The Pentagon on 9/11 - MODERATOR WARNING ISSUED

Oh really? You know this for a fact?

What if he found that he made a couple of errors in calculating heat? Or some of his models were not modeled correctly? Or a formula was applied incorrectly somewhere?

Like I said, he specifically states that "research often takes unexpected turns". Until that final report comes out and is dissected, you have no clue what his conclusions are and if they are correct.

What if he comes out and says fire DID cause he collapse, just not EXACTLY the way NIST said?

 

I need to see the final report although I do not believe it is coming anytime soon if not at all ... Hulsey needs to submit his report and with an account of all documentation he has for an honest peer review ... is he using original architectural and structural plans/drawings or following the path of change orders/value engineering leading up to the final as-builts turned over to the owner of the property from the GC or developer? ...

having said that, I am not a structural engineer and I am sure there will be many things I am not qualified to address, re structural failure ... I am very interested in the paper trail though ... structures are never built as originally designed ...

 

I asked:

You should have replied NO, because you still don't get it because you're asking me:

The answer is if he's going to quote Hulsey, he should have also quoted the part where Hulsey claims fire was not the cause. Hulsey is the expert, not Shiner. Hulsey proved that NIST's theory is impossible. Therefore, there is NO valid official theory (or any theory) that exists that conclusively proves fire was the cause. Given that and given that fire has never caused any steel frame high rise to "collapse" in the manner that WTC7 was destroyed and given that the ONLY way any steel frame rise has ever been destroyed in the manner of WTC7 is by deliberate means (i.e. unnaturally), it is thoroughly illogical to believe fire can do that except on faith (which has no basis in science and/or logic)

What's stupid is that you post the above fallacy then call it stupid. What I question has nothing to do with Shiner's claims or beliefs.

So getting away from my tete a tete with Shiner, Hulsey strongly believes fire was not the cause, thousands of architects and engineers, many of whom are experts and have written papers on the subject strongly believe fire was not the cause and I know fire was not the cause for many, many reasons already supported and posted ad nauseum. To be sure I am not questioning whether fire was or wasn't the cause. Does it mean I can't or shouldn't question Hulsey's claim with respect to his preliminary report? Absolutely not. IMO nowhere in his preliminary report does he conclusively prove that fire was not the cause. What he does prove beyond any doubt is that NIST's theory is IMPOSSIBLE and is based on fraudulent science (not to mention criminal fraud). But again, maybe I missed something so perhaps someone can point out what I may have missed in his preliminary report.

 

Absolutely. Some of the facts posted about NIST have been ADMITTED to by NIST (e.g. their failure to account for the stiffeners for one).

None of that changes the facts I'm referring to.

IMO that is about as likely to happen as you changing your mind and believing 9/11 was an inside job.

 

Agreed. See, we can agree on some things. But if he doesn't, you sure have the option to peer review his final report and critique it. And I will even endorse your critique if it's properly written.

I can attest to that and likely not any kind of engineer either, you show you don't understand basic physics.

 

LOL

You don't need to be a structural engineer to see and understand what happened.

 

I haven't been taking the idea that that Coste video proves that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon seriously because the fact that a 757 wouldn't fit in the space behind the gate-lifting mechanism in the picture released by the government has already proven that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon.

(see this post)
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/page-51#post-1069610494

I'm finally going to start watching the Coste video this Saturday when I have some time. In the meantime, will somebody who's watched it tell me if the above situation is dealt with and, if it is, post a link and a time mark?

 

Sorry Scott there are too many videos to go through to try to find what you're looking for. Coste doesn't "prove" anything in his videos, he merely points out the evidence and the logic on a scientific basis. If you want to be objective you should review the videos whether you agree with Coste or not, they are very informative.

 

yes Scott, Coste did analyze the camera footage and he did not come to the same conclusions as you if I recall correctly ... you're going to have to find it yourself as I do not archive videos the way you do ...

 

This won't be settled until we can see it here. I'll look for it.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/page-51#post-1069610494

 

I just scanned this video.

Pentagon 9/11 - Explanation of the Evidence - Wayne Coste



I found nothing about the above issue. Is this all there is to the Coste study? Does anyone have any other stuff I can scan?

 

that's just the 1st of 17 vids Scott ... look a little harder next time ...

 

I've scanned this whole series.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQDv-sbExGyUlhn_ir15tet5HAGM_eCBA

This issue is not addressed in the Coste videos.
https://www.911-strike.com/ldsxox1.gif


Assuming that this picture is not doctored...
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/videos/docs/pcamframe1.jpg

...whatever that is behind the gate-lifting mechanism, it's too short to be a 757.


Watch this from the 20:45 time mark to the 21:48 time mark.

9/11 Painful Deceptions - 2005 (full length)



Look at the fourth and fifth pictures on this page.
https://web.archive.org/web/20111205224534/http://0911.voila.net:80/index4.htm


https://web.archive.org/web/20150910171047/http://0911.voila.net:80/BionicAntboy.htm
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------
IF this is legit untampered footage,
then it clearly suggests a plane smaller than a Boeing 757.

There is a website that covers this well...
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index1.htm

Focusing on pages III - IV , which analyze the 5 frames,
the creator of this website as done a spatial analysis
that clearly shows that the plane in question is too small
to be Flight 77.

On page III, he stabilizes and animates the sequence.
On page IV, using 3D spatial imaging techniques, he superimposes a 757 to scale
over the location of the tail of the plane in the image,
taking angle of approach relative to the camera,
and perspective into account.

It's clear that the plane in frame one can NOT be a 757.
It is no more than 1/2 the length of Flight 77, and maybe less.
-----------------------------------


If the issue has been addressed and I missed it, please link the video and time mark.

 

Scott you seemed to have (conveniently) missed this post:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/page-79#post-1069925709

And this post:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/page-79#post-1069925725

 

That is so stupid.

Plant an entire 757 in and around the building.

countless witnesses say the plane hit.

 

The info in post #1613 closes the whole case so your arguments about witnesses are moot.

In an operation this big there are going to be planted bogus witnesses.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=10632

This is consistent with there being some witnesses who say it was a small plane.

There are witnesses who said they saw a big airliner flying away on the other side of the Pentagon.
National Security Alert - Part 6/9 - Sensitive Information

(5:10 time mark)


You're not going to make the above argument go away by talking about witnesses. People can be mistaken and they can lie.


edit
.................
(post #1559)
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/page-78#post-1069916675

 

You need to dial 9/11, and tell them about your headaches.

 

Can't recall any others anticipating going into the afterlife than the announcement of Bush & then those 9/11 airplane hijackers; where if once is an accident, twice is a coincidence & there are no coincidences while the media has it as pomp & no circumstance......​

 

I'm not even going to ask for a translation.

 

Guessing there was no hijacked airplane to hit the Pentagon flown by some Islam flying carpet trained terrorist who was getting paid some 40 virgins & an afterlife with Mohammed flying burning chariots......

 

You never addressed why almost half the witnesses saw the plane OVER the Navy Annex and why the other half saw it NORTH of the Navy Annex? Who is lying Scott? They cannot all be correct. How do you account for those contradictions?

 

Did you listen to Sean Boger's explanation? The air traffic controller that was present in the tower next to the helipad? He said the plane impacted the Pentagon.

 

Roosevelt Roberts? I think you need to look at what he said and come back to us. He didn't see a plane "flying away on the other side of the Pentagon" like you claim.

He didn't witness an flyover. Is there anyone who actually saw a plane pull up and fly over the Pentagon? Please point us to them.

 

The bottom line is that a 757 couldn't have hit the Pentagon because a 757 wouldn't fit in the space behind the gate-lifting mechanism.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/videos/docs/pcamframe1.jpg

(post #1613)
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/page-81#post-1069946192

People can lie and/or be mistaken or remember things incorrectly. This doesn't make the above proof go away as there are plausible scenarios that would explain it.

Same as above. His saying a 757 hit the Pentagon doesn't make the fact that a 757 wouldn't fit in that space go away. He may be one of the planted bogus witnesses. Facts trump testimony.

You seem to be trying to mislead the viewers who don't take the time to look at the videos.

Viewers...

Start watching this video at the 5:10 time mark.


It continues in the next part.

 

Wrong. Here is EXACTLY what he said.

http://911blogger.com/news/2009-08-06/cit-transcript-roosevelt-roberts

It headed back out the same way THE FIRST PLANE came in. Not the same plane even.

NOBODY saw a plane lift up and fly OVER the Pentagon. NOBODY saw a plane fly away on the OPPOSITE side of the Pentagon, least of all, Roosevelt Roberts.

Quit trying to spin what he said into your own fantasy.