

A large hubcap, maybe?

[Nono]

Part of the landing gear?

What are the exact dimensions of the 757's APU rotor, t?