Reply #26: Quick answers

[Sweet Pea]

According to your logic You need a similar comparison to logically state that the position that you hold is factual...

I disagree. I am not comparing this to anything. I am not stating that the damage is more severe or less severe when "compared to such-and-such...". I think the damage is commensurate with that of any airliner-type/sized aircraft crash. The variables involved here are the speed (pretty doggone fast), the building (pretty doggone robust) and the fuel (pretty doggone lots).

We can show the crash of the alleged 175 into the South Tower that produced no apparent shock wave. The Pentagon crash produced a sonar shock wave that penetrated the walls of the heliport.There is photographic proof of this.

Again, according to your demand for proof ,whatever your position,it doesn't qualify either unless we set up another experiment with a 757 at 500 mph into a structure similar to the Pentagon.

Flt 175 hit at what....the 80th floor or so? How high is that? Roughly 800 feet or so in the air. I would not expect a lateral impact such as that 800 feet above the surface to produce much of a vertical shock wave. Force vector and all that jazz would remain horizontal. Conversely, the impact at the Pentagon, scant feet above the ground, should be expected to produce much more of a shock wave, albeit not one that would resemble the detonation of a missile or explosive warhead.

Of those thousands only less than one hundred Pentagon workers were interviewed. A few smelled cordite,of those few I know that a few were seasoned war vets with combat experience.

You can go ahead and take the word of the "few" if you like. regardless of being interviewed, I'd like to think if many others smelled "cordite" they would have come forth with those claims. I know many, many more "seasoned war vets with combat experience" who were there and never said anything about smelling "cordite".

The explosion at the wtc2 did not have a whitish coloration upon initial impact.

True. But that B-52 crash I linked to did have a whitish color to the explosion. All I am saying there is that you cannot claim as a blanket statement that the whitish color to an aircraft crash/explosion indicates explosives were involved.

How do you explain the large hole into the A-E drive with its lack of pervasive fire damage in the surrouding areas?

I've been wondering about that because I have walked down that access drive a number of times lately. I still maintain that it could have been created by the collective mass of the aircraft, office equipment, furniture, etc. I am also wondering if that section of wall was weakened by said mass of wreckage and that the hole was widened by rescue personnel for access. Pure speculation on my part, but I have been toying with the idea of asking around at work about that.

Why is there a profound lack of fire damage in the North section of the crash area in the B and C rings?

I'd be speculating on the exact reason why, but my guess is that the fire and explosive effects of the fuel-explosion never reached those areas. There was significant smoke damage there - perhaps the fire sprinklers worked in those areas.

Where are the passenger's bodies and luggage on the lawn when it is obvious that the plane exploded immediately upon impact because the main inferno was located at the facade of the A ring spilling out into the lawn?

I am so glad that we agree that Neil Armstrong did indeed walk on the moon and that he was a pretty smart cookie, but on this one I will never convince you that for an object traveling at that speed (we've been thru this before.....450 knots, 515 mph, 45,565 feet per second) to deposit luggage and bodies from the longitudinal axis of a pressurized aluminum tube onto the outside ground behind the impact point would have to defy the laws of physics.

Where's the second engine?

If I told you precisely where it ended up would that change your mind any? I don't know where it ended up, but I know it had to be there somewhere - and I believe that with the same conviction that you have that it may not exist. Simply because the location of the second engine (I'm glad we agree that there was at least AN engine) did not rate headline status doesn't mean it is not there.