Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

William Seger

(11,731 posts)
13. Gee, it's like 2006 all over again
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 12:29 AM
Mar 2014

> QUESTION: Given that, according to the Pentagon Building Performance Report, (PDF)"the aircraft frame most certainly was destroyed before it had traveled a distance that approximately equaled the length of the aircraft (p. 40-p. 26 in PDF)", and that "it is highly unlikely that any significant portion of the fuselage could have retained structural integrity at this point in its travel (p. 40)", can you explain what caused the most perfectly round exit hole in the outer wall of the C-Ring?

Yes, I can explain that: The debris from the destroyed airframe didn't just vanish or vaporize; the debris still had mass and velocity, i.e. kinetic energy. The generally accepted answer to your question, provided by the ASCE study, is that the hole was caused mainly by the large and heavy landing gear strut shown in this photo, but there was a lot of other debris that might have caused or contributed to it:



> QUESTION: The Secret Service knew about the incoming plane for the last 30 minutes, was following on radar, had the means to shoot it down, and should have done so in order to protect the Capital, but they didn't. Why?

You seem to be confusing the following of UA193 with AA77 (and the Secret Service for the military and FAA), but the real answer to your question of why they didn't shoot down either plane is because your assertion that they had the means to shoot it down is false. We were not prepared for hijacked commercial airliners being used as missiles. Why that was so is a legitimate question, but your loaded question is based on invalid premises. (It's also "interesting" that your first question implies that you don't believe it was AA77 that hit the Pentagon, but in your second question you claim that it was tracked.)

> QUESTION: In regards to the exchange between Cheney and the "young man", can you suggest anything different from an order not to shoot down the plane as it was approaching Washington's protected airspace?

Yes, I can: Cheney's order was to shoot it down, which is what Norman Mineta himself believed when he described Cheney's response to the "young man" and what others who were actually there reported. The speculation that Cheney had instead issued a stand-down order is purely a figment of "truther" imagination, completely unsupported by either evidence or plausible reasoning.

You seem to getting your "information" directly or indirectly from David Ray Griffin's books. You can't do that and then claim to be honestly looking for answers to your questions. At this stage, I don't think anyone expects "truthers" to accept reasonable answers, but pretending that the answers don't exist just makes you look like you're very poorly informed.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

September 11 – The New Pearl Harbor [View all] damnedifIknow Mar 2014 OP
FFS will this stuff ever end? nt Logical Mar 2014 #1
With answers it will end damnedifIknow Mar 2014 #2
The answer is there! You just ignore it! nt Logical Mar 2014 #3
Not at all damnedifIknow Mar 2014 #4
The real story is boring to you, conspiracy is alway more fun! nt Logical Mar 2014 #5
Would you be open to a new investigation? damnedifIknow Mar 2014 #6
yes, but who would you trust to do the investigating? zappaman Mar 2014 #7
Many do reject the NIST version damnedifIknow Mar 2014 #8
Sure, no downside to that I agree. Unless really costly. nt Logical Mar 2014 #9
What lingering questions would those be? AZCat Mar 2014 #10
why was there molten steel & iron? n/t wildbilln864 Mar 2014 #11
You know the answer to that William Seger Mar 2014 #14
so again you'll deny what... wildbilln864 Mar 2014 #15
What I deny is their ability to identify "molten steel" by sight William Seger Mar 2014 #16
What about Janet MacKinlay? wildbilln864 Mar 2014 #17
fail! wildbilln864 Mar 2014 #18
Flail! William Seger Mar 2014 #19
So stop flailing! wildbilln864 Mar 2014 #22
Microspheres were found in all the dust William Seger Mar 2014 #23
Here are a few nationalize the fed Mar 2014 #12
Gee, it's like 2006 all over again William Seger Mar 2014 #13
Gee, it's 2014 and people keep asking questions nationalize the fed Mar 2014 #20
Gee, the people in Groundhog Day kept asking the same questions, too William Seger Mar 2014 #21
Where are the seats? Politicalboi Apr 2014 #24
There really isn't any point in this. AZCat Apr 2014 #25
"We've been through this dance before, and know what to expect." wildbilln864 May 2014 #26
Fooling anyone about what, bill? AZCat May 2014 #27
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Creative Speculation»September 11 – The New Pe...»Reply #13