The Pentagon on 911.. a cruise missile struck the building!

[icosaface]

Quote:

Quote:Oh oh, the ministry of truther shows its scatological presence by ignoring all the incontrovertible evidence while rewriting the scripts. This week its "lets pretend anyone who disagrees with the grand retard must be mentally ill. We will feign sympathy and thereby distract attention from the evidence".

And this "incontrovertible evidence that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon" is WHAT, exactly?
Please use reasoned argument in your response. Give it a try, eh?

Earlier on in this thread I said that I didn't know what, if anything, had hit the Pentagon. However, I will say that the evidence indicates that it was not a 757 jumbo let loaded with fuel which is why the files, desk, binders, book lying open on top of a wooden stool and all the other items that would have burned didn't even char. See the photo attachments in my previous post on this page for evidence of what I just described. The photos I attached show that whatever it was that happened did not generate enough heat in the collapsed area to burn or even char any of those items shown.

[JazzRoc]

Quote:Burn your bra, JR. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BmEGm-mraE

One of my favorite bands.

Quote:you also think the likes of Faraday, Newton, Einstein and Kepler "wrong". so what?

Let's see:
Faraday (electro-magnetism) ............N/A
Newton (laws of motion, gravity, optics) applicable, N/A, N/A
Einstein (relativity)............................N/A
Kepler (orbital motion).......................N/A
The appropriate calculations are Newtonian, and the important ones are QUANTITATIVE, to do with ENERGY

Quote:the theory you subscribe to vis a vis the lamp posts, is incorrect and not factual although not specifying what did happen, ergo, be I wrong or nay - irrespective of that, you are most certainly wrong yourself in 'all probabilities'..:)

I'm not surprised you smiled after that. The correct theory is (apparently) that after the cruise missile went in men in black torched off the lamp posts. With heat-affected zones that didn't reach the edges.

Quote:no, he just obfuscates <SNIP> so many occasions.*shrugs* JMHO

Chomsky represents no part of my argument. Just a part of my ad-hom, if you like. Didn't you like my "MISUNDERESTIMATED" joke?

Quote:haha saw that one coming. Roll out the barrel!! hm, so you always say this, so I might as well say "it isn't like witnesses didn't start 'unexpectedly' dying in the daze after 911" And we can continue on the road to nowhere in a rowing boat with one oar. sounds great.

Doesn't it? I don't know how people can live at all in the US. Being an eyewitness is so frequently fatal.

Quote:sorry I cannot read upwards on Sundays.

LOL. Know what you mean....:)

[JazzRoc]

Quote:Earlier on in this thread I said that I didn't know what, if anything, had hit the Pentagon. However, I will say that the evidence indicates that it was not a 757 jumbo let loaded with fuel which is why the files, desk, binders, book lying open on top of a wooden stool and all the other items that would have burned didn't even char. See the photo attachments in my previous post on this page for evidence of what I just described. The photos I attached show that whatever it was that happened did not generate enough heat in the collapsed area to burn or even char any of those items shown.

Well that deserves a reasonable reply.

Consider the initial events. Sections of full fuel tank come through the windows at 540 mph and strike columns inside, vaporizing and exploding. A split second later the fireball will strike the ceiling and flow mostly forward, searching for upward holes to pour out upward from. After a minute the kerosine appeared to have finished most of its combustion, and a large office fire remained as the furnishings continued to burn.

Could books and pieces of paper which had come to rest on the floor and that hadn't already been ignited by contact with kerosine possibly have been ignited by radiation downward from the hot ceiling?

No.

The ceiling (at 1600 deg F even) at APPROX twelve feet away was TOO FAR AWAY to ignite OR EVEN CHAR unignited paper by thermal radiation within the time it took for the kerosine to burn completely.

Had airflow been restricted in the area it might have been a different story, but there was a hole upward to the sky for it all to pour out of. There was insufficient time for the temporarily radiant ceiling to ignite stuff.

[---]

Quote:Let's see:
Faraday (electro-magnetism) ............N/A
Newton (laws of motion, gravity, optics) applicable, N/A, N/A
Einstein (relativity)............................N/A
Kepler (orbital motion).......................N/A
The appropriate calculations are Newtonian, and the important ones are QUANTITATIVE, to do with ENERGY

They were all ardent deists.

[icosaface]

Notice the fence in the first photo. Notice the white car burning and the car beside it which is not burning. Notice the ground level fire and the windows on the floors above it are not broken. Notice that the vehicles are not smashed into the building from behind as they would have been had a plane wing clipped them. If a wing tank had ripped open in that area fuel would have splashed all over the place and once the fuel mixture was between the (LEL) lower explosion limit and the upper explosion limit (UEL) there would have been an explosion along with a resultant fire. Both vehicles would have been on fire. Actually neither vehicle would have been there because they would have been smashed to bits by the wing that should have hit them. See next photo. Notice that there are 2 vehicles, the one closest to the alleged impact area appears to be in much better shape than the it's neighbor. Notice the windows above the cars are not broken yet to the left of the cars and considerably further away from the collapsed zone there are numerous broken windows. How does this compute?