user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Depending on your view of where the hole starts and finishes you will find that the number is anywhere between 6 and 9.
For scale, each column is five feet wide, seperated by a five foot wide window.
So if your answer was 6 columns, the hole was 60ft, if it was 9 then the hole was 90ft. Roughly speaking.
Ken claimed the hole was 14ft across.
Is he correct?
Or course not!
You do the maths.
Apologies for yet another 9/11 ballot, and yes it is a simple question, but it didn't seem that way with our Ken.
Look at the desperation of whoever transposed that worthless text over the best photo to emerge yet PROVING that no massive airliner hit the Pentagon, a laughable attempt to claim that some of the soft limestone around the windows that was shaken of by the explosion is evidence of wing damage!
Since when have aircraft wings been shaped like that? 
Where are the wings if they just bounced of as is absurdly alleged here?
Where's the corresponding engine hole?
Where's the engine if it didn't penetrate the wall?
Where is the entire tail section (which virtually always survive crashes because so much of the impact is absorbed by the forward section of the craft) and it's corresponding rudder damage above the tiny hole?
Look at the tiny hole folks, we are supposed to believe that a huge 80 ton airliner miraculously disappeared into it!
Swallowed it whole if you don't mind!
They'll be telling us next that it was a mini black hole, which is still no more believable than the pack of lies they've been spoon feeding the likes of poor saddo's like the self-confessed blind as a bat to the columns of truth Nipple who swallows the lies whole - spoon,bottle and all - without question. 
Ps -  thanks for posting the pic, the more people who get to see this photographic proof that something far smaller and more explosive hit the Pentagon the better, people aren't stupid, they can read between the lies (sic) lol
Amazing! Check out the 2nd floor window between the column 9 & 10 arrows. In the bottom right of the window you can see the Easter Bunny.
 Did you hear that Nipple?
That wasn't the US government telling you that, so you don't have to believe it okay?
You can relax. 
{So if your answer was 6 columns, the hole was 60ft, if it was 9 then the hole was 90ft.
by wolf_nipple_chips on Sat Oct 14, 06 2:03pm}
Which is still far smaller than the wingspan of a 757/767.
You did realise that, didn't you?
Other than that, from that photo, I CAN'T TELL HOW MANY COLUMNS WERE DESTROYED - it only looks like 1, 2, or 3 to me, it's too hard to see anything.
^As I said, it's only part of the hole.
I see none of you voted.
Still think it was 14ft ken? LOL.
Or perhaps you were the ones that admitted to bieng blind?
If anyones interested in seeing what happens to a plane when it hits reinforced concrete at 500mph, look here...
youtube . com / watch ? v = mTa9JzRlxRQ
No wings, no tail, no engines. Just lots of little pieces.
"Where's the corresponding engine hole? Where's the engine if it didn't penetrate the wall?"
Errrr, it did. The hole below columns nine, ten and eleven is where the left engine hit. The taller hole below columns 11 to 16 is where the fuselage hit. The right engine hole it behind the smoke.
REmember the windows were 6 ft tall, that makes the smaller hole below columns 9 to 11 at least 12 ft tall. The engine were roughly 7ft wide by the way - only a little bit taller than one of those windows.
The hole in the middle, below columns 11 to 16 reaches the second floor, at least 24ft tall.
Ken ,you did realise the engines were only a little bit taller than one of those windows didn't you? Or are you showing your lack of research again?
Check the following link.
It's been on my user page but apparently it's dishonest to put it there where everyone has access to it....
oilempire. us/ graphics/ pentagon-fire-width. jpg
Still had no comment on that picture. I wonder why?
"Where are the wings if they just bounced of as is absurdly alleged here?
Only your are alledging that they "bounced" off.
Oh I just noticed - 'PROBABLE AIRCRAFT DEBRIS'
Can it get any more absurd for them???
'..and the missile that hit this building...' -
-Donald Rumsfeld, US Defence Secretary
....well he would know wouldn't he.
"Oh I just noticed - 'PROBABLE AIRCRAFT DEBRIS'
Can it get any more absurd for them???"
What it means, Ken is that you can't tell from the picture. Rather than jump to spurious conclusions from a photograph it is best to make assumptions based on the most likely possibility.
In this case it is most likely that it is debris from the 757 that hit the pentagon. You know, the one that left identifiable parts AND the bodies of its passengers in the wreckage?
Still can't counter the facts then Ken?
Is that Rumsfeld quote the only thing you have left?
The same quote that is preceded with the line "Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens"
I see the blind people are winning.
I must be missing something. from that picture, the hole only appears 3 columns wide to me, although smoke may be occluding the right side.
The hole itself is the segment visible right above the white car, right?
Sorry, unless I am looking in the wrong spot or misperceiving, I am not seeing a 5+ column hole.
CAthexis, where it says "right edge of impact hole" is where the hole stops.
YOu can see the black hole below columns 14 and 15.
Incidently the window were made of blast proof material - inches thick - hence the fact the window are left hanging intact below columns 11 and 12.
If you interested in seeing the rest of the hole, look at the following picture.
911review . com / errors / pentagon / imgs / donley_01750r . jpg
The left-most visible window is the one that sits between columns 15 and 16 in the ballot picture.
Correction...
CAthexis, where it says "right edge of impact hole" is where the hole stops - IN THIS PICTURE
Cathexis is WAY too clever for you 'Nipple, you ain't fit to shine that man's shoes on an intellectual level.
He is easily the most intelligent - and certainly the most respected guy on this website - the girls have Mojo.
So do yourself a favour - when Cathexis casts doubts on your maths, and he is THE MAN when it comes to maths on this website - you better sit up and take notice and reconsider, actually, seriously doubt, your own conclusions.  
"So do yourself a favour - when Cathexis casts doubts on your maths...."
Since when has judging how big a hole is on a picture been 'maths'?
"....You do the maths."
by wolf_nipple_chips
"So do yourself a favour - when Cathexis casts doubts on your maths...." (- Ken)
Since when has judging how big a hole is on a picture been 'maths'?
by wideheadofknowledge
Since 2.03 pm last Saturday afternoon according to Wolf_Nipple_Chips up there.
You walked right into that one!
"The hole itself is the segment visible right above the white car, right?
Sorry, unless I am looking in the wrong spot or misperceiving, I am not seeing a 5+ column hole."
by Cathexis on Mon Oct 16, 06 7:52am
And that's Maths is it?
Are you being deliberately stupid?
It's simple addition Ken. There nothing to cast doubts on.
You do realise that cathexis has stated the hole is 30ft wide - over twice the size of what you claimed it to be? And he didn't even realise the hole continued to the label "right edge of center impact hole". And of course this is only part of the hole we are seeing.
If your interested in seeing the rest of the hole, look at the following picture.
911review . com / errors / pentagon / imgs / donley_01750r . jpg
The left-most visible window is the one that sits between columns 15 and 16 in the ballot picture.
"Cathexis is WAY too clever for you 'Nipple, you ain't fit to shine that man's shoes on an intellectual level.
He is easily the most intelligent - and certainly the most respected guy on this website - the girls have Mojo. "
God! It's enough to make you cringe. Do you want to kiss his balls now or later?
Cathexis, if you look at the picture on my userpage you'll see what it looks like behind the smoke, and you'll also see that the hole continues right up to column 18. The entire ground floor has gone, and the first floor floor slabs are just left hanging.
So the hole starts at column 8, it ends at column 18. That's over 100 feet.
Which doesn't include the facade damage.
Depending on your view of where the hole starts and finishes you will find that the number is anywhere between 6 and 9.
For scale, each column is five feet wide, seperated by a five foot wide window.
So if your answer was 6 columns, the hole was 60ft, if it was 9 then the hole was 90ft. Roughly speaking.
Ken claimed the hole was 14ft across.
Is he correct?
Or course not!
by wolf_nipple_chips 
And that's Maths is it?
Are you being deliberately stupid?
by wideheadofknowledge 
I'm gonna leave you two to sort out your bonkers maths arguments among yourselves, meanwhile I have to rush back to planet Earth 
^I guess the answer is either "Yes you are being deliberately stupid" or "No you are just plain stupid"
To restate: Cathexis in his post did not refute wolf's mathematical conclusion or indeed offer a calculation of his own. He simply expressed confusion about where the hole began and ended in this picture.
Hence my comment that analysing pictures is not mathematics.
You deliberate obfustication hides a very sobering thought - you can't actually support your 'theory' with the photographic evidence. Isn't that strange?
So Ken, you admit the hole was between columns 8 and 18?
Or are you just going to create one of your usual diversions?
You two are really on a hiding to nothing here, not only are you up to your old tricks when realising you have lost the argument again of inferring that I 'admit to something...' that tally's with your nonsense when I clearly don't and never have.
The hole in the photo is clearly only three columns wide, as everyone admits, even OCT's admit to that, and it can clearly be seen in the pre-roof collapse front elevation photo's that the hole is only about three columns wide, you really are deep into your own self-denial at this stage.
Cathexis in his post did not refute wolf's mathematical conclusion....(And that's Maths is it? Are you being deliberately stupid? by wideheadofknowledge - arch hypocrite -Ken) ....He simply expressed confusion about where the hole began and ended in this picture...
by wideheadofknowledge
- Speaking for other people in their absence to suit your own nonsense now I see, what next?
Cathexis can speak for himself , he didn't state any 'confusion' either, merely his erudite opinion.
"Speaking for other people in their absence to suit your own nonsense now I see"
Firstly, as anybody with a functioning brain can tell Cathexis did not make any calculation. He asked a direct question ("The hole itself is the segment visible right above the white car, right?") followed by a comment showing his confusion ("unless I am looking in the wrong spot or misperceiving"). Where is his calculation? Can you see one? Perhaps your head was too far up his arse to read the comment correctly ("erudite opinion"! Sure - expressing the fact he couldn't make out the hole sure is erudite!)
Secondly, speaking for other people to suit your one's own nonsense is something you do almost exclusively. From your comments on this very ballot to the words you twist, distort and misprepresent from Rumsfeld, Silverstein and virtually ever firefighter who made a comment on 9-11.
- Speaking for other people in their absence to suit your own nonsense now I see, what next?
by Ken_from_Dublin
This was next.... referring to a man whom he is not fit to shine his shoes! (Cathexis)
("erudite opinion"! Sure - expressing the fact he couldn't make out the hole sure is erudite!)
-not happy enough with twisting Cathexis' words to suit his own fake agenda in his absence, he now insults Cathexis in his absence, ...because Cathexis just made a casual observation that didn't tally with his own, what a wannabe fascist we have here in WideHeadofascism
"not happy enough with twisting Cathexis' words to suit his own fake agenda in his absence"
No, Ken. That's what you did. Show us all Cathexis' calculation. Where is it?
"he now insults Cathexis in his absence"
No, Ken, I wasn't insulting anyone. YOU said Cathexis' opinion was erudite I simply pointed out that being unsure of something is hardly evidence of erudition.
"Cathexis just made a casual observation that didn't tally with his own"
No he didn't. He asked a question to clarify where the hole started and ended in this picture. Notice that after the clarification he didn't offer a calculation of his own.
You are so  that Cathexis didn't agree with you aren't you?...go on admit it.
Are you actually insane?!
{So the hole starts at column 8, it ends at column 18. That's over 100 feet.
by wolf_nipple_chips on Tue Oct 17, 06 1:38pm}
You must have a really good imagination. As far as I can see in that photo the damn hole is barely 1 to 3 columns wide. You don't have a column 18 visible in that photo.
You can't even keep your story straight as to how wide the hole is. You werre trying to claim the hole was 90ft before until I pointed out that was still MUCH SMALLER than the wingspan of a 757/767...
So you clearly changed your story in response to my comment.
Sorry, but I go by WHAT I SEE and what I see is small hole only 1 to 3 columns wide.
This part of the hole (left wing and fuselage damage) clearly extends from column 8 to column 15 in this photo.
7 x 5 = 35ft
The damage clearly extends beyond this photo however and to jump to conclusions on this rather brief, inexpert analysis of a photo that is clearly taken from a particularly unhelpful angle.
Check the links on my user page
criticalthrash. com/ terror/ P1010013. JPG
home. planet. nl/ ~reijd050 /JoeR /pentahole _ dimensions _ est. htm
Lovelynice said..."You must have a really good imagination. As far as I can see in that photo the damn hole is barely 1 to 3 columns wide. You don't have a column 18 visible in that photo"
Concentrate now Lovelynice, I provided the other half of the hole in several other comments. Including references to my userpic.
And you may notice my use of the words "roughly speaking".
Try again, and pay attention.
"what I see is small hole only 1 to 3 columns wide."
Care to comment on the black hole below columns 13 to 15? Visible in this picture and the picture on my userpage.
Care to comment on the clearly visible flaming hole below columns 11 to 12?
Care to comment on the picture on my userpage, which is the damage that extends from column 15?
Keep those multiple votes coming Ken and lovelynice, et al.
 AH! NOW! NOW! groundless accusations and lies again because he lost the argument, what a sore loser.  IC_nerner
Care to comment on the black hole below columns 13 to 15? Visible in this picture and the picture on my userpage.
Care to comment on the clearly visible flaming hole below columns 11 to 12?
Care to comment on the picture on my userpage, which is the damage that extends from column 15?
Mr Wolf, that photo is so unclear, and so obviously filled with false captioning, I can only go by what I see. What I see is only a small hole 1 to 3 columns wide.
You can make whatever you like otherwise, but that hole doesn't look very big to me in that photo. Maybe you should get a better photo and stop trying to argue people in seeing what clearly ISN'T VISIBLE there in THAT PHOTO.
^See last post.
{The damage clearly extends beyond this photo however...by wideheadofknowledge on Thu Oct 19, 06 7:54pm}
Yes, so what? Are you asking to comment WHAT'S ON THE PHOTO, or what's on some other photo?
And you still haven't dealt with the problem that 90ft of wingspan (if we accept that facade damage is supporting evidence of wings impacting) is still a LOT SMALLER than the wingspan of a 757/767.
Lovelynice, look at the picture here and on my userpage. You can see in this picture that there is facade damage right past column five. Now look at the picture on my userpage, you can see the damage extends past column 18.
5 - 18 (if not furthur)
13 columns.
Each column is 5ft wide, with a 5ft window in between each one.
That over's 130ft - not the hole, but the structural damage.
The hole - columns 8 to 18 (roughly 100ft)
The damage - columns 5 to 18 (roughly 130ft)
Let's quote again for the really dumb liars here what wolf nipple chips was asking as the ballot question;
{Look at the hole and look at the column numbers, roughly speaking, how many columns wide is the hole?}
I answered it, and so have others. The hole looks small in that photo. If you have a problem with the photo, that your problem, not mine.
You also keep changing your mind about how wide the damage was; first you say 90ft {... the hole was 90ft. by wolf_nipple_chips on on Sat Oct 14, 06 2:03pm}
- until I pointed out that 90ft was still a LOT SMALLER than the wingspan of a 757/767. So now you change then you change your claim to 130ft... It's pretty clear that you're just making stuff up to fit because your excuses aren't working.
The hole was 100ft roughly speaking.
The DAMAGE was 130 ft roughly speaking.
What part of "roughly speaking" do you not understand?
Care to comment on the black hole below columns 13 to 15? Visible in this picture and the picture on my userpage.
Care to comment on the clearly visible flaming hole below columns 11 to 12?
Care to comment on the picture on my userpage, which shows the damage that extends from column 15?
Care to comment on the clear facade damage between columns 5 and 8?
"really dumb liars here what wolf nipple chips"
Ah, the personal insults. Tells people alot.
First you say 90ft
Then I mention that's A LOT SMALLER than the wingspan of a 757/767
Then you decide to change to 100ft
Now you're claiming 130ft
anyone else notice a pattern here? It looks to me like you're only changing your story to fit, and making things up as you go along.
Another Lovely,
first Nipplie claims 90 feet ...then 100 feet...now 130 feet!
Making it up as he goes along!
The wingspan is growing almost as fast as his nose! 
ACtually you may want to read what I said.
See my first comment...
"So if your answer was 6 columns, the hole was 60ft, if it was 9 then the hole was 90ft. Roughly speaking."
See, it's all very different when you don't misquote someone, isn't it? Silly boys and girls.
Not only was it an 'if' statement, I also said 'roughly speaking'. tsk tsk!
And finally I claimed the DAMAGE was 130 ft, not the hole.
Try reading in future, kids. Agreed?
Anyway, now that we've got you petty diversionary tactics out the way...
Care to comment on the black hole below columns 13 to 15? Visible in this picture and the picture on my userpage.
Care to comment on the clearly visible flaming hole below columns 11 to 12?
Care to comment on the picture on my userpage, which shows the damage that extends from column 15?
Care to comment on the clear facade damage between columns 5 and 8?
Regardless, as you descend deeper and deeper into your own fantasist absurdity one thing is becoming clear - that the biggest hole of all is the one the likes of Lovelynice and my good self etc shoot in your feeble and fallacious so called arguments on a regular basis, to the point were we are actually enjoying it, what a laugh we get out of you Nipplie, you are an embarrassment to the other OCT's on this site at this stage, they have the good sense to stay away from your OCT ballots for obvious reasons. 
Ken,
Care to comment on the black hole below columns 13 to 15? Visible in this picture and the picture on my userpage.
Care to comment on the clearly visible flaming hole below columns 11 to 12?
Care to comment on the picture on my userpage, which shows the damage that extends from column 15?
Care to comment on the clear facade damage between columns 5 and 8?
1 - Just a two column wide scorched facade.
2 - Yes I see it, are you having a laugh?
4 - You mustn't bother reading my posts, I commented on that earlier;
Look at the desperation of whoever transposed that worthless text over the best photo to emerge yet PROVING that no massive airliner hit the Pentagon, a laughable attempt to claim that some of the soft limestone around the windows that was shaken of by the explosion is evidence of wing damage!
3- I saved the best for last - a WHOLE ballot for you to feast your eyes on in response to that.
http://www.bestandworst.com/v/103909.htm
"soft limestone around the windows that was shaken of by the explosion is evidence of wing damage!"
In a perfect straight line. LOL!
"Just a two column wide scorched facade."
Its a hole Ken, you can see it in your latest ballot picture. LOL!
"Yes I see it, are you having a laugh?"
Right, good. That makes the hole bigger than the 3 columns you suggested.
You do realise that even at 3 columns the hole would have been 25-30ft wide?
Now you've admitted it stretches to column 12. That's 5 columns. GEtting there Ken. Good work.
Mr Wolf, why is it that you keep exaggerating the size of the hole when 1) it can hardly be seen
2) You keep increasing your claims (first 90ft, then 100ft, then 130ft for the damaged area)
3) It's obvious that you are just making up numbers.
{In a perfect straight line. LOL!
by wolf_nipple_chips on Mon Oct 23, 06 3:46am}
you can't even keep your story straight as to how wide the area was!
Yawn.
Lovelynice, do you know the meaning of the term "roughly speaking"?
See my first comment...
"So if your answer was 6 columns, the hole was 60ft, if it was 9 then the hole was 90ft. Roughly speaking."
See, it's all very different when you don't misquote someone, isn't it? Silly boys and girls.
Not only was it an 'if' statement, I also said 'roughly speaking'. tsk tsk!
And finally I claimed the DAMAGE was 130 ft, not the hole.
Try reading in future, kids. Agreed?
"it can hardly be seen "
Hence the fact I provided other pictures. Pay attention.
{do you know the meaning of the term "roughly speaking"... wolf_nipple_chips on Thu Oct 26, 06 6:00am}
Do you know the old saying KEEP YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.
Apparently you can't.
wiggle, wiggle, wiggle, as you try to change your story and make up excuses.
You keep increasing your claims (first 90ft, then 100ft, then 130ft for the damaged area)
It's obvious that you are just making up numbers.
At this rate, the hole will be a mile wide by the end of the year - according to you.
So you don't know the meaning of "roughly speaking"?
Right, that tells people alot.
{So you don't know the meaning of "roughly speaking"?
by wolf_nipple_chips on Sun Oct 29, 06 5:56am}
Yes, and I also know when someone is trying to wiggle their way out a bullshit claim that didn't stand up.
^Did you prove me wrong?
Did you provide evidence to the contrary?
Did you produce pictures showing no damage between columns 5 and 18?
YOu haven't done much really have you - except the usual diversionary spin.
what's wrong? Just because I noticed that you coldn't keep your story striaght and are trying desperately to make people believe what you say instead of their own eyes... deal with it.
|
|
