Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Finally found a picture with some fuselage from 9-11

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-10-06 08:49 PM
Original message
Finally found a picture with some fuselage from 9-11
I remember seeing this picture a long time ago but could never find it again. I thought you folks might be interested in it. It is the only picture I've seen (except for 1 small piece from the Pentagon) of anything that resembles an airplanes from any of the four crash sites. (sorry about the size, but in this case the bigger the better)




New York City, October 25, 2001 -- A portion of the fuselage of United Airlines Flight 175 on the roof of WTC 5. FEMA Photo/Gene Corley


http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_det... ;jsessionid=61D8D6EBCFE7509C82D396C95797BE6A?id=12390
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-06 12:25 AM
Response to Original message
1. I wonder if they sprayed that piece of fuselage
before they planted it, or after they planted it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janedoe Donating Member (540 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-06 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. It was before. Otherwise the dust (ash) would stick to it.
But, they could have at least run it through a fire. Isn't it interesting that this piece of aluminum apparently suffered no heat damage, while the steel columns vaporized, or shattered, in that raging inferno? (I've not seen wilted beams, only shattered beams in straight sections.)

Wouldn't you expect it to be the other way around? i.e. Aluminum will vaporize well before the steel is barely weakened.

Aluminum melts at 660C. So, planting that piece sort of destroys their "raging fire" story, doesn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-06 07:10 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. The boiling point of aluminum is not that high.
BP for aluminum is 2792 K, MP for iron is 1811 K (iron has higher MP than steels).

Iron/steel will melt long before aluminum vaporizes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-06 07:26 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. One would think a self proclaimed materials expert
might know that

Iron/steel will melt long before aluminum vaporizes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-06 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. One would think. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-06 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. aluminum melts at lower temp then it vaporizes,
and it certainly melts at a much lower temp than steel.

If it was exposed to fire (which it supposedly was) i'd expect to see heat damage on it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-06 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. I was responding to the statement...
that aluminum vaporizes at a temperature lower than the melting point of steel.

There was nothing in my post (or the originating post) about the melting point of aluminum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janedoe Donating Member (540 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #9
43. Yes, typically, aluminum melts at a temperature lower
Edited on Sat Jan-14-06 01:55 AM by janedoe
than it vaporizes, but aluminum can also vaporize approaching its melting temperature. And, as you pointed out, the melting temperature for aluminum is much lower than it is for steel.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #43
44. "Aluminum can also vaporize approaching its melting temperature."
Uh - what?

I'd love to see where you got that information. You don't happen to have a source, do you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-06 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. What kind of steel?
janedoe wrote:
Aluminum will vaporize well before the steel is barely weakened.

Aluminum melts at 660C.

What kind of steel are you talking about? And was that the type used in the WTC?


How does temperature affect steel strength?

For hot rolled structural steel the yield strength reduces as the temperature increases dropping to about 60% of its ambient temperature strength at around 400C and approximately 10% at 800C.

http://fireengineering.corus.garnerdigital.com/s/fireengineering/index.asp?pageID=240#10

I was under the impression that you were a materials expert. Perhaps you could explain your statements in more detail.
-Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-06 02:59 AM
Response to Original message
3. How did the fusilage get from WTC1 to WTC5?
Did that angle out of the WTC1 and drop onto WTC5? Looks relatively fire-free.

FEMA pic....interesting
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ferry Fey Donating Member (289 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-06 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. Spray-painted notation NTSB?
That spray-painting on the fuselage seems to say "NTSB" and a checkmark (fairly elegant!) or V.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-06 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. The caption for the picture on the FEMA site:

New York City, October 25, 2001 -- A portion of the fuselage of United Airlines Flight 175 on the roof of WTC 5. FEMA Photo/Gene Corley

http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do;jsessionid=E7DAE0673EAB6D57F3926985F565FB61?id=12390

And if I recall correctly, this piece was ejected from WTC2 during the plane's impact. (Although I'm too lazy to double check right now.)
-Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-06 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Most likely planted
as with ALL the 9/11 plane debris, especially at the Penta"gone".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ferry Fey Donating Member (289 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-06 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. Piece "ejected from WTC2?
I'd like some corroboration of that, Make7.

I'm trying to think of how it would go BOING or KA-CHING and pop back out again, and it's not working.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-06 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Perhaps the piece went through the building? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-12-06 03:28 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. Here ya go.
Click on the picture below to view movie.



(Source: www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit1)

Notice that there are objects exiting the NorthEast corner of the building.

Here is a FEMA graphic showing the trajectories of the plane debris coming out of the tower(s):



The graphic can be found on page 6 of www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf.
-Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-12-06 05:53 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. So the piece of fuselage landed on the top of WTC5
Edited on Thu Jan-12-06 06:38 AM by DoYouEverWonder
This building



So in the picture with the fuselage there's a fireman walking on the roof where there is no smoke, soot or fire damage on anything, on top of building that no longer existed? Didn't most of that building collapse on 9-11?




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-12-06 06:48 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. No most of WTC5 did not collapse on 911.

Figure 4-11   WTC 5 facade damage.  (pdf page 5)


Figure 4-6   Damage to WTC 5.  (pdf page 10)

And the image you posted is on pdf page 13 from fema403_ch4. Also found in that document:
"Because of their close proximity to WTC 1 and WTC 2, all three buildings were subjected to severe debris impact damage when the towers collapsed, as well as the fires that developed from the debris. Most of WTC 4 collapsed when impacted by the exterior column debris from WTC 2; the remaining section had a complete burnout. WTC 5 and WTC 6 were impacted by exterior column debris from WTC 1 that caused large sections of localized collapse and subsequent fires spread throughout most of the buildings. All three buildings also were able to resist progressive collapse, in spite of the extensive local collapses that occurred.

This chapter describes the design and construction features of these buildings and observed damages. Site observations of damage in WTC 5 and WTC 6 were conducted by team members, although access in WTC 6 was severely limited. WTC 4 was declared unsafe, and no access was allowed.
" - (pdf page 1)

The caption for the picture you posted in the original thread starts with: "New York City, October 25, 2001".

I believe WTC5 was demolished in November 2001. I'd look it up, but I'm sure you can do that yourself if you are interested in knowing the exact date.
-Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adolfo Donating Member (525 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-12-06 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. Question
If debris didn't hit WTC7 then what brought it down?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-12-06 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Answer.
Edited on Thu Jan-12-06 02:50 PM by Make7
Debris from the collapse of WTC1 did hit WTC7. There are pictures of some of the damage. Like these.

- Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-12-06 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. More accounts of heavy damage from debris
Deputy Chief Peter Hayden:

but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 oclock in the afternoon, but by about 2 oclock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.



http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayd ...

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti:

I dont know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.





http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visc ...


Battalion Chief John Norman:


From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. .... but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.

We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see whats going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didnt look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didnt look good.




http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/norm ...


Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, well head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.



http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyl


http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-81.pdf

page 165


One Battalion Chief coming from the building indicated that they had searched floors 1 through 9 and found that the building was clear.390 In the process of the search, the Battalion Chief met the buildings Fire Safety Director and Deputy Fire Safety Director on the ninth floor. The Fire Safety Director reported
that the buildings floors had been cleared from the top down. By this time, the Chief Officer responsible for WTC 7 reassessed the building again and determined that fires were burning on the following floors:
6, 7, 8, 17, 21, and 30.391 No accurate time is available for these actions during the WTC 7 operations; however, the sequence of event indicates that it occurred during a time period from 12:30 p.m. to
approximately 2:00 p.m.

The Chief Officer then met with his command officer to discuss the buildings condition and FDNYs capabilities for controlling the building fires. A Deputy Chief who had just returned from inside the
building reported that he had conducted an inspection up to the 7th or 8th floor.392 He indicated that the stairway was filling with smoke and that there was a lot of fire inside the building. The chiefs discussed the situation and the following conditions were identified:

The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building.

The building had large fires burning on at least six floors. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations.

There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires.

They didnt have equipment, hose, standpipe kits, tools, and enough handie talkies for conducting operations inside the building.

At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. 395, 396 The order terminated the ongoing rescue
operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-12-06 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. The mystery 'bulge'
"we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13"

And is there any photographic/video evidence of this "bulge"?

And while you're at it, is there any photographic/video evidence of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-12-06 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. I don't know ...

but a standard that says that it must be in a photograph to be true blows your web site out of the water, wouldn't you say?

Do you really believe that everything that ever happens is photographed and/or is on the internet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-06 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #24
34. I would believe a 'bulge' in a 47-story skyscraper
that's been damaged and on fire in the middle of the spotlight with all those cameras on the ground and swirling overhead would be pretty damn newsworthy (and easy) for a someone to take a pic of. Wouldn't you? I'm sure the architecture/engineering world would be pretty damn interesting in seeing pics of this 'bulge' to for analysis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-06 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #34
40. Why would you think that?
If it was only bulging a foot or two it wouldn't even be visible unless you were close to it.

Stop evading the issue. My views are backed up by eyewitness accounts - the type of verbal accounts that are accepted as evidence in courts every day of the week. You have nothing except endless questions (with no real answers) and a pathological hatred of Bush. If photographs are the gold standard for the truth, lets see your story in pictures.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #40
45. So visible to witnesses, but not to cameras?
If it was only bulging a foot or two it wouldn't even be visible unless you were close to it.

Stop evading the issue. My views are backed up by eyewitness accounts - the type of verbal accounts that are accepted as evidence in courts every day of the week.


And funny this "bulge" which seemed to be seen by "countless" witnesses is NOT SEEN in one pic. Hmmm. Btw, witness testimony is the LEAST RELIABLE in court, yet for 9/11 coincidence theorists, it seems to be the most reliable. Hmmm.



and a pathological hatred of Bush


Ah the truth comes out, you are a Bush apologist! Btw, if you thought Bush was behind the attacks, what would you think of him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #45
60. Thank for the laugh!
1. Who would have a camera in close proximity to WTC7 after the towers collapsed? Besides the firefighters, who would in a position to take a close up picture of the bulge? In case you haven't noticed there are no pictures of that side of WTC7. So we have to fall back on eyewitness accounts - unless you can produce a picture showing a undamaged WTC7?

2. If eyewitness accounts are so unreliable why are there entire "smoking gun" threads in this forum based on eyewitness accounts - the explosions in the basement of the towers come immediately to mind. Are you saying they are not credible?

3. Bush apologist? Boy you do have a twisted perspective. I have stated many times on this forum that Bush's incompetence was responsible for 9/11 - I have also said many times that there are many government officials that should be in jail. I just haven't drunk the kool-aid like you have. I have been a Democrat for 30 years and have never voted for a republican.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-12-06 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. Speaking of photographic/video evidence
I was wondering if you have any to back your your claim that the fuselage on the roof of WTC 5 was planted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-12-06 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. Please prove that it wasn't
This picture was taken around a month after the attack. Anything could have been staged at that point.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-06 05:16 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. killtown is the one that said it was planted.
It seems like a reasonable request to ask him to back up his statement.

Or can someone make absolutely any claim that they want, and as long is there is no evidence to disprove that claim then it is assumed to be accurate? Even if there is not a shred of evidence supporting it?

- Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-06 05:25 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. He said most likely
not that it was or that he had proof. I think since there are so many 'questions' and the lack of any recognizable plane at four different crash sites, he has a right to his doubts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-06 07:35 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. No, he did not
I wonder if they sprayed that piece of fuselage before they planted it, or after they planted it.


Seems pretty clear to me. It was planted. I want to know if there is any evidence to substantiate that claim.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-06 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #29
37. Yes I did.
10. Most likely planted as with ALL the 9/11 plane debris, especially at the Penta"gone".


You should include ALL of what I said so no one thinks you're being biased.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-06 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. You need to pick a statement
and stand by it. Either you believe it was "most likely planted" or it "was planted."

You can't believe both.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #39
46. Shall I call a
waambulance for you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. A waambulance ?
What are you babbling about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. For people who gripe over the pettiest things
instead of calling an ambulance for them, you call a "waa"mbulance for them. Get it? I won't be surprised if you don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #49
51. I was just trying to confirm your position
Sorry you feel I was being petty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. Then you should have asked me to clarify my statement
in a less whiny matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #53
55. I did ask in a very direct manner
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #55
56. A whiny direct manner.
You and Mr. Perfect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-06 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #27
36. "Most likely planted"
I noticed you forgot to include ALL of my statements. But I wouldn't expect anything less from Gov't hacks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-06 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #36
41. You seemed to have forgotten to mention that in your first reply.
Edited on Fri Jan-13-06 04:12 PM by Make7
killtown wrote:
I wonder if they sprayed that piece of fuselage before they planted it, or after they planted it.

Post#1

Apparently this is what you meant to say: "I wonder if they most likely sprayed that piece of fuselage before they most likely planted it, or after they most likely planted it."

I guess that explains it, but perhaps in the future you should proofread your posts more thoroughly to make sure that the proper meaning is being conveyed.

- Make7

Edit to add an additional 'most likely'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #41
48. See, that wasn't so hard to realize now, was it?!
Apparently this is what you meant to say: "I wonder if they most likely sprayed that piece of fuselage before they most likely planted it, or after they most likely planted it."


Glad to see you have some common sense!


perhaps in the future you should proofread your posts more thoroughly to make sure that the proper meaning is being conveyed.


I'll try harder next time Mr. Perfect. :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #48
59. Well, if you hadn't completely contradicted yourself,...
... it might have been easier for people to figure out what you were trying to say.

Might I make a suggestion? You should make statements in support of every conceivable position on an issue, that way you'll always be able to point out someplace where you said exactly what is needed to support your current position. Whatever that may be...

- Perfect7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-06 07:37 AM
Response to Reply #26
30. And how would someone prove it wasn't?
Edited on Fri Jan-13-06 07:38 AM by LARED
Exactly how is that done?

So you suspect that someone lifted the fuselage to the roof with a crane without anyone noticing this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-06 07:42 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. For the same reasons
that no one can 'prove' that it was.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-06 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #31
33. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-06 08:00 AM
Response to Reply #30
32. Well, there isn't "any photographic/video evidence" that it WAS planted,..
Edited on Fri Jan-13-06 08:12 AM by Make7
... so I believe if we apply the standard killtown seems to be implying in his post, we can conclude that it was not planted.

:) Make7
Edit to remove one instance of the letter 't'.

NOTE: This post is a joke. (For those of you without a sense of humor.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #30
50. Who said it needed a crane to be lifted?
I thought aluminum was relatively light?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #50
54. It is pretty light
but the piece is 10 or 12 feet long and at least 4 feet wide. At that size it is not light enough to easily handled manually.

So you think they dragged all twelve feet of it up the stairs or just threw it up on the roof?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #54
57. He had help
"So you think they dragged all twelve feet of it up the stairs or just threw it up on the roof?"


and that would be impossible?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #57
58. I believe most office stairways would not accommodate
something that large. I could be wrong, but you still need to answer how it got up there without anyone noticing it being moved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-06 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #25
35. No, and "Most likely planted"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-06 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #17
38. Wow!
A 130 ton plane crashes into the building and only three pieces fly out. Amazing! And two of the parts are the same ones that were supposedly found inside the Pentagon. Gee, what a "coincidence"!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-06 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #38
42. In your estimation, how many pieces should have "flown out"?
Given the design of the building and of the plane, how many pieces should have "flown out"?

I don't know if that really qualifies as a coincidence. In fact, I believe the heavy mechanical parts have the greatest likelihood of sustaining the least amount of damage in a plane crash, and therefore a higher probability of recovery. They also have greater kinetic energy compared to other parts of the aircraft, which would imply that they would be the leading candidates for traveling the greatest distance in the same general direction that the plane was headed in the event of a crash.

- Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #42
52. odds are that there are always smaller pieces of debris
lying around larger pieces of debris. Sorry if I can't give you a specific number as you seem to be implying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #52
61. But you know that three is the wrong number somehow? ( n/t )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rich Hunt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-06 08:07 PM
Response to Original message
13. that looks funny

The background looks funny - are you sure it isn't doctored?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-06 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. It's on FEMA's website
So it's not supposed to be doctored.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Oct 22nd 2019, 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC