Just got back from protesting the Iraq war. Bush was in town and we at least got the message to the people who were going to the fundraiser. Then I went and distributed Bob Clement for Senate signs around town. (Yes, that means I live in Nashville.) What did you guys do today to make sure that the Congress is controlled by the Democrats next year, so that we can stop Usurper Bush in his tracks?Oh, I see. You sat around and kept wondering whether a plane hit the Penagon or not.
Well, to each his own, I suppose.
Well, I'm in a better mood, so I'll be magnanimous and go ahead and answer your questions, BK, even though you're an weaselly evader who finds the flakiest reasons to not answer the evidence your debate opponents give you.
The thing you're worked up about now (after I disposed of your "family interview" rhetoric and made you start another thread to try and get control of the debate again) is that there's not debris in one picture and there is debris in the other picture. Let's take a look, instead of linking to pages that contain more balderdash, shall we?
Now there is debris pictured here. At the middle left of the picture, you see the front of a firetruck, don't you? Now look to the right of the firetruck, all the way to the Pentagon. There's a darkened area there, and if you will put your contacts in, you can see that the area is littered with white and grey flecks of debris. This picture was taken from very far away, across Interstate 395, probably from a helicopter, since you can see the roof of the Pentagon. Let's call this the 395 picture, shall we?
Remember that fire truck. It will show up again...
Now the second picture:
This picture is usually used in conjuction with another picture to "prove" that debris was planted and moved. It's clear, though, that both pictures are taken with different lenses. In fact, let's label this one Debris A and get that other picture as well, shall we?
Now let's call this one Debris B. In Debris A, a tree branch is prominently displayed behind the dramatically twisted remnant of Flight 77. You can see that tree branch in Debris B; it appears to be further back. That's because this picture was taken with a regular lens, while Debris A was taken with an extreme zoom that enlarges the background and flattens the field of reference. So things that appear close in Debris A appear further away in Debris B, but nothing has been moved. And more importantly, Debris A is showing us the same area of lawn as Debris B. The photographer here took Debris A, and then zoomed in and took Debris B.
But look what appears in Debris B...a fire truck! The back of the fire truck that we see the front of in the 395 picture. And now the answer to the "no debris - lots of debris" dilemma is apparent. Debris A and the 395 picture do not show the same area of lawn! Only the darkened area of the 395 letter appears in Debris A and B, and all three pictures show debris in this area.
Look again: the back of the fire truck is on the right of Debris B, the front of the fire truck is on the left of the 395 picture. There is no moving of debris, there is only different POV from the two different cameramen here.
Once again, your inability to interpret spatial distance from photographs is apparent. I suggest that you slow down and examine the pictures more carefully to gather the visual clues necessary to correctly integrate the different pictures in relation to space and THEN draw your conclusions and make your questions.
Is that better than "the cloud moved?"
I'll work on your other questions next, but I wanted to get the answer to this one down and let you scream and fret and fume about it. Enjoy!
Common sense will tell us, that the power which hath endeavored to subdue us, is of all others, the most improper to defend us. -- Thomas PaineOn September 11th, 2001, Flight 77 turned off its transponder. Its radar image was still clearly picked up, however, and air traffic controllers watched this airplane fly over Washington, DC and begin to circle the Pentagon. Cellphone calls from Flight 77 confirm that the plane had been hijacked by terrorists. Eyewitnesses saw a 757 circling the Pentagon in the exact place where air traffic controllers
observed Flight 77 on their screens. Flight 77 descended, flew across a interstate filled with rush hour traffic, and then crashed into the Pentagon. The fire raged and part of the Pentagon collasped. After the fire was contained, pieces of Flight 77 were pulled from the lawn and the wrecked building, along with the mortal remains of Flight 77's passengers.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- George Orwell, 1984
Email this topic to a friend
Printer-friendly version of this topic
Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)
of the Pentagon (note that the height of the plane, from the ground to the top of the tail, is over 44 feet, but the Pentagon is just over 71 feet high), make it easy to make a mistake, particularly if you already knew what the authorities (who of course never lie) said had happened. Actually, the huge number of potential witnesses compared to the tiny number who actually saw Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon is evidence that Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon. I'd like to show the witnesses a picture of the hole 
in the Pentagon wall, the height of one floor of the building, and ask them how they thought Flight 77, over 44 feet high, managed to get through it (of course the height includes the undercarriage, but why did it leave no mark on the ground?). The Boeing 757 is over 24 feet wide from wheel to wheel. How did it squeeze through the hole? If you consider the size of the plane and the size of the hole it is immediately apparent that it is not even close to being possible. Where are the wings? Where is the tail? Where is the damage to the wall where the wings and tail must have hit and been sheared off? Where is the damage to the ground? Then I'd like to show them a picture of a cruise 
