Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

nationalize the fed

(2,169 posts)
20. Gee, it's 2014 and people keep asking questions
Tue Mar 18, 2014, 05:30 AM
Mar 2014
The debris from the destroyed airframe didn't just vanish or vaporize; the debris still had mass and velocity, i.e. kinetic energy. The generally accepted answer to your question, provided by the ASCE study, is that the hole was caused mainly by the large and heavy landing gear strut shown in this photo, but there was a lot of other debris that might have caused or contributed to it:


So where are the photos of the landing gear strut that supposedly punched the hole?
Even one would help.

Why didn't the other landing gear struts punch other holes?



the first known photo of the exit hole. The photo was taken before hose lines were even laid...


The landing gear strut is one of a few theories. But there's no proof for any of these kooky made up "thought" experiments.

Pentagon Renovation Program spokesman Lee Evey explains on September 15, “the nose of the plane just barely broke through the inside of the C Ring, so it was extending into A-E Drive a little bit.” (US Department of Defense, 9/15/2001)

Eleven days later, another military source claims that an engine of the plane was responsible for creating the hole. (MDW News Service, 9/26/2001)

Another theory put forth in a 2004 National Geographic program is that reverberating shockwaves from the plane’s impact were responsible for the hole. (National Geographic Channel, 2004)

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=lee_evey_1

the real answer to your question of why they didn't shoot down either plane is because your assertion that they had the means to shoot it down is false.


Are you saying that the Pentagon did not have the capability to shoot down aircraft that posed a threat? The centre of the "Worlds Only Superpower"? After 5 decades of a "cold war" where students were told to hide under desks in case of a nuclear attack?

Because truly that is an astounding, hilarious claim. You've heard of AA batteries?



http://cryptome.org/eyeball/wny-mb/wny-mb.htm

Yes, I can: Cheney's order was to shoot it down,


Anyone that believes anything uttered from Dick Cheney's mouth should be embarrassed and ashamed

Cheney Admits that He Lied about 9/11
Posted on March 8, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog
What Else Did He Lie About?

When they testified together before the 9/11 Commission, W. and Mr. Cheney kept up a pretense that in a previous call, the president had authorized the vice president to give a shoot-down order if needed. But the commission found “no documentary evidence for this call.”

In other words, Cheney pretended that Bush had authorized a shoot-down order, but Cheney now admits that he never did. In fact, Cheney acted as if he was the president on 9/11. *

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/cheney-admits-that-he-lied-about-911.html


At this stage, I don't think anyone expects "truthers" to accept reasonable answers, but pretending that the answers don't exist just makes you look like you're very poorly informed.


That's funny

We will keep asking questions and doing things like phoning C-SPAN and there isn't anything at all anyone can do to stop us.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

September 11 – The New Pearl Harbor [View all] damnedifIknow Mar 2014 OP
FFS will this stuff ever end? nt Logical Mar 2014 #1
With answers it will end damnedifIknow Mar 2014 #2
The answer is there! You just ignore it! nt Logical Mar 2014 #3
Not at all damnedifIknow Mar 2014 #4
The real story is boring to you, conspiracy is alway more fun! nt Logical Mar 2014 #5
Would you be open to a new investigation? damnedifIknow Mar 2014 #6
yes, but who would you trust to do the investigating? zappaman Mar 2014 #7
Many do reject the NIST version damnedifIknow Mar 2014 #8
Sure, no downside to that I agree. Unless really costly. nt Logical Mar 2014 #9
What lingering questions would those be? AZCat Mar 2014 #10
why was there molten steel & iron? n/t wildbilln864 Mar 2014 #11
You know the answer to that William Seger Mar 2014 #14
so again you'll deny what... wildbilln864 Mar 2014 #15
What I deny is their ability to identify "molten steel" by sight William Seger Mar 2014 #16
What about Janet MacKinlay? wildbilln864 Mar 2014 #17
fail! wildbilln864 Mar 2014 #18
Flail! William Seger Mar 2014 #19
So stop flailing! wildbilln864 Mar 2014 #22
Microspheres were found in all the dust William Seger Mar 2014 #23
Here are a few nationalize the fed Mar 2014 #12
Gee, it's like 2006 all over again William Seger Mar 2014 #13
Gee, it's 2014 and people keep asking questions nationalize the fed Mar 2014 #20
Gee, the people in Groundhog Day kept asking the same questions, too William Seger Mar 2014 #21
Where are the seats? Politicalboi Apr 2014 #24
There really isn't any point in this. AZCat Apr 2014 #25
"We've been through this dance before, and know what to expect." wildbilln864 May 2014 #26
Fooling anyone about what, bill? AZCat May 2014 #27
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Creative Speculation»September 11 – The New Pe...»Reply #20