Why the Damaged Pentagon Generator Doesn't Fit the Official Story

[spooked911]

these links go over some of the evidence

http://generator-oddity.blogspot.com/

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=6

Basically, the generator and fence damage suggests some large object flying in to the Pentagon, but does not completely fit with a large engine impacting and traveling past/through the generator.

[SDuderstadt]

1. Don't tell me, Spooked...

It "just doesn't look right" to you.

The amazing thing is you can't figure out why people laugh at you.

[spooked911]

8. dude

maybe it would help if you bothered to look at the links

[SDuderstadt]

10. I did...

dude. Did you note what I said about why people laugh at you? Duh.

[Twist_U_Up]

34. Smearing another DU member dudette?

if you cant beat them reason, beat them with shit
your act is getting old

[SDuderstadt]

35. Not as old as yours...

TuuTuu. Do you even know the definition of the word "smear", dude?

[KDLarsen]

2. Does it fit with a cruise missile?

Just asking questions here.. :eyes:

[spooked911]

5. actually, no

but more importantly,it doesn't fit with a 757

[LARED]

3. What is it called when you use

multiple asinine CT's to conflate another asinine CT?

[spooked911]

7. I believe that is called

the official story

:D

[hack89]

4. So what could have caused that damage?

that also convinced so many eye witnesses that it was a 757?

[spooked911]

6. good question

but before I answer that, you agree that the damage is inconsistent with a 757?

[hack89]

9. No - because it is such a small piece of the big picture

the rest of the damage is certainly consistent with a 757. A 757 size hole in the facade plus 757 pieces in the building are not explained away by questions about the generator.

[spooked911]

13. Little clues can be critical

And it's not exactly a 757-sized hole, among other problems.

[SDuderstadt]

20. Oh, yes, it is, dude....

we've been through this before.

[Ghost in the Machine]

23. "Hole made by right wing"...

Ok, if one were to accept that this is damage caused by the wing of the plane, could you please study this picture for a minute or two:


"This photograph is reproduced with the permission of Rolls-Royce plc, copyright © Rolls-Royce plc 2010"


then point out the damage caused by the engine, which hangs below the wing, or kindly explain why there is none?

If you notice the positioning of the wing on the plane's body, then notice the engine mounted below that wing, you must conclude that the engine would have had to hit the ground for the wing damage to be that low on the building.

Thank you, and hope all is well with you and yours

Peace within, Peace among, Peace between

Ghost

[SDuderstadt]

24. I disagree....

how are you, Ghost?

[Ghost in the Machine]

25. I am absolutely wonderful, thank you :-)

Life has been better than I could have ever dreamed of here for the past few months...

How goes it with you, my friend?

[SDuderstadt]

26. I expect to be in High Point, NC around...

the middle of October. It would be great if we could get together then. I will keep you posted, my friend.

I am so glad to hear things are going well.

[jberryhill]

27. The chunk taken out of the retaining wall indicates otherwise, Ghost

Take a look at about 4:46 here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

[Ghost in the Machine]

28. The chunk taken out of the retaining wall was caused by the left engine, not the right..

The animation you provided a link to shows that. The damage is on the left side of the cable spools The picture I questioned shows the right edge of the "fuselage hole" and where the right wing struck. The generator, which was contained in a chain link fence, was just knocked to the side, with a big dent in it (or possibly a chunk taken out). Your animation shows the plane hitting the building with the right engine intact.

I could also make the case that the photo in SDude's post is totally misleading, when compared to your animation. According to your animation, the spot to the left of the cable spools, marked "Right edge of fuselage hole" is actually where the left engine hit.

What is your take on that? Is the animation wrong, or is the photo misleading and not labeled correctly? Pause your animation at 4:37 and take a look...

Hope you and yours are doing well, Mr. Berryhill...

Peace,

Ghost

[spooked911]

29. I said "not exactly", which it isn't--

and as far as your pic, I thought officially the starboard wing was tilted up and smashed off the facade further up. Which is it-- it went in that hole or hit further up?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

56. I thought the impact hole was 18' 3 "?

[William Seger]

11. "Inconsistent" with what?

Your assumptions?

[zappaman]

12. "inconsistent"

with his conclusions which came before any actual "evidence".
thus, the floundering and posting of bits here and there which add up to nothing.

[spooked911]

14. The damage is inconsistent with a 757 engine and wing

Did you even try to understand the discrepency?

[zappaman]

15. "The damage is inconsistent with a 757 engine and wing"

so you say.
please tell me how it should look.
feel free to bring up other examples of 757 slamming into buildings at high speed.

[William Seger]

16. I asked you first

Did you even try to understand the discrepancy by questioning your assumptions?

[spooked911]

17. Yes.

I have been thinking about this for 5 years now. I first posted about this on my blog back in 2005.

If you have an explanation for the damage pattern, let me know.

...and specifically, I mean an explanation for how a 757 engine knocked down the fence right at the ground but only smashed the top half of the generator. At the same time, explain how the wing made a gash in the top of the generator when the flap track fairing couldn't have hit the top of the generator.

[William Seger]

18. I'll take that as a No.

Your argument is that if the engine hit where it "looks like" it hit on the top of the trailer, then the flap track fairing couldn't have caused that gash. There are at least three assumptions in that argument that I don't see you addressing at all, and any one of them being wrong could easily explain your claimed "discrepancy."

But I'll give you another opportunity to seriously attempt to understand the "discrepancy": Point to at least three assumptions in your argument and explain why you discount any possibility of them being wrong.

[spooked911]

21. my arguments/assumptions are laid out in the links

it's a waste of time to repeat them.

What is not apparent is the three assumptions in that argument that you don't see me addressing at all. Be a pal, and tell us what those assumptions are.

[SDuderstadt]

22. It's much more a waste of time to...

try to reason with you, dude.

[spooked911]

31. Come on, Seger, be a pal

why don't you tell me the three assumptions?

[spooked911]

37. is it really that hard?

I'm more than happy to listen to a good argument.

[zappaman]

38. spooked

when are you going to present your "theories" to the families of those who lost someone on 9/11?
what are you waiting for?
don't you have enough "evidence"?
or are you afraid?

[William Seger]

39. You need to reply sooner, if you're going to

Once a thread drops off "My DU" list, no guarantees I'll read any responses, especially for boring threads.

I'm not at all surprised that you can't see the assumptions in your argument. One assumption is that it was the engine of the plane that hit the generator. That one isn't too unreasonable, but it is an assumption, nonetheless, not an established fact. Another is that it was the flap track that caused the gash, and ditto for that one.

But there's one more assumption which is much more dubious and also more obvious. I'll give you another opportunity to try to find it.

[spooked911]

41. I didn't say I couldn't see them

I just thought it was a waste of time to guess what you're thinking.

And the assumptions are perfectly reasonable, so what is your freaking point? Do you have an explanation for the damage or not?

[William Seger]

42. The freaking point is...

... you (and the author at your link) are assuming that rounded dent in the top of the trailer is where the bottom of the engine hit must have hit, if it was really hit by a 757, so if that dent doesn't fit the other damage then it must be because it wasn't hit by a 757. The freaking point is that you're jumping to conclusions without re-examining your assumptions. That interpretation of the dent doesn't make sense, anyway, given the shallow dive angle and the known impact point of the engine on the wall. However, if the side of the engine hit the very front of the trailer, rather than the bottom of the engine hitting the top (which also explains the damage to the fence), and the roundish dent in the top is just a coincidence (or possibly the result of the fire causing the roof to collapse), then the flap track could have been low enough to cause that gouge. (Which is not to say that that assumption is correct, either, since it was possibly caused by something else.) The freaking point is that you are making assertions based on dubious logic.

[spooked911]

45. First, thanks for giving an explanation.

Second of all, I don't know what caused the damage but the official story doesn't make sense to me.

Third, it was the official story (the Mike Wilson animation) that had the engine gouging just the top of the engine.

Finally, the point remains that a 757 engine simply *can't* knock that ground-level hole in the fence, and produce that damage to the trailer/generator.

If the engine is low enough to the ground to knock that ground-level hole in the fence, then the *wing* will be low enough to smash full into the trailer/generator-- which would have caused far more damage to the trailer/generator than was seen, and also more of a slanted damage, not a straightly smashed top for the proximal part of the unit.



The other issue is that officially, the starboard engine was elevated off the ground from a last minute bank, so it shouldn't have hit the fence at ground-level.

So, it is still a mystery, and incompatible with a 757 impact.

[SDuderstadt]

46. "the official story doesn't make sense to me"

Enough of your bullshit, dude. What DOES make sense to you? Do you have an alternative explanation? Do you realize that no one (except you and a handful of others who share similar delusions) EXPECTS the "OCT" to explain what happened perfectly, inasmuch as EVERY large-scale catastrophic event results in differing accounts, unanswered questions and outright anomalies?

Again, this is why you have become an inside joke here, dude.

[zappaman]

47. Spooked is not an inside joke

he's pretty much a known and rather large joke.

[spooked911]

48. questions to anyone--

Do you think the ground level hole in the fence was made by the engine? Is there anything else that could have made that hole? If it was the engine that hit it, how much did this affect the plane's course? What kind of impact would be required for the engine to get torn off the plane? What exactly cause the left side of the generator to cave in at the top? Do you think the gouge in the top of the generator was made by the plane wing or something else?

[SDuderstadt]

49. Dude...

your "no-planes" bullshit has run its course. Give it up before you become even more of an inside joke.

[zappaman]

50. too late

google "spooked 911" and check out the top hit...

[spooked911]

52. Is it so hard to answer a few questions?

you have got to know your obnoxious blow-offs have run their course, and I'm not going away.

[SDuderstadt]

53. "Obnoxious blow-offs"

Dude...100+ witnesses SAW the plane hit the Pentagon. When confronted with that, you lamely mumble that they were somehow "fooled". You (and others of similar delusion) have been nibbling around the edges of this for going on nine years and have yet to realize you have yet to mount even a mild challenge to the consensus account of that day.

If you had, I'm certain you'd be embraced warmly by the families. Why don't you give that a try and let us know how that goes, dude?

[zappaman]

54. the witnesses were confused

right, spooked?
keep digging, you're almost there...

[terrafirma]

19. Again... why are you looking for validation???

Just answer the question.

[spooked911]

30. I would like to build a consensus about this critical event being a scam.

Is there something wrong with that?

[SDuderstadt]

32. "I would like to build a consensus about this critical event being a scam"

I would respond to this, but I am laughing way too hard.

[zappaman]

33. good idea

start with the families of those that died that day.
go present your findings to them and start your consensus there.
why haven't you done that yet?
what are you afraid of?

[spooked911]

36. dude--

that's tricky, and you know it. I'm sure many of them know the OCT is bogus, but remember they have conflicts.

[SDuderstadt]

40. "I'm sure many of them know the OCT is bogus"

Really, Spooked? You think they don't believe their loved ones were killed because jets slammed into the WTC, the Pentagon and the ground? Really?

Why don't you tell them that?

[spooked911]

43. do you honestly think it is that simple???

For god's sake, think about what you are asking me to do. These people have huge psychological issues to deal with. You wouldn't just launch into a spiel about 9/11 being an inside job with such a person assuming you even got a chance to talk to them. It's like asking a woman you just met out on a date. Generally you can't just walk up cold to someone and ask them out. And getting into no planes is the equivalent of getting a woman you just met into bed. It's not easy to get to that point, much less quickly. Maybe you can hit it off right away, but the point is, you can't just get into the good stuff right away unless the conditions are just right.

[SDuderstadt]

44. Jesus, Spooked....

The reason you can't just "get right into it" is because your claim is delusional and your "audience" will have serious questions about your mental well-being.

I'm willing to bet the percentage of family members who embrace your goofy bullshit is even smaller than members of the general population.

[HillmanHunter]

51. Sheesh your on a charge.

The language may not be the nicest but I have to agree, here. Theres a lot of stuff being chucked around at the moment.

[terrafirma]

55. Good luck with that consensus

... when you admit to not being able to provide an alternative explanation.

Again... imagine you're in court with the argument you're presenting. "Well your Honor... It just doesn't look right to me."