Okay help me understand this more...

[wildbilln864]

Take this and draw a line to outline a Boeing 757's impact on the pentagon. Can you show where the wings and tail hit? Thanks.

[wildbilln864]

1. So no one can show ....

exactly where the plane hit on the OP's picture? Come on people. Anyone. Draw a rough outline of where the plane would have hit. Try to stay to scale as best as possible.

[LARED]

2. I think it's more like no one gives a rats rear ends about

no planers.

[wildbilln864]

3. I think you're just scared!

You did care enough to reply however belligerently. I do understand your reluctance to participate as you couldn't make it fit the hole nor the damage. :smoke:

[greyl]

4. 100 percent of the replies so far are negative.

At least your thread got a "hit", right? You can at least take solace in that.

[wildbilln864]

5. okay.....

but what I do "take solace" in is that the picture clearly shows no plane. No engines! Where ever did the second one go?
And no wings. No tail. :smoke:

[greyl]

6. Good luck on your undying quest for validation. nt

[wildbilln864]

9. whatever...

that means. You guys crack me up. You have no argument, only attacks. And you actually believe people can't see that. It's sad really.

[hack89]

11. So why don't you answer my question?

what are the dimensions of a 757 size hole? What exactly are we looking for?

[wildbilln864]

17. I would expect...

a hole large enough to swallow a 757 with a 125' wingspan.

[hack89]

23. How wide is a 757 between the engines?

the center wing box that supports the engines and the landing gear is the strongest part of the plane - the wings outboard of the engines is much weaker as they don't have to support so much weight or endure high stress. It is perfectly reasonable that part of the wings would break off or shatter on impact while the stronger center portion would penetrate.

And you know what? When you look at the evidence you discover that's exactly what happened. The hole is 90 feet across and there is damage to the facade where the wings hit but did not penetrate. Look at chapters 5 and 6:

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

[End Of The Road]

84. Why is the hole 90 ft across when the distance between engines is only 40 ft??? nt

[hack89]

92. Precise cutouts only occur in cartoons

real world is much more complex and chaotic.

Perhaps the wing fuel tanks outboard of the engines provide enough mass to penetrate the wall?

What else do you think would create a 90 foot hole? Certainly not a missile, right?

[End Of The Road]

98. Of course not a missile

I just don't think your explanation is any better than most - which is to say, total speculation.

[hack89]

105. Lets think for a second

you have eyewitnesses that saw a 757 hit the pentagon. You have 757 parts found in the Pentagon. You have bodies from passengers on a 757 in the Pentagon. We know how 757s are built. And you have a study from America's largest engineering society that shows the internal and external damage is consistent with a 757.

I think it is much more than total speculation.

[wildbilln864]

107. and you have this witness, Jamie McIntyre clearly tell a lie...

link
He said he took pics of the wreckage. But earlier he said there was no sign of a plane. The only pieces left would fit in your hand.

Was he lying then or now? :shrug:

:hi:

[SDuderstadt]

108. This has been debunked about a million times, Bill

It's the "truth movement" that is clearly lying. This is the last time I'm going to address this, if only to keep other well-intentioned but, nonetheless, wrong "truthers" from buying your bullshit.

As usual, the problem is quote-mining anc quote-clipping to strip all context from McIntyre's statement. He was asked if a plane had crashed in FRONT of the Pentagon, not into it, so the answer, in that case was, of course, "no". But, earlier in the piece, McIntyre had clearly stated that a plane had crashed INTO the Pentagon. Why do you leave that out, Bill? Are you deliberately misleading the reader? It's hard to conclude otherwise. Your dishonesty is stunning.


http://www.911myths.com/html/jamie_mcintyre_and_the_pentago.html

[LARED]

10. Yes, no planers are somewhat scary

I mean anyone that's a no planer clearly has difficulties with reality. People that live in fantasy lands can sometimes do scary stuff.

[wildbilln864]

35. what exactly is a no-planer? nt

I believe planes hit the towers. I think a missle may have hit the pentagon. But maybe it was indeed a 757. I don't see any wings which should be there. The second engine was never found that I'm aware of.
Does that make me a no planer? :shrug:
If this scares you, well, I understand now why you spend so much time on this internet forum trying to prop up bullshit that makes you feel safe.

[LARED]

45. IMO if you are wondering if a plane hit the Pentagon you are a

no-planer. I really don't see how anyone can take an agnostic view. Especially after nearly seven years to understand the extent of evidence establishing as fact a plane hit the Pentagon. Not that it takes seven years to figure it out (more like ten or fifteen seconds), but hey I understand some people could be skeptical.


It really is that simple. I may not have been clear as well. I am not scared of no-planers, I think they are sort of scary in a fright wig sort of way.

[wildbilln864]

48. "...fright wig sort of way"...

lost me there.

Anyway...
"I really don't see how anyone can take an agnostic view. Especially after nearly seven years to understand the extent of evidence establishing as fact a plane hit the Pentagon."

That's simply because you want to bellieve what you're told. That can be really scary to. I understand. But yes I am still skeptical and will be until real answers are given.

[LARED]

54. No willbill, you could not be more wrong

That's simply because you want to believe what you're told

Unless you live in a fantasy world where every person or organization that witnessed, lost a loved one, was injured, filmed, wrote about, helped clean up, identified bodies, etc is part of one giant conspiracy to convince the world a plane hit the Pentagon when in fact it did not. Then I am believing hundreds of eyewitnesses, thousands of second hand witnesses that have no reason to provide fake answers in lieu of the answers you like ie "real answers".

[spooked911]

82. why couldn't all those people have been fooled too?

they were more traumatized by the event and less likely to question what they saw.

[LARED]

83. I don't even know what you mean by this statement

they were more traumatized by the event and less likely to question what they saw.

[Flatulo]

87. So people were so traumatized by seeing a plane fly into a building...

... that their minds tricked them into thinking that they saw ... a plane fly into a building?

[LARED]

88. Are you practicing to be a no-planer?

[LARED]

102. Why? Maybe their not as gulible as your typical CT'er

[SDuderstadt]

93. "That's simply because you want to bellieve what you're told" is "trutherspeak" for...

"I really don't have an argument, nor can I refute yours, so I'll just says something totally meaningless".

[hack89]

7. What are the dimensions of a 757 size hole?

what are we looking for?

[SDuderstadt]

8. Bill thinks it should look like a cartoon cut-out of a 757....

which is precisely why he can't see it.

[SidDithers]

94. Recently released photos confirm it wasn't a plane...

bill was right after all.



Sid

[RC]

13. You are one of those that think a Boeing 757 flew into the Pentagon,

You tell us where and what size the hole is.

Early news reports that day were that a Ryder truck blew up outside the Pentagon. It was some hours later the flying whatever showed up.

[Flatulo]

15. There were also reports that a car bomb had detonated outside

of the State Department.

Funny how when the worst terrorist attack in history is unfolding that confusion reigns.

[RC]

16. Yeah, like a 757 flying into the Pentagon.

[Realityhack]

20. No that has evidence from after the confusion died down.

So that is NOT an example of what Flatulo is talking about.

[Flatulo]

21. No, not like that at all. Absolutely no one saw a car bomb explode

outside of State, whereas over 100 eyewitnesses saw an airplane hit the Pentagon.

No one saw anything *other* than an airplane hit the Pentagon.

[RC]

22. What you posted is not true.

Quite a few people reported something too small for a 757 hitting the Pentagon. In fact at first most reports said whatever flew into it was too small and way too fast for a 757, you know like a fighter plane or a missile.
Something did fly into the pentagon, but there is no substantive proof it was a Boeing 757

Third video down --> http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flight77.htm

Same video here --> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x18k5v_911-where-is-the-plane-flight-77

Try some excerpts from eye witness accounts...
http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/witnesses.html#Steve%20Patterson

[hack89]

25. Your own link provides evidence of a 757 hitting the Pentagon

there are eyewitnesses that say they saw an American Airlines passenger jet. How do you explain away those accounts?

I immediately recognized it as an American Airlines jet,

O'Brien reported that the plane was either a 757 or 767 and its silver fuselage meant it was probably an American Airlines jet

"I couldn’t believe what I was now seeing to my right: A silver, twin-engine American Airlines jetliner gliding almost noiselessly over the Navy Annex, fast, low and straight toward the Pentagon, just hundreds of yards away. The plane, with red and blue markings, hurtled by and within moments exploded in a ground-shaking “whoomp,” as it appeared to hit the side of the Pentagon."

The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines, but I couldn’t be sure. It looked like a 737 and I so reported to authorities.

and I saw the American Airlines airplane coming down.


"An eye-witness says an American Airlines passenger jet flew low straight into the Pentagon and crashed into the first floor of the building. I saw this large American Airlines passenger jet coming in fast and low,

"I saw this very, very large passenger jet,"

I remember recognizing it as an American Airlines plane -- I could see the windows and the color stripes.

[RC]

26. And you so conveniently ignore all those that say otherwise.

Just because some witnesses spout the conventional wisdom, does not necessarily make it so. This is about finding the real truth, not upholding what we are told is the truth.

[SDuderstadt]

33. It's really stupid....

to look at the totality of evidence, then conclude the witnesses who saw/witnessed/remembered less detail trump those that do, especially when the proportion is so lopsided.

[hack89]

68. Not a single person saw a missile or a jet fighter

A few liken the sound to a missile or small jet but no one actually saw one. One person reported a commuter jet. The vast majority saw a large American Airline jet. Your own link tells me this.

[Flatulo]

27. My logic goes like this...

If witnesses claim they saw a 757, and there are identifiable bits of a 757, then it was probably a 757.

If witness say they saw a missile or a fighter jet, and there are identifiable bits of a 757, then the witnesses probably mistook the 757 for a missile or a fighter jet.

If the actual damage path can be exactly recreated by a computer simulating the flight path and attitude of a 757, then that is yet another piece of corraborating evidence.

Investigators look for physical evidence backed up by eyewitness accounts. Accounts that do not support the physical evidence are discarded as being flawed. The physical evidence is never discarded - just the faulty accounts.

The only thing that needs to be investigated is how these attacks could have been pulled off, after repeated warnings, right under the nose of the most fearsome intelligence apparatus the world has ever known.

Investigating what hit the Pentagon when the answer is abundantly clear is a silly distraction.

Just my opinion.

[wildbilln864]

46. Flatulo...

"If witnesses claim they saw a 757, and there are identifiable bits of a 757, then it was probably a 757."

Please point us to where the aircraft numbers were verified to match the alledged debriss found at the pentagon. Once again you're assuming the debris was from that flight with no proof other than heresay.

[Flatulo]

60. Bill, you surely know this already, but the passengers from Flight 77

were all identified by DNA analysis. I'm sorry that they didn't send lab samples to your home address for your personal verification, but that's how it goes. I don't really care whether or not the part number on some widget found in the rubble matches the part number of some other widget. Besides, even if all the part numbers matched, then surely whoever orchestrated this hoax waould have been clever enough to plant parts with the correct part numbers, right? Right?

I get the strangest sense of deja vu when I discuss this with you, but again... here's the evidence submitted at the Moussaoui trial. Read it yourself and decide what hit the Pentagon.

http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/

[Realityhack]

29. Wow

You seem to be quite confident given the weakness of your case.

Most wittinesses saw a jetliner. Some identified it as an American airlines jet.
Some saw something smaller that was in fact flying.

Their is wreckage from a 757. It is identifiable as an AA flight.
Their is a missing 757 AA flight.
The damage matches with a 757 but NOT with a commuter jet or missile.

Yet you seem to think that it is more likely that the people who say they saw an AA 757 are in error or lying rather than the other witnesses being in error.
What grounds do you have for that?

[SDuderstadt]

32. Selective use of evidence....

largely obtained through quote-mining. Have you ever researched or studied "confirmation bias"?

[hack89]

24. 90 feet with damage to the facade where the wings did not penetrate.

chapter 5:
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

[SDuderstadt]

31. RC....

Have you ever looked at the witness list of people who SAW the plane fly into the building??? If you're a no-planer, this conversation is over.

[William Seger]

12. I think those are trick questions, wildbill...

... just to see who's paying attention. :shrug:

[whatchamacallit]

14. I don't know what hit the area highlighted in the picture, but it certainly wasn't a 757

Anyone who says it was is engaging in a disturbing self deception.


I await the violent spasms of the OCT auto-scorn reflex.

[Realityhack]

19. Violent spasms?

There is a lot of evidence this was in fact flight 77 a 757-223.

As you are claiming it wasn't please share your reasons. I would be interested to know what you are basing such a certain claim on.

[whatchamacallit]

28. My lying eyes n/t

[Realityhack]

30. That is not very specific.

Are you claiming you were there and saw something different? I assume not.

So what specific evidence are you looking at. I would be interested to know what leads you to your conclusion, but you seem more interested in hit and run one liners than any kind of discussion.

[whatchamacallit]

36. I'm looking at the "crash site"

By a certain age the the eyes have trained the brain to make sense of the physical world. We gain the vital ability to visualize and intuit the physics of our reality. The reason 911 is so controversial, is because the explanations for events we witnessed DO NOT comport with our natural programming. So much so that we are forced to rely on unlikely, often ludicrous, theories to make sense of what we saw. Case in point: the novel idea that a 757 filled with people, turned into a "liquid missile" upon striking the pentagon, was inspired by the fact that impact site does not remotely resemble what we would expect. So instead of challenging the official account of the event, we sublimate our instincts and wrap our heads around a wild fiction. Say what you will, Occam's Razor does not favor this theory.

[Flatulo]

39. Er, not so sure about your logic there, RB.

By your reasoning, anything that has never happened before cannot have happened.

Do you believe the following equation to be true?

Multiple witnesses to a 757 + identifiable bits of a 757 + 1 missing 757 = no possibility of a 757

[whatchamacallit]

40. That's what makes 911 such a magical day

Four "never before" (or since) events all on the same day! I don't think it's *my* reasoning that's questionable.

[Realityhack]

42. What a strange reality you live in.

I must have missed the dates before and since that 3 jetliners were crashed into buildings of those types in the same day.

Oh that's right. Any sane person would EXPECT things to have happened that day that we do not normally (and may never before) have seen to happen based on the circumstances.

BTW which 4 things are you talking about. I get WTC 7 (thermal expansion as a collapse initiation mechanism) and WTC 1&2 (jets hitting skyscrapers, and fires precipitating collapse) but what is the other "never before" event?

[Flatulo]

43. Let's be clear about this - you are stating that because nothing

like this has ever happened before, that it is impossible?

If you'll indulge me for a minute while I spout some pop psychology - I agree with your statement that the mind tries to make sense of the enormity of things that are flooding the senses. But I think this is exactly what drives the conspiracy theories - the sheer unliklihood of the events. The mind looks for tricks or subterfuge because what is happening just cannot be happening. But it is.

[whatchamacallit]

52. the sheer unlikelihood of the events ?

We all saw the events, it's the sheer unlikelihood of the *explanations* that inspires "conspiracy theories".

[Realityhack]

53. Which explanations? What are you basing your 'likelihood' on? n/t

[whatchamacallit]

62. The twin towers, building 7, the Pentagon site...

:shrug:

[Realityhack]

110. Cute. I guess a shrug passes as a statistical analysis with you. n/t

[Flatulo]

67. So do you agree that airplanes hit the WTC towers? nt

[whatchamacallit]

70. That's what I saw.

My problem is with the rapid, uniform, complete, collapses.

[Flatulo]

71. OK, just trying to establish if you're a 'no planer'. No offense meant. nt

[Realityhack]

41. I don't buy that.

"By a certain age the the eyes have trained the brain to make sense of the physical world. We gain the vital ability to visualize and intuit the physics of our reality."
And yet optical illusions still work.

"The reason 911 is so controversial, is because the explanations for events we witnessed DO NOT comport with our natural programming."
Absolutely. Unfortunately, the physics of large scale high speed events (either actually) often do NOT conform to what we expect because our 'natural programing' is based on experience within a limited range of speeds and scales that we experience in our everyday life. Thus we are not 'trained' to intuitively understand these types of events.

"ase in point: the novel idea that a 757 filled with people, turned into a "liquid missile" upon striking the pentagon, was inspired by the fact that impact site does not remotely resemble what we would expect."
Bullshit. The hole is exactly what one would expect if one understands how these large scale high speed events take place. This is why you don't see every scientist and engineer in the world saying 'that couldn't happen'. It is also why we rely on models and previous experimentation etc. to understand these events rather than our 'intuition' about what we would 'expect'.

"So instead of challenging the official account of the event, we sublimate our instincts and wrap our heads around a wild fiction."
Again absolute bullshit based on the above.

"Say what you will, Occam's Razor does not favor this theory."
The alternative simpler theory being what exactly? Oh that's right their isn't one.

[whatchamacallit]

49. Touche... almost

"Unfortunately, the physics of large scale high speed events (either actually) often do NOT conform to what we expect because our 'natural programing' is based on experience within a limited range of speeds and scales that we experience in our everyday life. Thus we are not 'trained' to intuitively understand these types of events."

I don't know where you've been RH, but thanks to the modern wonders of photography and film, I've seen enough plane crashes and building collapses to have a pretty good idea what these things look like. 911 broke the mold in many ways.

"Bullshit. The hole is exactly what one would expect if one understands how these large scale high speed events take place. This is why you don't see every scientist and engineer in the world saying 'that couldn't happen'. It is also why we rely on models and previous experimentation etc. to understand these events rather than our 'intuition' about what we would 'expect'."

Bullshit back at ya. Absent the spoon feeding you've received from "experts", I doubt you would ever have come to the same conclusions on your own. Luckily, government sponsored agencies rushed to fill the gap between our senses and their narrative. What, we've never witnessed "large scale high speed events" before? What happened at the pentagon is outside our ability to comprehend without a P.H.D. and a supercomputer? Easy, reliable, dismissive, mechanism.

So, whateverz man

[Realityhack]

51. "911 broke the mold in many ways."

Ok so staying on topic with the pentagon how about you name those ways.

[whatchamacallit]

55. Where is the fucking plane?

Where is what should be massive debris? Where are the bodies? Where is your mind?

[LARED]

59. Where have you been?

The debris (or most of it) is in the building. Were you expecting the plane to bounce of the side of the building like a cartoon?

[whatchamacallit]

63. Bullshit. n/t

[hack89]

65. So show us the mold that was broken

show us a picture of a plane crash at very high speed into a concrete building. You must have a reason beyond personal disbelief to believe what you believe. Show us what the crash site should have looked like.

[whatchamacallit]

73. There are plenty of pictures of planes impacting solid objects at high velocity

How 'bout you show us evidence of a plane crash that does anything like what happened at the pentagon?

[hack89]

75. So show us one if they are so common.

you are making the claim - back it up.

I see a 90 foot hole with additional facade damage consistent with a 757. I see parts of a 757 in the Pentagon. Makes sense to me.

Start with chapter 5 for some good pictures:

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

[whatchamacallit]

81. Nice report

PDF Figures 3.10 and 6.10 are illustrations purporting to be accurate depictions of the "pre-collapse" hole. They don't square with wildbilln864's picture:



and several pictures in the PDF itself. The Illustrations are sans remaining vertical supports and cable spools evident in the pictures themselves.

Oh yeah, and I don't trust the NIST to begin with so...

[hack89]

85. Then I guess there is no point in continuing the discussion, is there? nt

[LARED]

86. Another brillant no planer rebuttal -nt

[wildbilln864]

77. some parts indeed should remain outside...

unless there's a hole they went through. I'd expect that the wing sections would shear off. Especially on the left side. But if they penetrated, where's the holes? Where's the engine's impact holes? Where's the second engine? Wasn't there a second one?

[hack89]

78. The hole is 90 feet wide

the engines went through that hole. As well as parts of the wing.

[wildbilln864]

90. well I need a better picture....

because I don't see any 90' hole in the one I posted!

[hack89]

91. How about an entire comprehensive survey and report

from the largest engineering society in America? Don't limit yourself.

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

[wildbilln864]

100. A picture's worth a thousand words you know...

but thanks for the link.

[Realityhack]

109. Don't worry their are pictures in the report. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

95. Do you think "hole" has to equal "circular" or "round"?

Quit looking for a circular or round hole and you might just see it. Hint: it's the long, rectangular hole on the first floor.

[Flatulo]

64. Review the Massaoui trial evidence...

http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/

This is the best evidence you're going to find.

I think you're expecting that AA Flight 77 could be reassembled from the debris, like more conventional crashes into while taking off or landing. No way is this ever going to happen. The Pentagon is a very substantial barrier.

[Realityhack]

66. Not to mention the increased flight speed and angle of attack. n/t

[whatchamacallit]

69. Yes, a very substantial barrier indeed

which is why common sense would dictate that most of the plane would be out on the front lawn.

[Flatulo]

72. What does your common sense tell you about a bullet hitting a steel plate?

What do you think should happen?

[whatchamacallit]

74. So, you feel comfortable making a direct physics correlation

between your target practice and the pentagon crash? Cuz, I don't.

[Flatulo]

76. Not at all. The correct answer is 'it depends'. It depends on the

speed, cross-sectional area and density and stiffness of the bullet, and the thickness, density, elastic modulus, strength and hardness of the plate. In other words, it's a very difficult problem to solve.

Now multiply that complexity by about a zillion and you have an airplane crashing into a barrier.

Even the simplest ballistics problems require a very high-end FEA code to solve. Intuition is completel usesless.

[Realityhack]

79. Nope.

Flatulo is right. 'Common sense' is useless in this situation. This is EXACTLY what I was talking about when I said you couldn't rely on your every day experiences to predict what happens when you are talking about these scales and speeds.

[SDuderstadt]

96. Oh, bullshit....

why would "common sense" dictate that?

[hack89]

80. Picture of bodies here (warning it is graphic)

http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/

what temperature do you think the skin of a 757 melts at? Here's a hint - a lot less than than a building fire. That wreckage sat in a burning building for how long?

http://www.tennalum.com/td2024.htm

[Flatulo]

44. Some buddies and I did some experiments many years ago...

I used to regularly shoot my AR-15 rifle at the local range. A guy I used to shoot with was into hand-loading his own rounds. By varying the amount of powder that you load, you can change the muzzle velocity quite a bit.

Anyway, we were shooting bullets through some 3/16" steel plates. The funny thing was that the slower rounds made much bigger holes than the faster rounds. A full-load round travelling at 3400 ft/sec would punch a hole a bit smaller than the bullet diameter of .223". A round travelling at 2700 ft/sec made a much bigger hole.

We theorized that the slower moving round was mushrooming as it passed through, hence the bigger hole.

Anyway, the point is that high-speed collisions are not always intuitive. You need very high-end numerical simulations to accurately model the impacts.

[whatchamacallit]

56. See #55

[End Of The Road]

89. Totally irrelevant. But I hope the beer was good. nt

[Flatulo]

103. I know you're jesting, but for the record, I never mix alcohol and firearms.

Nor do I associate with anyone who does so.

edited to make sense

[End Of The Road]

106. I was jesting. Unfortunately, I mixed alcohol with posting on DU. nt

[LARED]

50. So tell me how exactly does the brain know what to expect

when a 757 hits the pentagon at 400 or so miles per hour?

Based on experience? Intuition? Based on other 757 hitting similar structures? Hollywood depictions? Fictional books? How exactly does this work?

[whatchamacallit]

57. See #55

[LARED]

61. What kind of stupid answer is that? -nt

[SDuderstadt]

34. This is stupid....

look at the large "hole" on the first floor that looks like a rectangle. That's where the wings hit. It's stupid to believe a structure like a wing (which is not "uniform" in and of itself) would do uniform damage to a structure which also was not uniform. Then look above the rectangle in the middle and you see the roughly circular "hole" where the nose and fuselage hit the building. How many fucking times do you have to look before you see it. The problem is, not only do you not know what to look for, you've conditioned yourself to look for the wrong thing (i.e., a cartoon silhouette cut-out of a plane.

[End Of The Road]

37. I don't think that works

First, the plane would have to be flying parallel to the ground -- no problem there. And it would have to be flying very low to the ground -- again, not a basic problem. But the dang engines hang lower than the fuselage on a 757, and I don't see how the plane could have entered the building that low without the engines scraping the ground, knocking over spools, etc.

[SDuderstadt]

97. They DID knock over the spools....

read the fricking eyewitness accounts.

[End Of The Road]

99. Nope. One was knocked over.

The most reliable info I can find on the others is that "they MAY have been disturbed."

[SDuderstadt]

101. Then you need to look harder....

just because you can't find it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Look at the close-up picture below and try to make the case that the spools weren't knocked over.





P.S. How do you know what position the spools were in BEFORE the crash?

[whatchamacallit]

58. See #55

[Ghost in the Machine]

18. It's like this, Bill - The plane was going so fast when it hit that the energy released from impact

turned the plane into a liquid, which shot through the building like a high pressure water stream and blew out the nice hole in the C-Ring and then evaporated...

:evilgrin:

:hi:

[wildbilln864]

47. Now why didn't I think of that!?

Thanks Ghost, I see it now. :crazy:
:hi:

[Mnemosyne]

38. Why Bill, you silly, it's right there beside the

beautiful PENTALAWN!




:hi:

[Bolo Boffin]

104. Here you go.