Think this through for a moment Scott. Why would the government use a Cordite based missile/projectile/shape charge when Cordite is a low grade explosive and would be ineffective as an explosive?
Are you kidding me? Did you even read what you copied and pasted from Michael Meyer the beginning of this thread? He clearly states what kind of wall he thought the exit hole was made through. Google pictures of the exit hole. It's brick as you have been shown. Glad we cleared up the fact that there were NOT 9 (or however many you thought), reinforced concrete, blast resistant walls.
sorry Truthers, but the first floor only had 2 walls to break through. the outer wall and in the inner courtyard wall.
A sincere truth-seeker would never say something such as this. If a plane had hit the Pentagon, there would be no smell of cordite. What you are is becoming clear. I thought that those lines on the left of the hole were rebar when I looked at the smaller picture. http://www.911dude.com/pentagonwall.jpg When I blew it up, I saw that they weren't rebar. That wall seems to be only brick. Mr Meyer is mistaken about the number of walls and the makeup of the C wall. Still, there's the evidence of explosives. Start watching this video at the 1:16:52 time mark. Behind the Smoke Curtain - 2nd Edition (2015) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXBk8JqwFlw Your statement above about the cordite pretty much destroys your credibility. There's also the fact that the craft behind the gate-lifting mechanism in this picture is too small to be a 757. http://www.911-strike.com/ldsxox1.gif I'd say the case is pretty much closed now.
Exactly. The response should not be "think this through", an eyewitness claims he smelled cordite. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks, the eyewitness made that claim and a claim like that requires a thorough investigation, not a dismissal and/or a failure to investigate, that is NOT an option. He may or may not be mistaken or the smell may have been a chemical that has a similar odor but the point is that it is a significant claim that requires a follow up and we all know that was never done. Like everything else about 9/11. And that's the real issue, not what a poster thinks.
No, what I am trying to explain to you is this. Nobody in their right mend would have used a Cordite shape charge to make a hole in the C-Ring brick wall. Just plain stupid. Cordite is not an effective explosive. That being said, there has to be another reason that Cordite was supposedly smelled. Could it be that there was weapons and/or ammunition stored around the area that was impacted? I read a couple of items that says there was a gun shop in the wedge that was hit. Below is one of them. http://911disclosure.blogspot.com/2011/02/witnesses-at-pentagon-on-911-report.html
tens of thousands of military personnel worked at the Pentagon on 9-11. how many of them claimed to have smelled chordite? is it not possible that they smelled burning or burned gun powder from shells exploded in the army wing of the building where the plane hit?
I'm no expert on explosives but I would think it would be a question of there being enough of it. Are you saying that it was impossible to make those holes with cordite? Also, if they don't want it to look like a chemical explosion, they wouldn't want to use a stronger explosive because it will look like an explosion instead of just fuel burning and exploding. I would think that if a high-level official with experience says he smelled cordite, an objective truth-seeking government would investigate the possibility of there being cordite residue in the area in question. Doesn't the fact that that wasn't investigated make you wonder a little? You don't seem the least bit curious about anything that doesn't lead in the direction of the official version. You seem to be trying to play it all down. That's not the behavior of an objective truth-seeker.
The above is characteristic of every post that I have ever read written by every single OCT defender. Never post any significant questions about the OCT, defend every single minutia and all those who created it and promote it. I have yet to find any logic with such a mindset, other than a specific agenda.
Where did I ever say that it was impossible? I said it would be stupid to use cordite to create a hole in a brick wall. Wait a minute. Are you suggesting that the government used Cordite based shape charges to create an exit hole on the wall opposite the plane impact point to make it look like something penetrated that wall in order to add to the legitimacy of the pre-planned/faked official explanation? This makes no sense whatsoever Scott. We are talking about the exit hole in the outer brick wall right? And the fact that some "expert" said the hole was created with shape charges, which you are suggesting were made with Cordite, and was part of a planned conspiracy. The supposed conspiracy planners explanation is that the exit hole was created by a piece of the plane (engine) breaking off and impacting that brick wall creating the exit hole, NOT that fuel burned and then exploded creating the exit hole. The only reason YOU want it investigated is because YOU think the government is behind a massive conspiracy. If someone was killed by a gunshot wound to the head and 5 witnesses out of 100 said they saw a knife, would I look for a knife? And your perception regarding my curiosity is wrong. Whenever I see a claim, I research it to see which side holds more water. So far, I have yet to find anything persuasive about there being a conspiracy. You seem to want to push the conspiracy issue without doing any research. And you seem to be playing it all up. And what, pray tell, is the behavior of a truth seeker in your eyes Scott? When you brought up the Cordite issue, what did I do?Did I say those people who made the claim were full of crap? No I did not. I went and looked up the properties of Cordite. I went and found some of the claims of the Cordite smell. I went and investigated what Cordite is used for. I investigated other reasons why there might have been a Cordite smell. You know what I found out? Cordite is used in bullets and ammunition. I also found two instances of witnesses saying that there was a gun store/storage in that area. How do you know the smell didn't come from weapons and ammo carried by security folks? What exactly did YOU do as a truth seeker when you read the claims of the Cordite smell and it being used as an explosive shape charge? Did you look into other reasons there could have been a Cordite smell like I did or did you run right here and post links to the claims without looking into them at all? Let's take all these conspiracy claims and put them together in a series to see what really happened at the Pentagon and how they government tried to cover it up. The government's cover-up story was at the Pentagon was going to a plane was hijacked and flown into it. So below is what really happened: 1. A plane flew at the Pentagon 2. At the last second, the plane reared up and flew over the Pentagon 3. At the same time that plane reared up, an A3 Skywarrior laden with explosives (or a missile) impacted the front wall 4. At the same time of the A3 or missile impact, the Cordite shape charges were detonated on the opposite wall of the impact to create a hole so it could be claimed that an engine broke off the plane exited that wall. 5. Instead of using the real flight data on the plane that flew over the Pentagon and cutting it off at the supposed time of impact, the government created fake flight data that contained errors 6. They had someone climb a utility pole and create a wingtip impact point on it to make the story more believable. 7. They had no worries whatsoever that ANYONE would see a 757 rear up at the last second and fly OVER the Pentagon. By the way. Where is just ONE witness on the opposite side of the Pentagon that says they saw this huge 757 fly right over the rooftop? Why do all that when all you needed to do was actually fly a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) plane into the Pentagon?!
Going only from memory, having read the testimony of April Gallop and others near the explosion, a handful of those military types interviewed reported the odor of cordite. 23,000 employees were not in the area affected by the blast, so that's a bit misleading. Why would a dozen soldiers remark about the smell of cordite? Were they making it up, or were they telling the story as best they knew it? No jetfuel, no passengers or baggage, but the odor of cordite. - - - Updated - - - Going only from memory, having read the testimony of April Gallop and others near the explosion, a handful of those military types interviewed reported the odor of cordite. 23,000 employees were not in the area affected by the blast, so that's a bit misleading. Why would a dozen soldiers remark about the smell of cordite? Were they making it up, or were they telling the story as best they knew it? No jetfuel, no passengers or baggage, but the odor of cordite.
There's no way that gun ammunition was in this area to cause that odor? It had to be Cordite deliberately used as an explosive shape charge to create an exit hole in a brick wall to give the illusion that faked debris from a faked plane impact punched out that hole? All done to cover-up the real scenario of a 757 flyover and A3/missile impact.
You're not addressing this one. http://www.911-strike.com/ldsxox1.gif It's one of the most difficult anomalies to obfuscate. A 757 is twice as long as the height of the Pentagon. If you increase the width of the gate-lifting mechanism by about twenty five percent to allow for the angle and compare that width with the height of the Pentagon at the point that's as far from the camera as the point where the plane is supposed to be, that distance is less than twice the height of the Pentagon. I dealt with this on another forum years ago. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7208375&postcount=243 You also never addressed post #3 satisfactorily. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=456924&p=1066196587#post1066196587 We now know that there weren't six walls but there's still the issue of the pillars. How did a chunk of the plane big enough to make that hole make it around those pillars, leave them intact and still make that hole?
No, it was "done" to destroy the records being audited there by congressional auditors, in accordance with the deposition of Donald Rumsfeld on September 10, the day before. That was the main purpose, destruction of records. The secondary purpose was to make it look like an airliner had crashed there. False flag on steroids.
I doesn't look to me like any object big enough to make that hole could have made it past the pillars intact. Behind the Smoke Curtain - 2nd Edition (2015) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXBk8JqwFlw (1:03:58 time mark) This is really a moot issue anyway as it's already been proven that the craft (if there's even a craft) behind the gate-lifting device in this picture... http://www.911-strike.com/ldsxox1.gif ...is too short to be a 757.
Who said the exit hole was made by anything 'in tact'? It only had to be a pile of quick moving debris. Evidently if you look at the images you can see a tire and a wheel rim in amongst quite a large amount of debris.
Gamolon implied it in post #4. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=456924&p=1066196798#post1066196798 I don't see either a tire, or a wheel rim. Behind the Smoke Curtain - 2nd Edition (2015) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXBk8JqwFlw (1:03:50 time mark) I'm still waiting for somebody to address this. It seems to have scared Gamolon away.
oh? and how much hot air does it take to blow a hole in the side of a wall you could drive a car through
Dood, are YOU an engineer? - - - Updated - - - quesion: how was "FLT77" accounted for, that is how much wreckage was recovered and how was it verified that said wreckage was actually "FLT77"?
Hey cjnewson88 Your picture in post #47 doesn't seem to be of the same pile as the picture I posted. It was all plantable. http://physics911.net/georgenelson/ (excerpt) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling. ----------------------------------------------------------------
