Good. Questions I've asked and recieved no answer to:
1.a What damage marks on the Pentagon would you consider to be consistent with it being struck by a 757?
b What damage in the current pictures do you find inconsistent with 757 damage?
2.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by David C
How long it should be can be deduced by comparing it to the height of the Pentagon a little above the point of the crash.
|
Please show the results of your deduction, including all maths and formula you used to reach it.
3.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by David C
If it were a 757 the front would be visible as a 757 would be about twice as long. I know it's coming in at an angle but not enough of an angle to reduce it's length by half.
|
Please show us your deduction of the actual vs. apparent angle of the 757, and how you deduced the correct angle, including all maths and formula used to calculate the correct angle.
4.a You have stated the photo you use has been doctored. Please explain why it is still useable as evidence, when undoctored photos have been dismissed by you as "doctored" or "planted".
b Please explain why the standards of evidence should not work both ways.
5. Demonstrate you now know how many photons travel at the speed of light. These kinds of basics should be known if you are going to have the stones to debunk scientists.
6. Please demonstrate why
www.rumormill.com can be considered reliable evidence of, well, anything. Please give a convincing and clear, fallacie, speculation, handwaiving, dismisive, evasive, and ad-hom free answer.
7. I have asked this 4 times now. I request again you answer this: Look up Occam's Razor anywhere you like, even the Wiki. Study it, then apply it to the following:
"I've been asserting for a little while, and I'll say it again. David C, even YOUR plan makes a heck of alot more sense if the evil government conspirators fly a 757, either the actual one or the "fake" one, into the Pentagon. If not, you end up with a sarin-gas loaded 757 (or blood soaked, I don't know what sickness your mind conjures on this) that you have to hide somewhere, somehow. Best not to leave that evidence just sitting around, eh? So. You want to fool the "sheep" into believing the innocent Muslim extremists have flown a 757 into the Pentagon so we can wage war against them. Once you have your design document in place, it occurs to someone that after all is said and done, you have a spare 757 you have to hide, and another you have taken apart for parts that you'll only have spread around the entire Pent. lawn and all over the building inside. Gee, you wonder, even if the people had invisibility shields, people would notice spare parts floating through the air and dropping in random places around the scene.
How to get rid of that pesky, evidence laiden 757, put parts at the Pentagon, AND fool EVERYONE who sees the crime into thinking a 757 hit it? Why, you could just fly that 757, deceased inside, remotely into the Pentagon. Every single loose end tied up.
David C, even in your paranoid scheme, flying a 757 into the building makes ALOT more sense. Why on Earth would you take the chance of a missile or fighter plane strike going awry and exposing your plot, when at the end of the day you still have this 757 you have to do something with?"
Demonstrate why my hypothesis, based on your own arguement, is not a) better and b) simpler than your own arguement.
8. Please state how you think heavy (several hundred k) evidence could have been "planted" on both the grassland surrounding the Pentagon, and inside the super-hot burning impact site, in only seconds after the impact, and how witnesses and your beloved "cameras" both failed to detect them.
You're beloved photo also doesn't show ANY evidence planters stalking the grounds, you know.