Yes, I'm an aircraft mechanic

Had a hunch you might be aviation interested when I saw your nick

Where the plaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaane?

Look at the description of this photo, exit_wound.jpg. Does that not mean anything to you? If you are looking for impact marks, the wing and aircraft impact was on the other side of the building. This website describes that photo as the "punch out" damage to Ring C of the Pentagon Building.

Have a look at http://911research.wtc7.net

Where the plaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaane?

Look at the description of this photo, exit_wound.jpg. Does that not mean anything to you? If you are looking for impact marks, the wing and aircraft impact was on the other side of the building. This website describes that photo as the "punch out" damage to Ring C of the Pentagon Building.

Have a look at http://911research.wtc7.net

Beechguy:

Alex seems to think the front (cockpit) section of the aircraft was intact when that exit hole was made in Ring C. Reasonable people realize that is patently impossible but Alex is standing by his argument for some reason. I have pointed out this hole was very likely made by hard substance objects such as landing gears, engine parts, etc, and was certainly not an aluminum or even carbon fiber part of the aircraft.

This punch out hole was made by hard metal parts of the aircraft when it reached the inner-most parts of the Pentagon.

And just another load of crap by a guy that wants some attention. How many does that guy say, "we don't know", "we can't prove", blah, blah.

That's not what I meant. Invaders have been crossing over into the US for years over the souther border - a border the US obviously doesn't control.

Oh that is quite a stretch even for you my good man........

There is a BIG difference between a immigrant sneaking in via swimming across a river or running across a desert &....

Your definition was about a country losing control of its border. The USA clearly cannot control who comes over the southern border. A foreign army could easily come over - one platoon at a time. Uh-oh, hope I didn't give anyone any ideas here!

Another countries military Industrial Complex parking its big A$$ in your country & then sweeping your countries streets door to door at their own discretion

If being capable of keeping the world's lone superpower from crossing your border whenever they feel like is a condition for being a non-failed state, then there must be at least 190 failed states on the planet.

Although it would be interesting for the Mexican Government to charge over the border & sweep the streets of Texas door to door claiming they are chasing the Frito Bandito so have every right to be there.

Frito Bandito? Aiiii-yiii-yi-yi!

Your definition was about a country losing control of its border.

Actually not mine but the accepted norm

Then again this is OTB & minutia is king....

Anyway if it helps ya...

loss of physical control of its territory

If being capable of keeping the world's lone superpower from crossing your border whenever they feel like is a condition for being a non-failed state, then there must be at least 190 failed states on the planet.

Funny you should mention that

Because most if not all of the ones being discussed..... have in common that they were invaded or attacked by the one you mention....Not that the previous puppet regimes controlled by the same was any better

Also funny that you use the term *lone* super power. Quite a few have the power to obliterate this globe a few times over. Not that it is anything to be proud of.....

Nor is it anything to be proud of when your country is known for various forms of war crimes...

Ooops thats right it is all fair as long as they dont call it a war....

Enemy combatants & any collateral damages dont count. Nor do they have any rights......my bad...or theirs I should say

Your definition was about a country losing control of its border.

Actually not mine but the accepted norm

Accepted norm? In your mind only perhaps.

Funny you should mention that

Because most if not all of the ones being discussed..... have in common that they were invaded or attacked by the one you mention....Not that the previous puppet regimes controlled by the same was any better

Yemen? Saudi Arabia? Jordan?

Also funny that you use the term *lone* super power. Quite a few have the power to obliterate this globe a few times over. Not that it is anything to be proud of.....

Russia's arsenal probably wouldn't make it out of the silos. That leave China. Hardly "quite a few" countries.

I think you just set some kind of new OTB record. Your post was wrong on every count including the "war crimes" rant I didn't bother to quote.

Where the plaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaane?

Look at the description of this photo, exit_wound.jpg. Does that not mean anything to you? If you are looking for impact marks, the wing and aircraft impact was on the other side of the building. This website describes that photo as the "punch out" damage to Ring C of the Pentagon Building.

Have a look at http://911research.wtc7.net

Beechguy:

Alex seems to think the front (cockpit) section of the aircraft was intact when that exit hole was made in Ring C. Reasonable people realize that is patently impossible but Alex is standing by his argument for some reason. I have pointed out this hole was very likely made by hard substance objects such as landing gears, engine parts, etc, and was certainly not an aluminum or even carbon fiber part of the aircraft.

This punch out hole was made by hard metal parts of the aircraft when it reached the inner-most parts of the Pentagon.

No problem Chuck, what I mean is that something went through that hole, do you agree with at least that?

This drawing of the debris path shows something went through that hole, from the picture it could be assumed it was the body of the plane.

This is from the official report.

That drawing is incorrect as we have proof of it from the picture that shows a hole at the entry point before the collapse.

But it apparently shows something went through a few concrete reinforced walls in a straight line.

The picture does not show any hard metal object that went through these walls.

Entry point:

Exit hole:

Please explain what part of the aircraft made the entry point hole and continued to do so (in a straight line) through a few concrete reinforced walls.

Accepted norm? In your mind only perhaps.

Ummm no ...plug failed state into any search engine & see for your self....or not

Yemen? Saudi Arabia? Jordan?

Please try to stick to the discussed topic....Oh wait is that where your confused?

We or you actually was arguing what a failed state was & drug all that other rubbish into it but........

It started here on this thread with WhiteRussians picture showing 4 failed states in dark red on his map.

Well maybe 6 if you count that tip of Somalia or Lebanon shown...( We know what happened there eh?)

But none of the ones you mention

Now you want to include *likely* failed? from that map. Hard to keep up with you if you continue in this helter skelter manner.

If you look back at what I ACTUALLY wrote you will see I did not even say all 4.

Russia's arsenal probably wouldn't make it out of the silos. That leave China. Hardly "quite a few" countries.

I think you just set some kind of new OTB record. Your post was wrong on every count including the "war crimes" rant I didn't bother to quote.

Oh no.............again? Ok this time you go & look it up I do not want to now jump on the merry go round over super power definition....Look it up & see more than one falls into that category...Or continue to believe in your version.

As for being wrong...well we just blew that myth didn't we? But at least you have continued your record....

Accepted norm? In your mind only perhaps.

Ummm no ...plug failed state into any search engine & see for your self....or not

Yemen? Saudi Arabia? Jordan?

Please try to stick to the discussed topic....Oh wait is that where your confused?

We or you actually was arguing what a failed state was & drug all that other rubbish into it but........

It started here on this thread with WhiteRussians picture showing 4 failed states in dark red on his map.

Well maybe 6 if you count that tip of Somalia or Lebanon shown...( We know what happened there eh?)

But none of the ones you mention

Now you want to include *likely* failed? from that map. Hard to keep up with you if you continue in this helter skelter manner.

If you look back at what I ACTUALLY wrote you will see I did not even say all 4.

Russia's arsenal probably wouldn't make it out of the silos. That leave China. Hardly "quite a few" countries.

I think you just set some kind of new OTB record. Your post was wrong on every count including the "war crimes" rant I didn't bother to quote.

Oh no.............again? Ok this time you go & look it up I do not want to now jump on the merry go round over super power definition....Look it up & see more than one falls into that category...Or continue to believe in your version.

As for being wrong...well we just blew that myth didn't we? But at least you have continued your record....

Why should I go look it up? You're the one who got it all wrong, you look it up. Just be sure your source isn't written above a 10th grade comprehension level.

Why should I go look it up?

Because your the one asking

Carry on but in the future do not ask what is meant by xxx ... & then cry when you get an answer.

You asked what folks consider a failed state I gave you the most accepted version via the web.

You then cry well if that is so then the US is a failed state ( your version of humor?). ....Yet then call the US the Lone Super Power.

Your an odd one & I guess you have a point....If your lucky it will be temporary

Look at the description of this photo, exit_wound.jpg. Does that not mean anything to you? If you are looking for impact marks, the wing and aircraft impact was on the other side of the building. This website describes that photo as the "punch out" damage to Ring C of the Pentagon Building.

Have a look at http://911research.wtc7.net

Beechguy:

Alex seems to think the front (cockpit) section of the aircraft was intact when that exit hole was made in Ring C. Reasonable people realize that is patently impossible but Alex is standing by his argument for some reason. I have pointed out this hole was very likely made by hard substance objects such as landing gears, engine parts, etc, and was certainly not an aluminum or even carbon fiber part of the aircraft.

This punch out hole was made by hard metal parts of the aircraft when it reached the inner-most parts of the Pentagon.

No problem Chuck, what I mean is that something went through that hole, do you agree with at least that?

This drawing of the debris path shows something went through that hole, from the picture it could be assumed it was the body of the plane.

This is from the official report.

That drawing is incorrect as we have proof of it from the picture that shows a hole at the entry point before the collapse.

But it apparently shows something went through a few concrete reinforced walls in a straight line.

The picture does not show any hard metal object that went through these walls.

Entry point:

Exit hole:

Please explain what part of the aircraft made the entry point hole and continued to do so (in a straight line) through a few concrete reinforced walls.

Try this link, it will be the last one I provide you. It answers all your questions.

It clearly shows debris, including a steel tire rim, outside the punch out hole. The tire rim is clearly visible in your picture. Simply look immediately behind the strap on the shoulder of the man in the picture.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

You asked what folks consider a failed state I gave you the most accepted version via the web.

That's about the most lame defense of a position I've ever heard.

This back and forth we are having is a prime example of what happens when someone (you) posts something incorrect (definition of a failed state is not being able to control your border) and instead of simply clarifying (no, what I'm saying is...) your pride takes over and you get defensive and insulting while making yourself look stupid ("I gave you the most accepted version via the web"). If we were sitting across from each other this never would have happened. In face to face, real time communication being able to read expressions and hear tones, it would have taken about 5 seconds to get right by this and continue in a more civil conversation. In other words, you are coming across stupid here but in real life I'm sure you're not.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

Thanks for posting that chuckd, theres so much on the internet on this its almost or is overwhelming.

This one certainly paints a clear picture that a 757 hit the pentagon.

NOW see if you can prove with the same strenght why building 7 of the WTC fell down. That one is definately odd, even much more sinister than why those twin towers nearly fell at freefall speeds.

If we were sitting across from each other this never would have happened.

Finally I can agree with what your saying.

But as I said from the start it is minutia isn't it

Surprise! Surprise!

For what it's worth, I am trying to recall hearing on 9/11 that WTC-7 had to be demolished due to it's unsafe condition. It's just in the back of my mind as a distant memory from that night.

I have no problem believing WTC-7 was brought down in a controlled demolition but NOT the other two.

Mr. Neverdie:

The above post is what I said some time ago about WTC-7.

"shot down the plane"

Haaaaa! The guy that said there were a few trillions of dollars missing/unaccounted for a day before all evidence was destroyed.

Anyway, Chuck I have checked your link and read through a 100 pages of comments on the case presented again (yes I know that site).

And still many questions remain.

The person claims that the lower 2/5 th of the body was strong enough to make the entry hole and the resulting debris acted like a liquid stream or something forcing it's way out and as a result the exit hole was made.

I have no problem with the idea that debris was build up along the trajectory of the plane and the force behind it was like a bulldozer forcing the piled up rubbish through a wall. But following this theory more and more debris should have been built up resulting in much greater damage to the outer wall but here we have an almost perfect circular punch out.

It does not make sense.

The simulation does not take into account the heavily reinforced wall with steel beams and Kevlar netting which was supposed to "catch" building debris that could act like projectiles.

Maybe a missile was shot at the wall before the plane hit?

The question remains why the US government does not release any other video from the Pentacon building itself.

Same for the black box recordings, they recovered them but not release the recordings.

Why?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-...ps-1955727.html

7/7 court told MI5 deceived MPs

MI5 deceived MPs by claiming the July 7 bombers had not been identified before carrying out their deadly attacks, a court heard today.

In May 2006 the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) said security agencies came across two of the men in 2004 during other investigations but did not identify them.

Neil Garnham QC, counsel for the Home Secretary and MI5, urged the coroner not to examine how the security service dealt with the limited information it had about the bombers before the attacks.

He argued that the ISC report was an "effective investigation" into MI5's involvement.

He said: "The public interest would, we submit, not be served - in fact would be positively damaged - by attempts in these inquests to reinvestigate the matters that were before the ISC."

Mr Garnham also suggested that national security could be damaged if the inquests attempted to delve deeper into MI5's activities.

He said: "Nothing more of the information revealed to the ISC by the security service can safely be put into the public domain or disclosed to the interested parties than is revealed by that ISC report."

--------------

P.A.T.S.I.E.S

Why is it you don't mention the other 2 holes in that wall? The "Where's the plane?" question seems to be copied from one of the websites. That is one of the more stupid questions and comments I have ever seen. The plane is mostly made of aluminum, the main areas that contain steel or other hard metals are the engines and some of the landing gear parts. That is why, when everything else is almost completely destroyed in crashes, pieces of those items can be found much more intact.

I believe those holes were produced, more by the force of the blast, rather than he actual impact of the parts. Anyway, if a person knew how the fuselage is constructed, they would be a complete idiot to expect that hole to be produced, by the somewhat intact body of that aircraft.

The idiots on those websites also will post video of aircraft being rammed into walls, as if that has any similarity to the impact of that aircraft, against the wall of the Pentagon. Also, other stupid pictures, are those that supposedly present a comparison of Flight 93 impacting the ground, with another aircraft protruding from the grond. The aircraft sticking out of the ground appears to be a tactical aircraft, they are not built the same way as a commercial airliner, and it obviously impacted the ground at a relatively slow velocity, not the 563 knots that Flt 93 was said to have struck the ground.

If I have time, I'll look more into the Flight 93, but for the Pentagon crash I don't see a point in wasting much more time.

"Where's the plane?" It was shredded into small pieces upon impact, then exposed to thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel and other debris for hours, until it burned the fck up!

Why is it you don't mention the other 2 holes in that wall? The "Where's the plane?" question seems to be copied from one of the websites. That is one of the more stupid questions and comments I have ever seen. The plane is mostly made of aluminum, the main areas that contain steel or other hard metals are the engines and some of the landing gear parts. That is why, when everything else is almost completely destroyed in crashes, pieces of those items can be found much more intact.

OK, so why is it that we do not see the impact holes of the hard metal objects such as engines?

I believe those holes were produced, more by the force of the blast, rather than he actual impact of the parts. Anyway, if a person knew how the fuselage is constructed, they would be a complete idiot to expect that hole to be produced, by the somewhat intact body of that aircraft.

Are you saying that these holes were not caused by landing gear and such?

The idiots on those websites also will post video of aircraft being rammed into walls, as if that has any similarity to the impact of that aircraft, against the wall of the Pentagon. Also, other stupid pictures, are those that supposedly present a comparison of Flight 93 impacting the ground, with another aircraft protruding from the grond. The aircraft sticking out of the ground appears to be a tactical aircraft, they are not built the same way as a commercial airliner, and it obviously impacted the ground at a relatively slow velocity, not the 563 knots that Flt 93 was said to have struck the ground.

Please provide proof of the speed.

If I have time, I'll look more into the Flight 93, but for the Pentagon crash I don't see a point in wasting much more time.

"Where's the plane?" It was shredded into small pieces upon impact, then exposed to thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel and other debris for hours, until it burned the fck up!

The fires were taken out relatively quickly, within hours.

Flight Data for flight 93, including airspeed and altitude fluctuations.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc04.pdf

Approximate times, and a very brief description.

09:35-09:39 Changed altitude from 38,000 ft. to 41,000 ft.

09:41-09:45 Descended from 41,000 ft. to 20,000 ft. altitude fluctuates.

09:46-09:59 Descent from 20,000 to approximately 5,000 ft. followed by climb to 10,000 ft.

10:01-10:03 Rapid descent from 10,000 ft. to impact.

Airspeed recorded at impact approximately 500 Knots. Difficult for me to determine the way the graph scale is graduated, but the investigators placed the number at 563 Knots if I remeber correctly.

Also for AlexLah regarding post #322.

1. Engines often depart the aircraft early in a crash, they could have been stopped by some of the columns, so were probably found nearer the initial

impact area at the front of the building.

2. Just my opinion, but I think most of the hole/holes damage, were caused by the explosive force of the impact, if objects did impact the wall, it could have

been smaller aircraft parts and objects already within the building.

3. For Flight 93, see the attached link, and other comments in my other reply. If you would care to look, search for related NTSB report links.

4. I would have to look for more details, but a report I read, said the fire/fires were not fully extinguished until the next day. If you wish to call that

"relatively quickly" or "within hours", be my guest. I would choose to decribe it differently.

Alex:

Go back to my post number 313, open the link and scan down until you find the pictures from the scene. You will find photos of engine parts found inside the Pentagon.

I will save you the trouble, here's the link yet again:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

If you will read this link through to the end, it explains what a computer simulation shows happened when the aircraft hit the building. I quote the paragraph below:

"In layman's terms the crash dynamics worked like so: A large hollow tube, with a belly full of luggage, a passenger bay with 60 people, and wings full of fuel smashed into the side of an almost solid object while moving at a tremendous speed (somewhere around 350-400mph). When the 225,000lb+ plane hit, it smashed apart with such force from the crash that it became like one massive column of liquid (no, the plane didn't melt or turn into liquid, it just acted like one physically - mountainslides act the same way, a million tons of rock acts like a large field of liquid during a landslide even if no water is present). All the small parts, luggage, people, seats, and all the tens of thousands of pounds of fuel acting like a massive river came crashing into the wall of the Pentagon. This force burst through the outside wall and flowed through the inside to the next wall, and momentum carried this mass until it finally ran out of inertia at the 3rd ring."

I read sumplace that the steel reinforcing rods were stressed, in tension.

That is why the buildings collapsed the wat they did.

When the planes hit, the steel rods all moved due to the tension being relaxed, and there was no support for the concrete, so whooooof..........., it all came tumbling down in the manner seen.

Tried to find the article, no luck.

It does not explain the strange seismic data of the WTC coming down.

Look at the similarity of an nukulaaaa underground explosion seismic data.

.

This seismic data has never been explained.

A plain crash in Iran shows the impact of an passenger airplane into the ground. The debris was spread as far/wide as 200 meters, Debris of flight 97 was spread over several miles.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8151327.stm

you think somebody would just come clean & fess up to what the government did.

Well they do have gag orders and can make you have an accident or something. Or if flight 97 was shot down the pilot would be thinking he saved the country from another attack? Imagine all the lawsuits and possible public anger when admitting it was shot down and these building were not brought down as a result of the planes flying in and some fire.

This report makes a reasonable case of some kind of nuclear fission process/power station underneath the towers. Think of a Chernobyl meltdown like scenario.

http://www.nucleardemolition.com/files/Dow...ero_Report0.pdf

you think somebody would just come clean & fess up to what the government did.

They already did. However, all the nutters have other ideas!