Black People Don't Care About George Bush
2005-09-13 00:11:31 UTC
A cruise missile hit the pentagon.
Forget about planes. You said yourself you don't have any evidence ofa plane.
So you can't show evidence of a plane.
Except for part of a single engine, which doesn't appear to be from a757.
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...can't use your *lack* of evidence of a plane as constructive evidence
of anything else.
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 fromnot 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.
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?you want people to believe your theory.
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.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.
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 Pentagons 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
reports 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
ASCEs 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