Home | Forums | Articles | Links Directory | Store | Donate Moderator Info
Democratic Underground
Support DU

Post Your Pentagon Crash QUESTIONS Here Part 2!!!!

Email this topic to a friend
Printer-friendly version of this topic
Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)
 
Previous Topic | Next Topic 
Lobby / Latest 9/11, Military Affairs, and Terrorism (Protected)
Original message

Bushknew (547 posts) Click to EMail Bushknew Click to send private message to Bushknew Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-15-02, 11:48 PM (ET)
Post Your Pentagon Crash QUESTIONS Here Part 2!!!!
LAST EDITED ON Sep-16-02 AT 00:08 AM (ET)

Thanks to ewing2001, 2muchbs and other Duers for their astute observations.

Ewing2001, IÕve never seen that photo before, http://66.129.143.7/june2aa.htm
this is a slam dunk, how anyone can see a plane or any remnants of a plane is beyond me.

Where is the plane, or at LEAST the SCATTERED PLANE DEBRIS?!!!!! Note that this photo was taken BEFORE ANY firemen were on the lawn.

Did the "firemen" plant the plane debris?

Contrast this photo:

http://66.129.143.7/june2aa.htm

With this photo:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=4566&forum=DCForumID43&omm=11

In the picture, No Firemen or policemen on the lawn = NO plane debris on the lawn.

In the picture, Firemen or policemen on the lawn = plane debris on the lawn.

United States describes itself as a Republic,
itÕs not.

The United States is a Plutocracy veiled
under the guise of a Republic.

A quote from Bushknew

What would personally convince you that a
757 DID NOT crash into the Pentagon?

What evidence would YOU need?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-b
in/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&o
m=4566&forum=DCForumID43&omm=0

RELEASE THE CONFISCATED
PENTAGON VIDEO NOW!!!


  Alert Edit | Reply | Top

  Table of Contents

  Subject     Author     Message Date     ID  
 So where is.... shakeproof Sep-16-02 1
   So where did the plane go? What happened to all those people? Bushknew 09/16/2002 6
 So, then, what did? Wonk Sep-16-02 2
   Distorted pictures Bushknew 09/16/2002 4
       The middle picture is a zoom of part of frame 1, posted above Wonk 09/16/2002 7
   Thank you Wonk. shakeproof 09/16/2002 5
   Valid questions, but it's the limited empirical evidence Old and In the Way 09/16/2002 8
       Excellent point. boloboffin 09/16/2002 18
   This is a picture of what exactly? Merdesquared 09/16/2002 40
       Ok, I'll humor you. Wonk 09/16/2002 51
           No... I see two extremely blurry images Merdesquared 09/17/2002 58
 Congratulations Boloboffin Bushknew Sep-16-02 3
   My point, of course... boloboffin 09/16/2002 10
       The individual is handicapped... redspliff 09/16/2002 13
           Impertinent questions? More like goofy ones... boloboffin 09/16/2002 14
               http://www.ifrance.com/silentbutdeadly redspliff 09/16/2002 16
                   Could have, might have, possibly... boloboffin 09/16/2002 17
               Do you get paid Merdesquared 09/17/2002 59
                   Is that all you have to debate me? Silly invective? boloboffin 09/17/2002 62
               bumped with rant- great pumpkin & santa claus nothwithstanding shatoga 01/16/2003 222
       You and everyone else have evaded this question. Bushknew 09/16/2002 23
           What's your point? Wonk 09/16/2002 27
           Evading is as evading does boloboffin 09/16/2002 28
               YouÕve got to be kidding Bushknew 09/16/2002 35
                   *sigh* boloboffin 09/16/2002 47
                       BoloboffinÕs Cloud Defense. Bushknew 09/17/2002 57
                           Once again, you completely mischaracterize my answers. boloboffin 09/17/2002 60
                               I must agree 2muchbs 09/17/2002 65
                               Evidence or Excuse Bushknew 09/17/2002 67
                                   Evidence, of course! boloboffin 09/17/2002 73
                                       Actually Bolobuffin, I sent BushKnew a private e-mail suggesting Old and In the Way 09/17/2002 76
                                           So ignoring everything I said in the other thread was just a bonus! boloboffin 09/17/2002 77
                                               Are you saying we should have stopped asking questions after you poste... Old and In the Way 09/17/2002 79
                                                   No, but I would like some measured consideration... boloboffin 09/17/2002 81
                                                       G-forces and software Old and In the Way 09/18/2002 83
                                       Just for the sake of discussion, mind you. Old and In the Way 09/17/2002 78
                                           Continuing discussion. boloboffin 09/19/2002 99
                                               I think the twisted piece of airline skin is an "A" not a "C" anablep 09/19/2002 105
                                                   Seems like it could only be the "n"........... Old and In the Way 09/20/2002 119
                                               Thanks for posting the plane pic. Old and In the Way 09/20/2002 118
                                                   Here is a comparison anablep 09/20/2002 123
                                                       A little note 2muchbs 09/20/2002 130
                                                           "A little note" anablep 09/20/2002 131
                                                               In the photos 2muchbs 09/20/2002 135
                                                                   Favor anablep 09/21/2002 179
                                       Spatial Distance from Photographs Bushknew 09/17/2002 82
                                           How about this picture? Warning: big download boloboffin 09/18/2002 84
                                               I was hoping for É Bushknew 09/18/2002 88
                                                   The cam is focused to register faces at the gate, not... boloboffin 09/19/2002 100
                                                       Anablep, boloboffin Bushknew 09/19/2002 108
                                                           Jesus wept. What are you going to do, bleed on me? boloboffin 09/20/2002 116
                                                               I am so glad you see the tail fin 2muchbs 09/20/2002 117
                                                                   Where have you ever seen me claim the plane was vaporized? boloboffin 09/20/2002 120
                                                                       Taken just a minute after the explosion... anablep 09/20/2002 128
                                                                           Sorry I partly disagree 2muchbs 09/20/2002 132
                                                                               You're right.... anablep 09/20/2002 138
                                                                           I dont see a hole, but 2muchbs 09/20/2002 134
                                                               You canÕt have it both ways, boloboffin Bushknew 09/20/2002 148
                                                                   Re: "You canÕt have it both ways, boloboffin anablep 09/20/2002 154
                                                                   No. I absolutely refuse... boloboffin 09/20/2002 173
                                                           Ah...the notorious CCTV frames anablep 09/20/2002 121
                                                               A question 2muchbs 09/20/2002 127
                                                                   Question answered anablep 09/20/2002 129
                                                                       But I did calculate.... anablep 09/20/2002 133
                                                                           How do you know it was 400? 2muchbs 09/20/2002 137
                                                                               Re: "How do you know it was 400?" anablep 09/20/2002 146
                                                                       I am no film buff 2muchbs 09/20/2002 136
                                                                           I understand, but... anablep 09/20/2002 139
                                                               Anablep, why donÕt we see ANY plane debris fly and LAND on the lawn, i... Bushknew 09/20/2002 149
                                                                   Debris in vid cam anablep 09/20/2002 152
                                   Could you provide the picture that goes with these questions? boloboffin 09/17/2002 74
           And we thank you for starting a new thread DulceDecorum 09/16/2002 53
   All those other crash pictures Merdesquared 09/17/2002 68
       Good point Merdesquared Bushknew 09/17/2002 69
 critical "crash" & silent but deadly redspliff Sep-16-02 9
   An Eyewitness! With Pictures! He watched Flight 77 fly into the Pentag... boloboffin 09/16/2002 11
       The king of the Eyewitness....steve ! redspliff 09/16/2002 12
           Steve Rickus speaks! In English! boloboffin 09/16/2002 15
               F93 vs F77 ewing2001 09/16/2002 19
                   I'm absolutely serious. boloboffin 09/16/2002 20
                       k...makes sense..thx ewing2001 09/16/2002 21
                       Flight 77 radar tracking ramblin_dave 09/16/2002 22
                           A better question: 2muchbs 09/16/2002 25
                               Grass and spools ramblin_dave 09/16/2002 29
                                   Depends on what you go by 2muchbs 09/16/2002 42
                           double wreckage ewing2001 09/16/2002 26
 light poles paulthompson Sep-16-02 24
   If a plane hit the poles, would then be more damage to the pole? Old and In the Way 09/16/2002 34
       Re: "If a plane hit the poles, would then be more damage to the pole?" anablep 09/19/2002 96
           Anablep ROCKS! boloboffin 09/19/2002 101
               Regardless... vincent_vega 09/19/2002 104
           Thanks! Old and In the Way 09/20/2002 122
               No problem.... anablep 09/20/2002 126
                   Commendable job vincent_vega 09/20/2002 143
                       addy anablep 09/20/2002 150
                       I think he's convinced this hardcore conspiracy zombie. Old and In the Way 09/20/2002 172
                           Could Bush be said to know anything? boloboffin 09/21/2002 184
   Look at all the light pole and wreckage photos anablep 09/19/2002 95
       WOW great stuff! vincent_vega 09/19/2002 98
       you have 2 choices.... redspliff 09/21/2002 191
           I choose Anablep's site!!! boloboffin 09/21/2002 194
 It's all abut the transponders, folks. Ameridansk Sep-16-02 30
   Since you asked for ideas... ramblin_dave 09/16/2002 31
       Thanks for trying, I guess. Ameridansk 09/16/2002 32
           In Auguat of 01, I took flight UA 175 from NY to LA. Old and In the Way 09/16/2002 36
   Why did the hijackers bother with the transponders? I'll tell you... boloboffin 09/16/2002 33
       Boloboffin, you are very convincing on your rebuttals, but Old and In the Way 09/16/2002 37
           We are agreed on the need for an open, objective investigation boloboffin 09/16/2002 39
       Dude, you think just like a terrorist! Ameridansk 09/16/2002 38
           Ameridansk wrote: Bushknew 09/16/2002 41
               Label this PIC "Osmosis" 2muchbs 09/16/2002 44
               DNA and the victims of 9/11 boloboffin 09/16/2002 50
                   Thanks for the link on WTC. Ameridansk 09/16/2002 52
                       How did I know that was coming? boloboffin 09/16/2002 55
               The Mother Of All Walls DulceDecorum 09/18/2002 85
                   Wow! 2muchbs 09/18/2002 86
                   Your argument is based on one assumption: that the plane vaporised. boloboffin 09/18/2002 87
                       Wham! Bam! Thank you Ma'am DulceDecorum 09/18/2002 89
                           Want to see the plane? Lift up those collapsed three floors. boloboffin 09/19/2002 94
                       The plane punctured the Pentagon and entered it completely theory. Bushknew 09/19/2002 93
                           The stool and computer were shielded from the blast by walls... boloboffin 09/19/2002 97
                           Re: "The plane punctured the Pentagon and entered it completely theory... anablep 09/19/2002 103
                               passenger seats redspliff 09/20/2002 142
                                   Seats, not ROWS of seats anablep 09/20/2002 147
                                       perhaps.... redspliff 09/20/2002 162
                                           "perhaps...." anablep 09/20/2002 165
           Just to get it right 2muchbs 09/16/2002 43
           Thank you. I think. boloboffin 09/16/2002 45
               Since when do terrorists claim fewer lives? 2muchbs 09/16/2002 46
                   I was referring to Ameridansk's question... boloboffin 09/16/2002 48
               Go ahead, dismiss Operation Northwoods. I know you will. Ameridansk 09/16/2002 49
                   Your point being? NT boloboffin 09/16/2002 54
                       Insightful reasoning Bolobuffin Old and In the Way 09/17/2002 56
                           Believe it or not, so do I boloboffin 09/17/2002 61
                               Pentagon-Pilot ignored in Top 20 terrorist graphic!!! ewing2001 09/17/2002 63
                               Ah, so "metaconspiracies" are allowed , just no conspiracies Merdesquared 09/17/2002 64
                                   Sorry, there's been a miscommunication on my part. boloboffin 09/17/2002 75
                           I respectfully ask 2muchbs 09/17/2002 66
                               No easy answer......I keep changing my mind! Old and In the Way 09/17/2002 70
                                   supportive evidence Bushknew 09/17/2002 71
                                       If they are reading DU, there is no shortage of questions! Old and In the Way 09/17/2002 72
                               I'm well suited to ask questions. Old and In the Way 09/17/2002 80
                                   old article, shrubbed from archive ewing2001 09/18/2002 90
 Was the hole made by a missile or a Boeing? Bushknew Sep-18-02 91
   RE: "Was the hole made by a missile or a Boeing?" Todd 09/19/2002 106
       You are correct Todd Bushknew 09/19/2002 107
   Hello 2muchbs 09/20/2002 124
 Introducing The Penta-Lawn 2000! Bushknew Sep-18-02 92
   lawntastic! ewing2001 09/19/2002 102
   A faked photo above a few posts 2muchbs 09/19/2002 109
       Re: "A faked photo above a few posts" anablep 09/19/2002 111
           Where have you been? ramblin_dave 09/19/2002 112
               I've been around, but not here anablep 09/20/2002 114
                   Have you tried to get the full Booker video? ramblin_dave 09/20/2002 140
                       Yep I got it.... anablep 09/20/2002 144
       Re: "A faked photo above a few posts" anablep 09/19/2002 113
           Actually he did look well 2muchbs 09/20/2002 115
               He missed the five poles, trust me anablep 09/20/2002 125
                   who was the potographer(his name) and... redspliff 09/20/2002 141
                       Re: "who was the potographer(his name) and..." anablep 09/20/2002 145
                           your right...... redspliff 09/20/2002 160
                               so,who tell the truth,Captain Lincoln Liebner or Mark Faram ? redspliff 09/20/2002 171
   I think I have the answer 2muchbs 09/19/2002 110
 Anablep, boloboffin what do you say about this? Bushknew Sep-20-02 151
   anablep ewing2001 09/20/2002 153
       Re: "anablep" anablep 09/20/2002 156
   Indeed anablep 09/20/2002 155
       Killtown ewing2001 09/20/2002 157
           man, that rocks... ewing2001 09/20/2002 158
               About WTC 7 anablep 09/20/2002 161
                   You do have all the answers huh? 2muchbs 09/20/2002 166
                       I guess the Honeymoons over huh? vincent_vega 09/20/2002 169
                           Was there a weddding? 2muchbs 09/20/2002 170
                       That was more of an opinion anablep 09/20/2002 175
                       Hey 2muchBS, lighten up man. Old and In the Way 09/21/2002 177
                           I do apologize 2muchbs 09/21/2002 195
           Re: "Killtown" anablep 09/20/2002 159
               Booker video at Killtown... ramblin_dave 09/20/2002 163
                   9/11 videos and KaZaA anablep 09/20/2002 164
                       Re the spire ramblin_dave 09/20/2002 167
                           Spire images anablep 09/21/2002 176
                               The fall of the spire ramblin_dave 09/21/2002 181
                                   Re: "The fall of the spire" anablep 09/21/2002 182
                                       Oh, and by the way.... anablep 09/21/2002 183
                                       It was not dust kicked up from the ground 2muchbs 09/21/2002 198
                                           You've misunderstood me again.... anablep 09/22/2002 201
                                               Talk about kicking up dust plaguepuppy 10/29/2002 206
                       Morpheus plaguepuppy 09/20/2002 174
 Explain this 2muchbs Sep-20-02 168
   You'd think there'd be evidence of tearing on some of the rivets. Old and In the Way 09/21/2002 178
 New heliport picture anablep Sep-21-02 180
   Jim Garamone ewing2001 09/21/2002 185
       Re: "Jim Garamone" anablep 09/21/2002 189
   I see water 2muchbs 09/21/2002 196
       Go back.... anablep 09/22/2002 200
 First News Reports of Pentagon Crash Canitbe Sep-21-02 186
   AP reported a car bomb Bushknew 09/21/2002 187
   Did the first reports come from the military? redspliff 09/21/2002 188
       gamarone ewing2001 09/21/2002 190
           yes anablep 09/21/2002 193
   First reports came from all over anablep 09/21/2002 192
       Surely you have the film 2muchbs 09/21/2002 197
           Wow, two witnesses!!! anablep 09/22/2002 199
   Welcome to DU DulceDecorum 09/23/2002 204
 All this can be boiled down into one question Mr_SmokesTooMuch Sep-22-02 202
   And what is the incentive? anablep 09/22/2002 203
       Time for another thread DulceDecorum 09/23/2002 205
       Why should the FBI care what you think about the Pentagon Mr_SmokesTooMuch 10/29/2002 207
       Re: FBI Dejitaru_Shuurajou 10/30/2002 208
           New analysis of Pentagon crash data plaguepuppy 10/30/2002 209
               Nothing New, in fact rather pathetic considering... vincent_vega 10/30/2002 210
                   Instant debunker, just add water plaguepuppy 10/30/2002 211
                       Yelling only in your head. vincent_vega 10/30/2002 212
                           But painful just the less; another big-ass picture plaguepuppy 10/30/2002 213
                               What are you smoking? vincent_vega 10/30/2002 214
                                   Ah, the familiar spray of spittle plaguepuppy 10/30/2002 215
                                       do you have NO cognitive skills at all? vincent_vega 10/31/2002 216
                                           cognitive skills = agreeing with your silly blather plaguepuppy 10/31/2002 217
                                               completely wrong vincent_vega 10/31/2002 218
                                                   Look at the pictures - good advice... plaguepuppy 10/31/2002 219
                                                       Why so few photos of this event? Canitbe 10/31/2002 220
                                                           Lots of pictures after the collapse... plaguepuppy 10/31/2002 221

Lobby | Latest | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Messages in this topic

shakeproof (476 posts) Click to EMail shakeproof Click to send private message to shakeproof Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-16-02, 00:17 AM (ET)
1. So where is....
The plane and the missing peole?????????????????/
  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Bushknew (547 posts) Click to EMail Bushknew Click to send private message to Bushknew Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-16-02, 01:20 AM (ET)
Reply to post #1
6. So where did the plane go? What happened to all those people?
How should I know, IÕm not the architect of this conspiracy and cover up.

But, do you see, do you admit that:

In the picture, No Firemen or policemen on the lawn = NO plane debris on the lawn.

In the picture, Firemen or policemen on the lawn = plane debris on the lawn.

Contrast this photo:

http://66.129.143.7/june2aa.htm

With this photo:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=4566&forum=DCForumID43&omm=11


United States describes itself as a Republic,
itÕs not.

The United States is a Plutocracy veiled
under the guise of a Republic.

A quote from Bushknew

What would personally convince you that a
757 DID NOT crash into the Pentagon?

What evidence would YOU need?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-b
in/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&o
m=4566&forum=DCForumID43&omm=0

RELEASE THE CONFISCATED
PENTAGON VIDEO NOW!!!


  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Wonk Donating Member (3645 posts) Click to EMail Wonk Click to send private message to Wonk Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-16-02, 00:18 AM (ET)
2. So, then, what did?


I have a strong feeling that this "no plane hit the pentagon" claim is a propaganda trap to distract from other lines of inquiry.

If the passenger jet didn't hit the Pentagon, where did it and the passengers go? And if the plan required getting rid of the plane and passengers anyway, why NOT use them on the Pentagon.

Back to my question. What did hit it? A missile? A truck bomb? Neither of those explain this:

The three holes could be explained by 2 engines and a fuselage, though.

Occam's razor, a plane hit the Pentagon. Now, change your sig line.


"I wish I'd been a plumber" - Albert Einstein
http://www.cha.uga.edu/bjc/vfp.htm
http://www.downwinders.org/nci.html
http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/Usa/Tests/

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Bushknew (547 posts) Click to EMail Bushknew Click to send private message to Bushknew Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-16-02, 01:13 AM (ET)
Reply to post #2
4. Distorted pictures
Wonk, the middle picture you posted is so distorted, I canÕt make anything out.

Minus the superimposed outlining on the picture, I can make out the colors blue, green, black, beige and white, thatÕs it!


United States describes itself as a Republic,
itÕs not.

The United States is a Plutocracy veiled
under the guise of a Republic.

A quote from Bushknew

What would personally convince you that a
757 DID NOT crash into the Pentagon?

What evidence would YOU need?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-b
in/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&o
m=4566&forum=DCForumID43&omm=0

RELEASE THE CONFISCATED
PENTAGON VIDEO NOW!!!


  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Wonk Donating Member (3645 posts) Click to EMail Wonk Click to send private message to Wonk Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-16-02, 02:31 AM (ET)
Reply to post #4
7. The middle picture is a zoom of part of frame 1, posted above
compare that area with frame 2, also posted above (right hand side).

eom.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

shakeproof (476 posts) Click to EMail shakeproof Click to send private message to shakeproof Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-16-02, 01:16 AM (ET)
Reply to post #2
5. Thank you Wonk.
I agree with you.
  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Old and In the Way Donating Member (4593 posts) Click to EMail Old%20and%20In%20the%20Way Click to send private message to Old%20and%20In%20the%20Way Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-16-02, 03:07 AM (ET)
Reply to post #2
8. Valid questions, but it's the limited empirical evidence
that drives this thread. Looking at this new pick says a 757 did not crash into the Pentagon. Your evidence is to ponder the next level of questions.

Maybe it did crash, I don't know. An open and impartial investigation into the events of 9-11 might help us all understand what really happened.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=2574&forum=DCForumID22

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

boloboffin (392 posts) Click to EMail boloboffin Click to send private message to boloboffin Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-16-02, 02:17 PM (ET)
Reply to post #8
18. Excellent point.
I disagree that there's not enough evidence to determine what happened, but the amount of evidence available on the WTC's second hit should not be the benchmark. Think of how much evidence we have of the first plane hitting the WTC. The level of evidence there is the equal to that of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. The terrorists wanted that second hit on national news, and it all led up to the fourth plane. Knowing as we do that the last target was the Capitol building, it's easy to see the terrorist's MO at work. Hit an unsuspecting city, then hit it again for the cameras. Can you imagine all of the media attention that would have documented Flight 93 flying over the Washington Monument, following the path of the Reflecting Pool to smash into the Rotunda? That's what the terrorists wanted to be broadcast over the world.

But I absolutely agree that a public investigation into the failures of 9/11 is called for. I'm sure that many on this topic will look at any such findings as having the same authority as the Warren Commission, but the American people deserve an investigation just the same.

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 Paine

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Merdesquared (28 posts) Click to EMail Merdesquared Click to send private message to Merdesquared Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-16-02, 10:04 PM (ET)
Reply to post #2
40. This is a picture of what exactly?

Nice little outline of a plane, but it's not outlining anything!
That little black thing that you draw a tail fin around is something in the distance, probably a tree judging from the next frame, which shows it better. I believe what has been claimed to be a plane in this picture is the blurry white thing on the left.
But the top of the little concrete pylon does make a nice bottom for your non-existant "plane" (notice the other pylon has a little grey thing on top too).

"Nothing is more annoying in the ordinary intercourse of life than this irritable patriotism of the Americans. A foreigner will gladly agree to praise much in their
country, but he would like to be allowed to criticize something, and that is absolutely refused."
-- Alexis de Tocqueville

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Wonk Donating Member (3645 posts) Click to EMail Wonk Click to send private message to Wonk Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-16-02, 11:21 PM (ET)
Reply to post #40
51. Ok, I'll humor you.
Here is a zoom of the same area from frame1 and frame2 with NO OUTLINE.

See the plane? The colors got weird and posterized because gifs only handle 256 colors. It's clearer in the jpeg I used above, but this should make it obvious that it's NOT a tree in the distance. You can tell which frame is frame2 because of the dust/smoke on the left.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Merdesquared (28 posts) Click to EMail Merdesquared Click to send private message to Merdesquared Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-17-02, 06:29 AM (ET)
Reply to post #51
58. No... I see two extremely blurry images
LAST EDITED ON Sep-17-02 AT 06:31 AM (ET)

Don't see anything more than a grey smear, possibly exhaust from a missile, possibly artifact. I don't find your casual bullshit the least bit humorous, and doubt you'll convince anyone of anything with this kind of crap. I see a blackish blur that gets a little smaller, with tons of artifact at the site of your previous tailfin", and nothing similar to the arbitrary shape you have drawn. Very lame, and nothing to justify your snide self-assurance. Suggest you stop wasting your time squinting at the worst quality evidence.

"Nothing is more annoying in the ordinary intercourse of life than this irritable patriotism of the Americans. A foreigner will gladly agree to praise much in their
country, but he would like to be allowed to criticize something, and that is absolutely refused."
-- Alexis de Tocqueville

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Bushknew (547 posts) Click to EMail Bushknew Click to send private message to Bushknew Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-16-02, 01:04 AM (ET)
3. Congratulations Boloboffin
LAST EDITED ON Sep-16-02 AT 01:06 AM (ET)

Congratulations Boloboffin, the pictures you posted of the Pan Am 103 Lockerbie plane do not have fire or paint damage.

Why, and how is that not relative to flight 77?

Well, here is the OFFICIAL cause of the crash:

" The report from the AAIB (Air Accident Investigation Branch) concluded the cause of the crash to be an intentional explosive device on the aircraft, placed in the cargo container in the right forward section of the aircraft."

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5260/crash.html

In other words Boloboffin, you can not compare flight 77 with Pan Am 103 because
Pan Am 103 had a bomb in it, and flight 77 didnÕt.

Two different kinds of crashes would produce two different kinds of results.

Apples & oranges


United States describes itself as a Republic,
itÕs not.

The United States is a Plutocracy veiled
under the guise of a Republic.

A quote from Bushknew

What would personally convince you that a
757 DID NOT crash into the Pentagon?

What evidence would YOU need?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-b
in/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&o
m=4566&forum=DCForumID43&omm=0

RELEASE THE CONFISCATED
PENTAGON VIDEO NOW!!!


  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

boloboffin (392 posts) Click to EMail boloboffin Click to send private message to boloboffin Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-16-02, 10:35 AM (ET)
Reply to post #3
10. My point, of course...
...is that the Lockerbie pictures shows plane debris involved in an explosion that shows no heat or paint damage. Just like at the Pentagon. It's not a conspiracy. The plane crashed there.

And yes, flight 77 did have a "bomb" on board -- it was fully loaded with highly explosive jet fuel.

I'm encouraged that my line of reasoning and evidence shook you so that you had to start a new thread to try and get away from them. I don't think that's something you would get away with at the Smirking Chimp. But life goes on...

The incredible amount of energy you expend toward promoting this daffy line of reasoning would be better directed at more productive attempts to thwart Bush's agenda. Proving that Bush has been gunning for Iraq all along, and getting that into people's face, that would do some good. Getting out and getting people to vote would be good, too; something besides spreading this Orwellian disdain for reality.

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 Paine

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

redspliff (39 posts) Click to EMail redspliff Click to send private message to redspliff Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-16-02, 10:56 AM (ET)
Reply to post #10
13. The individual is handicapped...
...by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." J. Edgar Hoover


Some people believe that Flight 77 had to have hit the Pentagon because of the sheer number of witnesses there were around the Pentagon at the time. An explosion like that in broad daylight and at rush hour would have been visible to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of witnesses. Why then is it so hard to find anyone who actually saw it happen? If you critically http://www.thepowerhour.com/postings-two/eyewitness-accounts-flight77.htm (the same article is also here http://richmond.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=1706) examine the witness statements, you will see that extremely few http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2002_04_01_xymphora_archive.html people of those interviewed actually saw the full crash of Flight 77 (to be fair, here is a list http://criticalthrash.com/terror/identification.html of people who did see the crash and another here http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm; you will notice inconsistencies if you read them carefully). Some of those had obvious Pentagon connections, and some were probably planted by the conspirators. Some, after being told what the Official Story was, probably actually believed they saw Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon. Something did cause the explosion. The size http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/15m/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/attack_757200.htm of a real Boeing 757, and the odd dimensions 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 http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-86c.htm missile and ask them if they thought that could have gone through the hole. Could a cruise missile, painted to look like it had windows and in American Airlines colors, be what they saw? Of course, no one would be allowed to ask such impertinent questions.


"U.S. military intelligence community is morally capable of allowing U.S. citizens to be killed to serve geostrategic interests."


  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

boloboffin (392 posts) Click to EMail boloboffin Click to send private message to boloboffin Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-16-02, 11:41 AM (ET)
Reply to post #13
14. Impertinent questions? More like goofy ones...
I mean, what else can you say about speculations like this:

Could a cruise missile, painted to look like it had windows and in American Airlines colors, be what they saw? Of course, no one would be allowed to ask such impertinent questions.

Compare that to this account:

On 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.

Every statement in the above account is fully verifiable by the evidence, to the exclusion of any other hypothesis. All rational people agree - Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

Why do people continue to believe the impossible? Perhaps it's a refusal to give up ways of thinking about evidence. The Pentagon plane crash is so obviously demonstrable. Why would people continue to believe the opposite, despite all evidence to the contrary?

Perhaps it's simply addiction to the method of reasoning that produces the premise "Flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon on 9/11." How many other conspiracy theories do you subscribe to, BushKnew? Well, there's one big one right there in your name. It's a broad range of theories though, ranging from the incredible "they painted a cruise missile to look like an airplane" to "Bush and Co. knew that some attack was imminent and decided to allow whatever happened in order to justify a mounting war with Iraq."

Talk to us of JFK, BushKnew. What about chemtrails and crop circles? Where do you stand on the anthrax mailer, ewing? Do you draw the line at the Knights Templar, or do you believe that Jesus' earthly descendants are living in the South of France? Where does your reality resemble the reality that most other people experience?

Isn't it exciting to know something that other people don't? Don't we all want to be the ones who show the world something new and interesting and true? Something unsuspected and yet surprisingly factual? Don't we secretly wish that Bush and Co. were stupid enough to paint a cruise missile like a plane? Don't we all want to be Perry Mason, grilling these monsters until finally someone shouts out, "Yes, I did it! I went to the hardware store and matched the paint, I bought the brushes, I painted the faces of terror on the missiles, AND I'D DO IT AGAIN!!!!!"

Don't we need to give this idiocy a rest and move on to greener fields?

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 Paine

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

redspliff (39 posts) Click to EMail redspliff Click to send private message to redspliff Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-16-02, 01:07 PM (ET)
Reply to post #14
16. http://www.ifrance.com/silentbutdeadly
Tuesday, September 11, 2001; 4:59 PM


Steve Patterson, 43, said he was watching television reports of the World Trade Center being hit
when he saw a silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City.

The plane was about 150 yards away,
approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground, Patterson said.
He said the plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet,
flew over Arlington cemetary so low that he thought it was going to land on I-395.

It was flying so fast that he couldn't read any writing on the side.
The plane, which appeared to hold about EIGHT to 12 people,
headed straight for the Pentagon but was flying
as if coming in for a landing on a nonexistent runway, Patterson said.

"At first I thought 'God, there's a plane truly misrouted from National,'"
"Then this thing just became part of the Pentagon ...
I was watching the World Trade Center go and then this. What's next?"

He said the plane, which approached the Pentagon below treetop level,
seemed to be flying normally for a plane coming in for a landing
other than going very fast for being so low.

Then, he said, he saw the Pentagon "envelope" the plane
and bright orange flames shoot out the back of the building.

By Barbara Vobejda
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 11, 2001; 4:59 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/daily/sep01/attack.html


CNN has covered http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0204/24/ltm.09.html the new French book on September 11 (a copy of the transcript is also here http://www.thepowerhour.com/postings/transcripts.htm). Predictably, they sneer at it, and make ad hominem attacks on it by suggesting that the French nationality of the author of the book explains its anti-American and conspiratorial bent, and then further smear the author by immediately sliding into a discussion of the vote for Le Pen, as if that had anything to do with the analysis of the Pentagon crash. They wisely don't deal with any of the substance of the book. I've gone on and on about this, but would like to consider three additional points:
If Flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, what happened to it? It could have been shot down over any uninhabited area. On September 11 there were reports that a plane had been intercepted and shot down in Colorado, reports which apparently have been forgotten.
Since the hijackers (or even, in the most conspiratorial theories, the U. S. government) had control over Flight 77 and it was going to crash anyway as a result of being shot down, why didn't they crash it into the Pentagon? In other words, why go through the charade of hijacking a plane if you were not going to use it to attack the Pentagon? The first response is that we do not know that any hijackers had control of Flight 77. All our information comes from the U. S. government, which has given us an obviously bogus list of hijackers, and quite possibly a bogus flight path for Flight 77. We have to remember that Flight 93 was very probably shot down. If it had been shot down over an uninhabited area and the wreckage had been covered up, it might have been blamed for the Pentagon attack, and it might have been unnecessary to shoot down Flight 77 (in other words, the un-hijacked Flight 77 might have landed in Los Angeles, blissfully unaware of how close it came to being chosen as the Pentagon patsy plane). The second response is that prior to September 11, the U. S. military had been considering http://mdwweb.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/Contingency_Planning_Photos.html(1) the effects http://mdwweb.mdw.army.mil/news/Contingency_Planning.html(2) of a large plane crash into the Pentagon in planning for emergency operations, and may have determined that the damage caused by a real plane crash would be too great or too unpredictable. It would be better to use bombs or a small missile, which would cause a photogenic amount of damage but do no harm to the important work being done in the rest of the building.
If the intent of the hijackers was to crash into the Pentagon, why http://www.nerdcities.com/guardian/SeptemberEleventh/WhatHitThePentagon/index.html(3) did they hijack the Flight 77 so far away from Washington, and then have to turn the plane around and fly it all the way back, giving the U. S. air defence all that extra time to shoot it down? Did this meticulously planned operation fail to take into account the possibility that the United States has an Air Force? Did they know that the air defences had been stood down, and that they were at no risk of being intercepted no matter how much time it took them to get back to the Pentagon? Or was the plane not hijacked at all, and the official map of its route just a lie? It may very well be that the only two planes hijacked on September 11 were the two that crashed into the WTC.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

boloboffin (392 posts) Click to EMail boloboffin Click to send private message to boloboffin Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-16-02, 02:00 PM (ET)
Reply to post #16
17. Could have, might have, possibly...
An eyewitness testifies that a plane flew into the building and this is proof that no airplane flew into the building. Welcome to Bizarro World.

Flight 77 could have flown to the moon and met with the Ambassador of Alpha Centauri. Flight 77 could have turned into a monarch butterfly. Flight 77 could have been shot down over Colorado. But Flight 77 actually crashed into the Pentagon, and the proof is all the airplane parts and dead passengers that were pulled from the rubble.

I meet your speculations with evidence, and you produce wilder speculations from various websites. I answer your speculations using the material from the websites you link to, and you respond with even more baseless and ludicrous speculations.

Why did they hijack the plane so far away from Washington? It was part of their plan to stagger hijackings to take advantage of the furor caused by the previous ones. All planes were to be in the air before the first transponder was turned off (Flight 93 was delayed from taking off). Flight 77's transponder was turned off just before the second plane hit the WTC.

http://256.com/gray/thoughts/20010912/timeline.html

Through a fluke, although Flight 77 was the third to be hijacked, it was the last to be reported as hijacked. The confusion caused by the staggered hijackings is palpable. Remember air traffic controllers had to continue their nail-biting job of keeping the air traffic flowing while dealing with up to two jets at a time with no transponders.

If 93 hadn't been delayed, it would have reached Washington right after 77, with just about the same interval of time between 11 and 175 striking the WTC. Do the math. Remember what they said about a coordinated attack?

Your second question is only conjecture based on discredited and implausible scenarios for the attack.

Your third question is answered above. It was a coordinated attack designed to cause the most confusion in the control towers and command centers. They took the planes when they did, based on their plans.

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 Paine

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Merdesquared (28 posts) Click to EMail Merdesquared Click to send private message to Merdesquared Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-17-02, 06:40 AM (ET)
Reply to post #14
59. Do you get paid
by the pound for this kind of toxic crap?

"Don't we need to give this idiocy a rest" What do you mean we, white man? (With apologies to Tonto)

"do you believe that Jesus' earthly descendants are living in
the South of France?" Aix-actly!


"Nothing is more annoying in the ordinary intercourse of life than this irritable patriotism of the Americans. A foreigner will gladly agree to praise much in their
country, but he would like to be allowed to criticize something, and that is absolutely refused."
-- Alexis de Tocqueville

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

boloboffin (392 posts) Click to EMail boloboffin Click to send private message to boloboffin Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-17-02, 10:04 AM (ET)
Reply to post #59
62. Is that all you have to debate me? Silly invective?
No, I don't get paid. Except with that special feeling of joy I get when the people I debate say silly things, evade my real arguments, and choose to deal only with the provacative things. As you have done.

You're unfamiliar with the "decendants of Jesus living in the South of France" story? You haven't heard that his body is buried there in a non-descript tomb? So you haven't heard of the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail," one of the pinnacles of conspiracy theory reasoning! Check it out, I'm sure you'll love it.. (No, I'm not in the pay of the printers.)

Better yet, get the third Gabriel Knight game "Blood of the Sacred, Blood of the Damned." One of my favorite computer game series, I might add. There you can play a great little adventure game, get caught up on the reasoning, and then read the book for the whole story. (No, I'm not in the pay of Sierra)

By the way, love the name. It suits you.

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 Paine

On 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

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

shatoga Donating Member (715 posts) Click to EMail shatoga Click to send private message to shatoga Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Jan-16-03, 03:13 PM (ET)
Reply to post #14
222. bumped with rant- great pumpkin & santa claus nothwithstanding
Any examination of th eevidence and lack theirof clearly shows a small flying object is what actually crashed into the pentagon.

No amount of evidence will convince a skeptic.

There are still people who believe Lee Oswald actually shot JFK.
There are still people who believe that Sirhan shot RFK.

I have a bridge, swampland in Florida, and becahfront property in Arizona for sale to those too gullible to see the obvious.

-----great pumpkin & santa claus nothwithstanding-----


"something that's really important and is so true...
Democrats are just as patriotic about their country as Republicans"
George W. Bush- January 22, 2001

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Bushknew (547 posts) Click to EMail Bushknew Click to send private message to Bushknew Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-16-02, 04:52 PM (ET)
Reply to post #10
23. You and everyone else have evaded this question.
Do you see, will you admit that:

When No Firemen or policemen are on the lawn, there is NO plane debris on the lawn.

When Firemen or policemen are on the lawn, plane debris is on the lawn!!!!

Contrast this photo:

http://66.129.143.7/june2aa.htm

to the second picture in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=4566&forum=DCForumID43&omm=11


By the way, your line of reasoning did not make me start a new thread LOL! The length of the previous thread did, but whatever increases your self- esteem.

For the record, Flight 77 did not have a bomb, Pan Am 103 did.

Jet Fuel is definitely explosive, but it is not a bomb, donÕt be a weasel.


United States describes itself as a Republic,
itÕs not.

The United States is a Plutocracy veiled
under the guise of a Republic.

A quote from Bushknew

What would personally convince you that a
757 DID NOT crash into the Pentagon?

What evidence would YOU need?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-b
in/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&o
m=4566&forum=DCForumID43&omm=0

RELEASE THE CONFISCATED
PENTAGON VIDEO NOW!!!


  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Wonk Donating Member (3645 posts) Click to EMail Wonk Click to send private message to Wonk Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-16-02, 05:25 PM (ET)
Reply to post #23
27. What's your point?
Are you implying the firemen brought wreckage with them in their firetrucks and deposited it on the lawn? Did Elvis conspire with them to make it look like a plane crash when it was actually an energy weapon fired from Jupiter that did the damage? Go on, spell out your alternate theory.

Isn't it more likely that the amount of wreckage on the lawn being greater after the arrival of the firemen was because they hauled some of it out of the Pentagon in their rescue efforts?

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

boloboffin (392 posts) Click to EMail boloboffin Click to send private message to boloboffin Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-16-02, 06:00 PM (ET)
Reply to post #23
28. Evading is as evading does
I maintain that you changed threads to get away from every one of the links and arguments I was making in that thread. My proof is that you have only picked up one of those points, one that you thought you had an argument about, but which I demolished.

Let's look at the pics:

Most pictures we see are taken from Highway 27, which is a four lane highway that runs to the east of the Pentagon. This picture, however, is taken from across Interstate 395, a major thoroughfare, with a high-power zoom lenses. This is easily seen by tracing the sightlines back along a satellite picture of the Pentagon. The two sides converge across Interstate 395. Look at the level of detail you can see anywhere in this picture. The distance and the distortion of the lens all contribute to this illusion of no debris field.

Now where exactly would we expect to see debris in this tragic event? As you can see, the plane approached the Pentagon at a 50 degree angle (thanks, "silentbutdeadly" website). Imagine a billiard ball striking the Pentagon. Most of the plane embedded itself in the building, but what way would any debris fly? Towards the helipad, to the left of the impact!

Now look at the first photo. I've proven on another post that this picture gives a view of the right side of the impact. There's only one small section of the first photo that shows us the left side of the impact zone. It's the darkened area of the lawn just to the left of the crater. The darkened area that is LITTERED WITH DEBRIS.

Look at it! The lawn is burned and there are small white and grey pieces of something scattered all over that area, the very area where you would expect debris to be. And there it is!

Now in the other thread, you were all worked up about no one providing you any interviews with family members of anyone on Flight 77. So I gave you a bunch of links and your response was to change the thread. Here they are again:

http://www.herald-dispatch.com/2002/September/11/LNspot.htm

http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/01/09/13/010913hntribute.xml

I admit: the above link is about people who worked with Flight 77 victims (among others). Sue me.

http://www.glaad.org/org/news.html?news=18

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/01/10/victims_9_11.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/17/jack.htm

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/july-dec01/victims_9-18.html

You'll really want to check out the above link. It's about the eight members of a National Geographic field trip, students and teachers alike, who perished on impact when Flight 77 slammed into the Pentagon. Remember, all but one person's remains have been identified from the crash site. The above link has streaming video, audio, and a full transcript of the report.

Also, I provided you with a thorough refutation of the "Hunt the Boeing" Website. Your response was to start another thread!

Also I provided you with eyewitness accounts that the plane flew into the Pentagon. Your response was to start a new thread!!!!

Who is evading questions? Who is ignoring evidence? Not me, BK.

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 Paine

On 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

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Bushknew (547 posts) Click to EMail Bushknew Click to send private message to Bushknew Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-16-02, 08:40 PM (ET)
Reply to post #28
35. YouÕve got to be kidding

In the top picture, you can clearly see that there is no plane debris on the lawn at ALL.

The other 3 pictures you posted are either too far away to see the lawn or were taken at an angle that you canÕt see whether there is or isnÕt debris on the lawn at all.

<<The darkened area that is LITTERED WITH DEBRIS.>>

Good God! You say the debris is all in that darkened area, but YOU can see it, I canÕt.

How come in this picture there is all kinds of debris and NOT IN A DARKENED AREA!!!

The second picture in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=4566&forum=DCForumID43&omm=11

How do you explain that Boloboffin?

Second question, you say that the plane hit the Pentagon from the opposite angle of this picture correct?

http://66.129.143.7/june2aa.htm

So, shouldnÕt we have seen the 757 crash from this angle?

http://www.msnbc.com/news/720851.asp


P.S. In the old thread I said I was going to start a new Pentagon Questions thread
because the old one was too big. I said I would answer the questionÕs in the
new thread.

Maybe you missed my post in that thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=4566&forum=DCForumID43&omm=229

Or maybe this is just your way of how you increase your self Ð esteem.

I answered and demolished your comparison of Pan Am 103 to flight 77 in this
new thread.

Now, on to what you call a thorough refutation of the "Hunt the Boeing" Website:

http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/2002/03/14

He says quote:

<<To be clear: We believe that American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon on 9/11/2001 because we know far too many friends and colleagues in Washington who saw the plane come in over the freeway - some right over their heads - and felt the earth shake as it disappeared into the Pentagon. And we think people who believe they can uncover the truth about anything by surfing the Web are deceiving themselves in a dangerous way.>>

You and he put all your faith/eggs in the eyewitness basket, and donÕt want to look at the physical evidence questions.

As I posted above.

United States describes itself as a Republic,
itÕs not.

The United States is a Plutocracy veiled
under the guise of a Republic.

A quote from Bushknew

What would personally convince you that a
757 DID NOT crash into the Pentagon?

What evidence would YOU need?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-b
in/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&o
m=4566&forum=DCForumID43&omm=0

RELEASE THE CONFISCATED
PENTAGON VIDEO NOW!!!


  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

boloboffin (392 posts) Click to EMail boloboffin Click to send private message to boloboffin Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-16-02, 11:07 PM (ET)
Reply to post #35
47. *sigh*
You don't see the debris because you've blinded yourself to it. It's there, though. Yes, in the light post picture taken from the opposite side of 395. Keep looking.

Why isn't the debris in your pictures in a darkened area? Um, the cloud moved? Further, the pictures you're referring to show much more of the debris field than the 395 picture does.

Second question. The pictures are all consistent with the same angle of attack. The 395 picture is taken from the opposite side of the Pentagon than the security cam picture you've brought up. In the 395 picture, visualize the plane flying to the left of the POV, but not coming from the opposite direction. If my words gave you that impression, I'm sorry. The plane came from the same side as the POV of the 395 picture, but the 395 picture is showing the inner 50 degrees of the flight path, rather than showing the true path. So it matches up with the security cam just fine.

I wish I had a graphics program; I could be much more clear with it.

If you're going to answer all my questions, then get busy! Time's a'wasting!

I'm afraid that we'll have to leave the question of your demolishing my comparison of Lockerbie to the Pentagon plane to our gentle readers. Lockerbie had a real bomb, the Pentagon plane was used as a bomb. Same difference, same affect on plane parts as far as heat and paint damage is concerned.

And if you think a thorough refutation of Paul Boutin's debunking is to say he's put all of his eggs in the eyewitness basket, you are beyond hope. And anyone that's been following this discussion knows who's dealing with the physical evidence and who isn't.

Do over, young man!

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 Paine

On 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

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Bushknew (547 posts) Click to EMail Bushknew Click to send private message to Bushknew Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-17-02, 03:54 AM (ET)
Reply to post #47
57. BoloboffinÕs Cloud Defense.
Your reply to my question:

Why donÕt we see any plane debris in this picture?

http://www.crc-internet.org/june2a.htm

You said <<The darkened area that is LITTERED WITH DEBRIS.>>

So, then I asked you to explain how come in this picture there is all kinds of debris NOT IN A DARKENED AREA!!!

The second picture in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=4566&forum=DCForumID43&omm=11

Your reply:

<<Um, the cloud moved?>>

Sorry no sale. If you think that was a creditable refutation you are beyond hope.

And, I donÕt think satellite pictures would convince you otherwise, because for you and Paul Boutin, eyewitness testimonials trump all physical evidence.

I bet youÕre as satisfied with my answers as I am with yours.


United States describes itself as a Republic,
itÕs not.

The United States is a Plutocracy veiled
under the guise of a Republic.

A quote from Bushknew

What would personally convince you that a
757 DID NOT crash into the Pentagon?

What evidence would YOU need?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-b
in/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&o
m=4566&forum=DCForumID43&omm=0

RELEASE THE CONFISCATED
PENTAGON VIDEO NOW!!!


  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

boloboffin (392 posts) Click to EMail boloboffin Click to send private message to boloboffin Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-17-02, 09:30 AM (ET)
Reply to post #57
60. Once again, you completely mischaracterize my answers.
And it's all smoke and mirrors so you don't have deal with the questions, hard evidence, eyewitness testimony, and websites I shared back on the old thread and reposted on this thread. You're pathetic, and you don't deserve any more answers because you're not here to get answers or have a real debate.

I defy anyone to read my replies to you and not come to that conclusion. Even though your answers have been most unsatisfactory the whole time I've been talking to you, I went ahead and tried to meet your every vacuous point. I posted the contents of an entire page that debunked the no-plane theory based on the pictures and you wouldn't even read it. You stopped at the first paragraph and said he threw all of his eggs into the eyewitness basket. No wonder you believe that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon. You're unwilling to look at any evidence that contradicts your position.

I showed you where there were interviews with the families of people who died in Flight 77. They include a National Geographic field trip, and I posted a link to a NewsHour story on those children. You have yet to deal with any of them, even though you were all worked up about no one ever interviewing those families. I proved you wrong, and you changed the thread and said you'd get back to that. Well, you haven't and you won't. You've lied and wheedled and gotten all huffy and done everything you can BUT ACTUALLY DEAL WITH ALL THE HARD EVIDENCE (INCLUDING BUT NOT COMPLETELY CONSISTING OF EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY).

When eyewitness testimony and hard evidence agree, as it does in this case, there's no reason to disparage eyewitness testimony. It's just as much hard evidence as debris on the ground.

You are the disinformation person here. You are the evader. The above is hard evidence in proof of it. But you have the power to prove me wrong. Actually deal with the links, the evidence, and the reasoning I have presented. Once you really start doing it, then I'll get back to better answers than "the cloud moved," because the answers are there. But until you prove to be a worthy person to debate and discuss this issue with, "the cloud moved" is all you deserve.

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 Paine

On 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

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

2muchbs (1189 posts) Click to EMail 2muchbs Click to send private message to 2muchbs Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-17-02, 02:10 PM (ET)
Reply to post #60
65. I must agree
With Bushknew. I mean, I dont even need to agree as I can see the freaking picture. It says it all. No damn debris. Thats all that needs to be seen at this point. Who is really putting out disinfo? The picture says it all. It couldnt be more damning!

Bushknew, I think what happened is the fbi quickly removed all of the debris evidence so us stupids could have the opportunity to see how beautiful the grass was before the crash. It makes sense. You know the photo op thing. They had some great gardeners huh? I better get some deeper boots, its getting thick in here.

Bill

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Bushknew (547 posts) Click to EMail Bushknew Click to send private message to Bushknew Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-17-02, 02:52 PM (ET)
Reply to post #60
67. Evidence or Excuse
LAST EDITED ON Sep-17-02 AT 02:59 PM (ET)

Boloboffin wrote:

<<You are the disinformation person here. You are the evader. The above is hard evidence in proof of it. But you have the power to prove me wrong. Actually deal with the links, the evidence, and the reasoning I have presented. Once you really start doing it, then I'll get back to better answers than "the cloud moved," because the answers are there. But until you prove to be a worthy person to debate and discuss this issue with, "the cloud moved" is all you deserve.>>

IÕll let the people here at DU decide whether what you or I posted is evidence or excuse.

I feel confident that IÕve ALREADY exposed you for what you are, a disinformation specialist.

Frankly, your employers deserve a better advocate. Your "the cloud moved" argument was
really lame, THEY deserve better.

So far you havenÕt proven squat.

And as for your Paul Boutin site:

http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/2002/03/14

Your Paul Boutin site doesnÕt ask or answer MY questions, which go into more detail and depth than the Hunt the Boeing questions.


http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

Here are MY questions:

Why donÕt we see any plane debris on the lawn in this CLEAR and UNDISTORTED picture?

http://www.crc-internet.org/june2a.htm

Why do we NOW see plane debris on the lawn in THIS picture, when the picture above
was taken BEFORE the picture below.

The second picture in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=4566&forum=DCForumID43&omm=11

When No Firemen or policemen are on the lawn, there is NO plane debris on the lawn.

When Firemen or policemen are on the lawn, plane debris is on the lawn!!!!

Did the firemen and policemen plant the plane debris?


1. As you can see, the left part of the Pentagon is perfectly severed.

2. How could a 757 plane crash sever a building so perfectly?

3. WouldnÕt the inertia of a 100 ton 757 airplane push the Pentagon face inward, or totally obliterate the face altogether? Instead, you have a slope, starting at the perfectly severed left part of the Pentagon. This indicates strategically placed bombs to me, because the damage is mostly on one side.

4.How could the right side withstand such an impact and the left side not?

5. Was the 757 just too fast to be captured on film? A 757 is huge, it isnÕt a humming bird for it not to be captured on film. Do you think the 757 was traveling so fast that the camera wasnÕt even able to capture the APPROACH of this 757 airplane on film, or any other point of the actual impact, only the explosion!!!???

6. No jet on earth travels even close to as fast as a fireball grows.

7. The WHOLE plane was supposedly engulfed by flames, how could ANY piece of debris escape without SCRATCHES, FIRE or PAINT damage?

Back picture of debris.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=4566&forum=DCForumID43&omm=21

Front picture of debris, The second picture in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=4566&forum=DCForumID43&omm=11


United States describes itself as a Republic,
itÕs not.

The United States is a Plutocracy veiled
under the guise of a Republic.

A quote from Bushknew

What would personally convince you that a
757 DID NOT crash into the Pentagon?

What evidence would YOU need?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-b
in/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&o
m=4566&forum=DCForumID43&omm=0

RELEASE THE CONFISCATED
PENTAGON VIDEO NOW!!!


  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

boloboffin (392 posts) Click to EMail boloboffin Click to send private message to boloboffin Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-17-02, 07:57 PM (ET)
Reply to post #67
73. Evidence, of course!
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 Paine

On 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

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Old and In the Way Donating Member (4593 posts) Click to EMail Old%20and%20In%20the%20Way Click to send private message to Old%20and%20In%20the%20Way Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-17-02, 09:34 PM (ET)
Reply to post #73
76. Actually Bolobuffin, I sent BushKnew a private e-mail suggesting
he start this thread because the original thread was still active but impossibly slow to load for dial-ups.

Just to set the record straight.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=2574&forum=DCForumID22

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

boloboffin (392 posts) Click to EMail boloboffin Click to send private message to boloboffin Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-17-02, 09:48 PM (ET)
Reply to post #76
77. So ignoring everything I said in the other thread was just a bonus!
Okay, I accept that. Thanks for setting the record straight.

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 Paine

On 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

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Old and In the Way Donating Member (4593 posts) Click to EMail Old%20and%20In%20the%20Way Click to send private message to Old%20and%20In%20the%20Way Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-17-02, 10:25 PM (ET)
Reply to post #77
79. Are you saying we should have stopped asking questions after you posted?
As good as your arguments are (and I find them quite persuasive), I remain open to any and all comments.

Let me say this too. I was back in the "757 crashed in the Pentagon Camp". Until the picture (pic 1 in your above post) was added to the #1 thread a few days ago. That started my whole "questioning" process again. I guess, at this moment, I'm in the "pretty sure a plane hit the Pentagon Camp".

And that's the point, I guess. Let's say that someone soon posts what appears to be an unretouched picture of a plane mocked up to look like a 757 in the same flightpath as 77. Wouldn't that cause a rethinking in your assessment?

I doubt anyone here knows the complete story of any of the events that occurred on 9-11-01, that seems to suit this administration's desires nicely. But I think most of us here are trying to uncover and understand the truth, not obscuring or hiding it.

Because I know so little of the truth, I guess that makes me susceptible to considering all theories, accepting/rejecting what makes sense to my understanding of the "facts".

Thanks for the posts......


http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=2574&forum=DCForumID22

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

boloboffin (392 posts) Click to EMail boloboffin Click to send private message to boloboffin Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-17-02, 11:22 PM (ET)
Reply to post #79
81. No, but I would like some measured consideration...
..of what I'm saying, which you are providing, OAITW. In fact, I love your questions in your recent post, and want to tackle them next, because I sense you really are asking these questions from an honest place. Also the guy that said something about g-forces and software. I haven't understood exactly what he's talking about, but it sounds like a good question and area of inquiry.

BushKnew, however? BK just finds the flakiest angle to justify not having to deal with anything I say or point to. Sure, I throw a lot of links and explanations his way, but that's to demonstrate the abundance of evidence that he is ignoring to be able to advance his theories. For example, first, he tries to deal with Paul Boutin's website by reading the first sentence and declaring the whole website one that throws all of its eggs into the eyewitness basket. That is patently false! When I called him on it, BK decided that he couldn't bother with it because Boutin "doesn't deal with the tough questions." Well, by God, if the points Boutin makes are so easy to disprove, then it won't take BK very long to type out a rebuttal and prove him wrong. He should get cracking, stat.

Of course, I'm aware that BK may be dealing with a language barrier. The constant typos in his posts make me think he's typing with a foreign keyboard, which I don't fault him for! I just wish he'd be honest about it.

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 Paine

On 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

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Old and In the Way Donating Member (4593 posts) Click to EMail Old%20and%20In%20the%20Way Click to send private message to Old%20and%20In%20the%20Way Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-18-02, 00:21 AM (ET)
Reply to post #81
83. G-forces and software
I'm a software pilot myself. I've got a scenario setup of a 767 at 7000 ft flying at max cruise speed (using most realistic settings for airframe stress).

The chances of dropping 7000', doing a 270' turn, hitting the least vulnerable and most protected part of the Pentagon, without destroying the aircraft in flight, is exceedingly small.

At the very least, I have to believe that the pilot had some kind of autopilot feeding off the Pentagon coordinates with a GPS guidance system.

Regarding BK, he appears convinced in his beliefs.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=2574&forum=DCForumID22

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Old and In the Way Donating Member (4593 posts) Click to EMail Old%20and%20In%20the%20Way Click to send private message to Old%20and%20In%20the%20Way Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-17-02, 10:00 PM (ET)
Reply to post #73
78. Just for the sake of discussion, mind you.
LAST EDITED ON Sep-17-02 AT 10:01 PM (ET)

(1) Would the debris field be metal parts or paper?
(2) Where is the entry point located in the 2nd pic...to the left?
(3) If the plane went in at ground level, wouldn't the car be in the flightpath (compare to pic 1).
(4) The large metal object in pic 2.
(a) Is that identifiable to a AA graphics?
(b) Would this be resultant from impact explosion? The rivet holes look pretty good, not a lot of tearing from the frame.
(c) Shouldn't there be more large pieces lying around? Seems strange for a large piece of isolated scrap.
(d) Could that be part of a helicopter airframe (just free associating here).


http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=2574&forum=DCForumID22

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

boloboffin (392 posts) Click to EMail boloboffin Click to send private message to boloboffin Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-19-02, 11:20 AM (ET)
Reply to post #78
99. Continuing discussion.
1) I wouldn't expect that much metal debris on the outside. After the wall was breached, the plane obviously wadded up and continued its plunge into the building. Only the explosion would throw debris in the direction of the debris field, and that's a lot of paper, and smaller airplane parts (including our infamous sheet of airplane skin).

2)The entry point of the plane is off to the right of Debris A. Debris B gives a shot of the entry point, before the roof collapsed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=5067&forum=DCForumID43&omm=84

3) The above link is to a dead on shot of the debris field. I can't make out the car in Picture 1 (the 395 picture), so I went to this one. (Isn't that wild? It's difficult to make out a couple of CARS next to the Pentagon, and yet BK wonders why all the debris isn't easy to see there!)

In the linked picture (Rickus' picture, moments after the plane hit), the car is still intact. It's the light-colored muscle car next to the van. In Debris A, that car has exploded and the engine's on fire. (More proof that Rickus took the pictures when he said he did.) In Rickus' picture, the entry point isn't too far away, but the car isn't in the way.

4a) My best guess is that, assuming that the right side of the debris was up when mounted on the plane, this is a section of the letter C in American. Due to the twisting of the metal, it could be a part of the M or N, but the continous curve looks more like the C.

b) I'm no expert on rivet holes. I can only offer my best guess on this.

Under the duress of the impact, the plane crumbled in on itself. These stresses buckled this part of the skin out and the skin could have popped off of the rivets like a tux shirt slipping off the studs. I believe that could have left the rivet holes in fairly good shape. This piece then could have been ripped off by the building as the plane entered, and the explosion sent it across the lawn. It's far enough up on the body to have been scraped off just before the engines hit and the explosion occured. And because it was on the top, it was able to travel so far away from the impact.

c) It's possible that other larger pieces just aren't in frame here, but it really looks like the vast majority of the plane entered the building. Explosions are like other disasters; what survives and what doesn't is largely a matter of chance. Who would have thought the WTC globe would have looked so good after being buried under the rubble?

d) It could be. I don't know of any helicopters painted like that one way or the other. But it is within the design parameters of an American Airlines 757.


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 Paine

On 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

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

anablep (165 posts) Click to EMail anablep Click to send private message to anablep Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-19-02, 03:20 PM (ET)
Reply to post #99
105. I think the twisted piece of airline skin is an "A" not a "C"
> 4a) My best guess is that, assuming that the right side of
> the debris was up when mounted on the plane, this is a section
> of the letter C in American. Due to the twisting of the metal,
> it could be a part of the M or N, but the continous curve looks
> more like the C.

You're right about the curve, but I think it is more likely
the curve in the lower-case "a" or "e" in "American".

There already was a seperate piece that bore the letter "C"
from "American":

In the comparison below, I've enhanced the color in the
wreckage piece by adding grey to the washed-out white --
revealing the latent color:

Also note the following account of Staff Sgt. Chris Bauman:

"The lawn was littered with twisted pieces of aluminum. He saw
one chunk painted with the letter 'A,' another with a 'C.' It
didn't occur to Braman what the letters signified until a man in
the crowd stooped to pick up one of the smaller metal shards.
He examined it for a moment, then announced: 'This was a jet.' "
http://www.pilotonline.com/special/911/pentagon3b.html

anablep

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Old and In the Way Donating Member (4593 posts) Click to EMail Old%20and%20In%20the%20Way Click to send private message to Old%20and%20In%20the%20Way Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-20-02, 02:24 AM (ET)
Reply to post #105
119. Seems like it could only be the "n"...........
There is a continuous space after the letter(?) that I'd expect to see more lettering.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=2574&forum=DCForumID22

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Old and In the Way Donating Member (4593 posts) Click to EMail Old%20and%20In%20the%20Way Click to send private message to Old%20and%20In%20the%20Way Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-20-02, 02:14 AM (ET)
Reply to post #99
118. Thanks for posting the plane pic.
Re (4a) Plane trim has the 'American' name over blue/red bar trim. The wrecked section (upside down?) would appear to have the lettering over red/blue bars. Of course, the part distortion and picture angle might be deceiving.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=2574&forum=DCForumID22

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

anablep (165 posts) Click to EMail anablep Click to send private message to anablep Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-20-02, 03:38 AM (ET)
Reply to post #118
123. Here is a comparison
This is a comparison of the photographed piece of debris with
the fuselage of American Airlines 757-223 #N644AA. In fact,
this is the very plane that was reportedly hijacked and crashed
into the Pentagon on 9/11. It was photographed just a month
before at Boston's Logan airport (source: airliners.net). So
this would be a comparison with the actual source of the
red-painted piece.

Looks like the best candidate is either the bottom of the
"a" or the top of the "n".

anablep

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

2muchbs (1189 posts) Click to EMail 2muchbs Click to send private message to 2muchbs Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-20-02, 05:45 AM (ET)
Reply to post #123
130. A little note
The piece of debris has a cable passage. The cover of which is removed, but the passage is still showing. I am not aware of a cable passage in this area of the plane. Thoughts?

Bill

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

anablep (165 posts) Click to EMail anablep Click to send private message to anablep Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-20-02, 05:49 AM (ET)
Reply to post #130
131. "A little note"

Please show what you're talking about. I don't know which
piece of debris you're referring to and what the cable passage
is supposed to be and what the "cover" is supposed to be.

anablep

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

2muchbs (1189 posts) Click to EMail 2muchbs Click to send private message to 2muchbs Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-20-02, 06:08 AM (ET)
Reply to post #131
135. In the photos
That match the debris to the letters of American. The piece of debris has a cable passage in it. I know you must have a large shot of it. Check it out. Thanks for the civil chat. I wasn't expecting that. I hope you understand I am just questioning some things. I may be wrong from time to time, but I am thinking.

Thanks again.
Bill

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

anablep (165 posts) Click to EMail anablep Click to send private message to anablep Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-21-02, 04:08 AM (ET)
Reply to post #135
179. Favor
May I ask for a small favor?

If you have Photoshop or some graphics program, could you
highlight exactly the area where you think there is a cable
passage? I wasn't aware of this and I am very curious about
it.

Thanks!

anablep

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Bushknew (547 posts) Click to EMail Bushknew Click to send private message to Bushknew Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-17-02, 11:37 PM (ET)
Reply to post #73
82. Spatial Distance from Photographs

To disprove your argument, I or someone else would have to post a wide angle shot
from that angle, a picture taken at the same time but from the opposite angle of this picture.

http://66.129.143.7/june2aa.htm

And, I donÕt know if one is available, maybe it will turn up, maybe not.

United States describes itself as a Republic,
itÕs not.

The United States is a Plutocracy veiled
under the guise of a Republic.

A quote from Bushknew

What would personally convince you that a
757 DID NOT crash into the Pentagon?

What evidence would YOU need?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-b
in/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&o
m=4566&forum=DCForumID43&omm=0

RELEASE THE CONFISCATED
PENTAGON VIDEO NOW!!!


  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

boloboffin (392 posts) Click to EMail boloboffin Click to send private message to boloboffin Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-18-02, 00:53 AM (ET)
Reply to post #82
84. How about this picture? Warning: big download

Scott Rickus claims he took this picture a couple of minutes after the
Pentagon was hit. I'd agree, because the fire truck we've been using
as a reference point hasn't even shown up yet.

I think it speaks for itself.

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 Paine

On 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

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Bushknew (547 posts) Click to EMail Bushknew Click to send private message to Bushknew Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-18-02, 11:22 AM (ET)
Reply to post #84
88. I was hoping for É

a picture that shows more of the left side of the Pentagon lawn, because according to you,
on the left side of the Pentagon lawn, plane debris is in the sunlight, and on the right side
of the Pentagon lawn, plane debris is ONLY in the darkened area, correct?

If you are correct, why werenÕt we able to see ANY plane debris fly towards the Pentagon cam?

http://www.msnbc.com/news/720851.asp

Click Roman numeral 4, Pictures 2,4 and 5

http://www.ifrance.com/silentbutdeadly/


United States describes itself as a Republic,
itÕs not.

The United States is a Plutocracy veiled
under the guise of a Republic.

A quote from Bushknew

What would personally convince you that a
757 DID NOT crash into the Pentagon?

What evidence would YOU need?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-b
in/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&o
m=4566&forum=DCForumID43&omm=0

RELEASE THE CONFISCATED
PENTAGON VIDEO NOW!!!


  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

boloboffin (392 posts) Click to EMail boloboffin Click to send private message to boloboffin Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-19-02, 11:38 AM (ET)
Reply to post #88
100. The cam is focused to register faces at the gate, not...
small details so far away. That's why you don't see debris scattering, it's out of focus.

There is no debris on the right side of the lawn. The darkened area of the 395 picture only shows a small portion of the debris field. Most of the actual debris field is in the sunlight.

You really need to find a better hobby, BK. You're not too good at darkweaving.

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 Paine

On 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

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Bushknew (547 posts) Click to EMail Bushknew Click to send private message to Bushknew Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-19-02, 06:07 PM (ET)
Reply to post #100
108. Anablep, boloboffin

For the record, Anablep and boloboffin, in this video, do either of you see a 757 crashing into the Pentagon?


http://www.msnbc.com/news/720851.asp

United States describes itself as a Republic,
itÕs not.

The United States is a Plutocracy veiled
under the guise of a Republic.

A quote from Bushknew

What would personally convince you that a
757 DID NOT crash into the Pentagon?

What evidence would YOU need?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-b
in/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&o
m=4566&forum=DCForumID43&omm=0

RELEASE THE CONFISCATED
PENTAGON VIDEO NOW!!!


  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

boloboffin (392 posts) Click to EMail boloboffin Click to send private message to boloboffin Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-20-02, 01:06 AM (ET)
Reply to post #108
116. Jesus wept. What are you going to do, bleed on me?
Yes, I do. I know that the plane crashed into the Pentagon, I know that this is a record of that event, and I clearly see the tail fin of the plane in the first frame. So, yes, I see a 757 fly into the Pentagon in these five frames.

You have yet to deal with any of the links and evidence I brought up a week ago! And now, anablep has come out of the blue with EVERYTHING you have been yammering on about for over a year. This stuff is flawless -- anablep's clearly documented exactly what happened at the Pentagon that day.

We now return you to your regularly occuring evasion and belief in the face of all evidence.

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 Paine

On 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

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

2muchbs (1189 posts) Click to EMail 2muchbs Click to send private message to 2muchbs Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-20-02, 01:21 AM (ET)
Reply to post #116
117. I am so glad you see the tail fin
I doubt anybody else will admit such a thing. I have good vision and can't see it. And it seems you were the one dodging the question. Bushknew had asked you to explain with Earth reasoning why there is no debris in the PIC he brought. It was Osmosis after all? Anawho? Is this God, and what has he shed light on?
He has photos of the craft inside the Pentagon? Or a photo that can explain the absence of debris outside the structure just after impact? I forgot it was Osmosis again. Or was it vaporization? Miraculous grass also Correct? I certainly do not have all the answers, and will make mistakes, but some of this is just bullshit. You cannot vaporize inconel, titanium, etc., with the fire that took place outside of the Pentagon. It's a well known fact. If you know how I would greatly appreciate it if you would show me, because it could be a helpful tool.

Bill

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

boloboffin (392 posts) Click to EMail boloboffin Click to send private message to boloboffin Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-20-02, 02:38 AM (ET)
Reply to post #117
120. Where have you ever seen me claim the plane was vaporized?
Those are your words, and you can keep them.

Aneblep showed picture after picture of plane pieces inside the rubble of the Pentagon. This is where most of the plane went.

I clearly proved that the green portion of the lawn in the "Osmosis" picture was not ever in the path of the plane. I also pointed out the small area of the debris field actually pictured in the "Osmosis" picture. It was scattered with debris.

You point to a picture with debris and say, "No debris!" Why?

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 Paine

On 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

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

anablep (165 posts) Click to EMail anablep Click to send private message to anablep Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-20-02, 05:28 AM (ET)
Reply to post #120
128. Taken just a minute after the explosion...

As I explained in prior posts, most of the debris that blew
out scattered to the northwest of the impact site. Not much
debris on the lawn on the right. But look at all the scattered
debris on the heliport. Go to Steve Riskus' site and look at
the original photo for the full detail. Debris is littered
everywhere northwest of the impact site.

Anyone who knows billiards would be able to guess the approach
trajectory of the aircraft. And this trajectory indeed
corresponds to the angle of destroyed pillars inside the
building as well as the five toppled light poles on Route 27.

There's an interesting large piece of wreckage in the Riskus
photos. Here it is blown up:

Here is another picture of the same area taken from a CBS
broadcast. We're looking right at the impact hole. What is
that object right there??

anablep

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

2muchbs (1189 posts) Click to EMail 2muchbs Click to send private message to 2muchbs Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-20-02, 05:58 AM (ET)
Reply to post #128
132. Sorry I partly disagree
You can't use billiards as a fair comparison. Sure there is some rebounded energy, but there is also a tremendous ability to disipate energy in such a crash. Meaning the rebound effect is not what you should be concerned with. Explosive energy obviously carries pressure/flows in all directions if not controlled by some directing force. Wasn't the plane completely absorbed into the structure? I thought that was what we were going with after reading some of the other posts. The WTC craft didn't spit back out the entry side, did it? I know its a poor comparison, but it makes a point.

Just my opinion.

Bill

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

anablep (165 posts) Click to EMail anablep Click to send private message to anablep Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-20-02, 06:48 AM (ET)
Reply to post #132
138. You're right....

...the analogy is rather simplistic and the Pentagon crash
was a complex event that doesn't reduce to such an analogy,
and explosive thrust is different. So maybe scratch that
comparison.

Although I'm far from sure, it seems likely that Pentagon
explosion occurred while the plane was still entering the
building. As the Purdue simulation suggests, the fuel
tanks ruptured when the wings entered the building and it
might have taken longer for the wings to cut through the
Pentagon walls than the WTC walls (which were 40% glass).
As we all know with Flight 175, the explosion didn't occur
until the plane was well inside the building. I think it is possible that the tail section of the Pentagon plane got
blown to heck and never made it into the building. The burn
marks on the building and ground mark out the dimensions of
the blast, and it is clear that explosion extended to the
northwest, at an inverse of the approach trajectory. In the
case of Flight 175, the plane missed much of the inner core
(except for part of the left wing), did not explode until it
was well inside, and had nowhere else to go but out the other
side, while in the case of the Pentagon I think the plane met
with more resistance and exploded while it was still entering.
That it did mostly enter is evident from the large gaping
hole, but I think there was a good deal of debris scattering
at an inverse angle to the crash trajectory.

It's late (3:46am)....maybe my thinking will be better in the
morning.

anablep

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

2muchbs (1189 posts) Click to EMail 2muchbs Click to send private message to 2muchbs Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-20-02, 06:03 AM (ET)
Reply to post #128
134. I dont see a hole, but
I do see incandescent carbon particles in the shape of a circle.
Is that what your refering to? What is the object? Tell me what you think it is. I am interested. Thanks.

Bill

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Bushknew (547 posts) Click to EMail Bushknew Click to send private message to Bushknew Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-20-02, 01:04 PM (ET)
Reply to post #116
148. You canÕt have it both ways, boloboffin
Either the camera is focused or itÕs not.

<<The cam is focused to register faces at the gate, not...
small details so far away. That's why you don't see debris scattering, it's out of focus>>

YOU can see the plane fly into the Pentagon but you can see ANY plane debris fly
in the direction of the Pentagon cam!

At least Anablep admitted he does not see a 757 crash into the Pentagon in his Ah...the notorious CCTV frames post.

<<I've studied it and studied it for many months and I'm still not sure of what I'm seeing.>>


United States describes itself as a Republic,
itÕs not.

The United States is a Plutocracy veiled
under the guise of a Republic.

A quote from Bushknew

What would personally convince you that a
757 DID NOT crash into the Pentagon?

What evidence would YOU need?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-b
in/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&o
m=4566&forum=DCForumID43&omm=0

RELEASE THE CONFISCATED
PENTAGON VIDEO NOW!!!


  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

anablep (165 posts) Click to EMail anablep Click to send private message to anablep Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-20-02, 02:05 PM (ET)
Reply to post #148
154. Re: "You canÕt have it both ways, boloboffin

Of course, I forgot another obvious reason why you don't see
a lot of debris flying in the photo. This is a VIDEO image,
and thus has reduced resolution compared to a photograph. And
then that video image was compressed down to 18K, or more.
God knows how much detail may have been lost.

As I said, you're only gonna see the largest pieces and only
those in the foreshortened field of view.

> At least Anablep admitted he does not see a 757 crash into
> the Pentagon in his Ah...the notorious CCTV frames post.

She, not he.

And as I explained, the lack of a legible, clearly defined
plane DOES NOT MEAN THERE WASN'T A PLANE OR EVEN THAT THE
CAMERA DIDN'T CAPTURE AN IMAGE OF THE FULL PLANE OR IMPACT.

anable

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

boloboffin (392 posts) Click to EMail boloboffin Click to send private message to boloboffin Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-20-02, 09:14 PM (ET)
Reply to post #148
173. No. I absolutely refuse...
...to dignify the "focus-not focus" comment with a rebuttal. I even refuse to mock you for it. The workings of a camera are too easily understood.

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 Paine

On 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

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

anablep (165 posts) Click to EMail anablep Click to send private message to anablep Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-20-02, 02:52 AM (ET)
Reply to post #108
121. Ah...the notorious CCTV frames
> For the record, Anablep and boloboffin, in this video, do
> either of you see a 757 crashing into the Pentagon?

First of all, the surveillance camera frames obviously do not
show the actual moment of impact. The camera apparently was
in 24-hour mode and thus shot frames at 10, 5, 3, or even 1
frame per second. Judging by the rate at which the fireball
rises, I say the rate was between 1 and 4 frames per second.
I've calculated that if the rate was any faster than 1 frame
per second, the camera would have captured the moment of
impact. So there might be another frame in FBI custody that
shows the actual impact. On the other hand, the camera may
have very well missed the impact if it was at 1 frame per
second.

Second, it is not even clear if any part of the plane is
visible in the first image:

The best candidate is the triangular projection above the
checkpoint pillar, as it disappears in the other photos. Most
people seem to regard this feature as the plane's tailfin. Ron
Harvey, however, has argued that the feature is simply the
result of jpeg compression. We must not forget that the images
are only 18K at the most and have lost much detail and undergone
much distortion due to image compression. Harvey has taken a
similar image of the background buildings and trees, compressed
it severely, and produced a similar "imitation" of a non-existent
tailfin:

http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/vid_imitation.htm

Compression artifacts are only part of the problem. There is a
general lack of contrast in the image, which makes it hard if
not impossible to seperate out the "tailfin" from the rest of
the background. It is not possible, thus, to estimate the
width of the tailfin if that is what the feature really was.
There are also two little humps in front of the "tailfin."
THESE ARE NOT PARTS OF THE PLANE, as they reappear in the
subsequent four frames.

With such lack of detail and contrast, it is easy to read
your own interpretation into the image. Some have imagined
that the two humps and "tailfin" constitute an F-16 fighter
horizontal to the building, but this flies in the face of the
actual trajectory and mistakenly interprets background trees
and buildings as parts of the plane itself.

About the apparent size of the plane (presuming that the
"tailfin" is really a tailfin), there has been a lot of
nonsense written that fails to take into account the trajectory
of the plane, its distance from the camera, and wide-angle lens
and barrel distortion, and so forth. You can't simply compare
the length of the "plane" behind the pillar with the height of
the Pentagon wall because 1) the plane along its 50-degree
trajectory was much further away from the camera than the
impact site at the Pentagon, 2) because of the angle, the length
of the plane was also foreshortened.

I've been pursuing a perspective analysis on the video frames,
and by linking up verifiable features of the video frame with
a satellite map, I found that 20 pixels of length in the video
frame equals one degree in the satellite view. However I'm
still trying to find independent evidence that would verify
the pixel/degree ratio. I've been collecting clearer photos
of the background buildings that would help in fixing the
position of the plane. Here is a comparison of a few with
the video frame:

I'm still trying to find one with a perspective that matches
the video camera tho.

So the CCTV frame evidence is rather inconclusive. It does
not clearly capture an image of the object that caused the
explosion. It is not even clear if the alleged "tailfin" is
really a tailfin. Because of the lack of contrast, it is not
clear where the alleged "tailfin" ends and the other
background objects begin. It is not clear how far away the
plane was when the frame was captured. In order to interpret
the image, one is forced to make assumptions that cannot yet
be verified. I've studied it and studied it for many months
and I'm still not sure of what I'm seeing.

What is needed is context. If the camera recorded at 2, 3, 4,
or more frames per second, then there would be at least one
image that would show the "attack craft" more clearly and the
very moment of impact. If the camera recorded at 1 frame per
second, then unfortunately there would not be such an image.
But even if no such image exists, even an image of the field of
view *before* the "attack craft" appeared would help separate
out what is truly background and what is truly plane. Without
this context, we can only make assumption-ridden speculations.

Also, if we could get our hands on a higher-resolution version
of the image, that would help enormously.

Finally, I would also like to note that the provenance of the
frames has never been established. They were not released
officially by the DoD. They were leaked. It is not known who
leaked them and why. Is it a coincidence that they appeared
in the media at the same time Thierry Meyssan published his
best-selling book? Might they be part of a disinformation
effort to discredit Meyssan by releasing photos that seem to
lack a 757, with the hope that Meyssan (and the whole "Hunt
the Boeing" camp) would take the bait, and then when the
missing frame is revealed that clearly shows the 757, Meyssan's
credibility would thereby be impeached? Who knows. But my
advice is recognize the ambiguity in the video/CCTV evidence
and recognize the need to interpret it in light of other
evidence. And the other evidence (the debris, the size and
shape of the hole, the felled light poles) clearly attest
to the crash of a mid-sized plane.

anable

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

2muchbs (1189 posts) Click to EMail 2muchbs Click to send private message to 2muchbs Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-20-02, 05:26 AM (ET)
Reply to post #121
127. A question
LAST EDITED ON Sep-20-02 AT 05:33 AM (ET)

I was wondering how you calculated the speed of the fireball? And, did you consider there appears to be more than one fuel oxidizing in the initial flash fire? This would be nearly impossible to account for. But I am sure you have some decent answer. I appreciate your opinion. Myself I doubt the GIF is real. And I cannot see any type of plane, or?
I would welcome the video the FBI has. Thanks for the info.

Bill

HMM. "Medium sized aircraft." Exactly as I remembered 2 witnesses attest to on TV. A mile away, they could see it well. Wonder why they didnt say a "large airliner" or "jumbo," or?

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

anablep (165 posts) Click to EMail anablep Click to send private message to anablep Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-20-02, 05:44 AM (ET)
Reply to post #127
129. Question answered
> I was wondering how you calculated the speed of the fireball?

I didn't. I eyeballed it. I compared the fireball in the
Flight 175 crash with the explosion in the video. Here it is
at 4 frames per second:

Anything faster than this would seem improbable. Slowing it
down to 1 frame per second also seems possible. So I roughly
accept 1-4 frames per second as the likely range. But I have
no idea which is closer to the actual frame rate.

> And did you consider there appears to be more than one fuel
> oxidizing in the initial flash fire?

What evidence is there of this? The fact that the initial
burst is bright yellow? That's quite shaky evidence. It's
common knowledge that many video cameras oversaturate with
sudden exposure changes. Don't assume that the colors recorded
by the camera are accurate. In my endless collection of WTC
footage, I've got at least two or three really good examples
of how the very first frame of the fireball is a bright whitish
yellow. It's the same thing. And that was clearly a fuel
explosion.

> Myself I doubt the GIF is real.

Please help me out here. What is the GIF you're referring to?
The video frames?

> And I cannot see any type of plane, or?

That projection above the pillar may the tailfin. Or it may
not be. Other than that, the plane would not be visible.
Check this mockup out --

Here I've lined up the tailfin with the projection and turned
the plane to a 50-degree orientation with the facade. As you
can see, the rest of the plane would be buried behind the
pillar. This picture was made using the 20 pixel/degree ratio.

anablep

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

anablep (165 posts) Click to EMail anablep Click to send private message to anablep Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Sep-20-02, 05:59 AM (ET)
Reply to post #129
133. But I did calculate....
<