Pentagon damage

[jaydeehess]

A CT believer wrote that the damage to the Pentagon "is consistent with a missile".

A response to this was

90 to 100 feet of the front wall is missing yet there is no evidence of the debris of that wall scattered about in front of the building. An explosive set off inside would have blown the wall outward. That did not occur.

The generator moved towards the building and one can argue about how much it moved, but the fact remains it moved towards the building. An explosive blows objects away from the point of ignition.

Furthermore although a large section of the first floor outer wall is gone only a much smaller hole occurs in the back wall. An explosive would be much more symmetric. The walls of the outer three rings do not go to the ground level. These three rings share the first floor so there are no intervening exterior walls. An explosive would have been felt by the back wall as much as the front wall.

On the other hand a projectile such as an aircraft would create larger entrance damage than exit damage since it would be breaking up as it travels through the first wall and tumbles through the building, and only dense material objects would make it to the far wall. One of those still contained enough kinetic energy to punch through that last wall.

So far there has been no response to this other than to demand a video of AA77 hitting the Pentagon.

I wonder why not?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

So far there has been no response to this other than to demand a video of AA77 hitting the Pentagon.

demand a video of a missile hitting it

 

[jaydeehess]

demand a video of a missile hitting it

Of course that question came from someone other than the original poster. Another poster brought up the NTSB animation and stated that the 757 was too high to hit the Pentagon. So demanding a missile video would be answered with a "I didn't say a missile hot the Pentagon." This illustrates the CT logic. One poster claims the damage is consistent with a missile hit , he ignores my response, others chime in with their favorite,"it wasn't AA77" evidence and claim victory if I point out that I was actually trying to get a discussion of the missile theory. Then , since no one actualy adresses the point I was making the CT's continue to push the missile theory as probable.

(evidence created by ignoring evidence)

 

[CurtC]

The generator moved towards the building and one can argue about how much it moved, but the fact remains it moved towards the building. An explosive blows objects away from the point of ignition.

Uh, missiles do their damage by packing big-time explosives. If he's ruling out explosives, he's also ruling out a missile.

 

[gumboot]

Uh, missiles do their damage by packing big-time explosives. If he's ruling out explosives, he's also ruling out a missile.

I think those comments were from a skeptic, who was responding to the missile claims by demonstrating that the physical evidence was not consistant with an internal explosion (which is what a missile causes).

-Gumboot

 

[azazal]

Posted this earlier, please feel free to use it in downing the missile theory.

Yugoslav Aeronautical Museum Shows parts left from a Tomahawk fired into Kosovo. I ask any missile CT to find me pictures or video of the same parts in the aftermath of the Pentagon.

Tomahawk strike in Baghdad The damage done here by 2 missiles pales in comparison to the Pentagon.

Baghdad Bunker destroyed by bunker-buster missile Check out the lack of fire damage there

High Rez and sized pic of busted bunker Wow look at all the burn marks, ahh wait....

Another busted bunker Again notice the lack of burning and collapse damage

Building bombed in Baghdad Look mom, no collapsing

Islaeli missile strike in Gaza 3 story civilian, IE non-reenforced concrete building, again lacks the Pentagon's burning, and this one had a partial collapse.

 

[jaydeehess]

&%$^ how come I can't edit my first post.

The part in quotes should read 'MY' response not 'A' response.