So I get insults for weeks and nobody gets a warning and as soon as I start expressing my feeling I get a warning.
I've said before that it would take two hours a day to answer every question put to me. I don't have two hours a day for this so the questions I skip are the ones that I've already dealt with. Yesterday I didn't have enough time to deal with the question about the 757 crash in Holand and I don't have the time today either--maybe this weekend.
Speaking of ignoring quetions--nobody dealt with this.
Quote:
This issue has really been made moot by the picture mentioned above but no one has given a satisfactory answer to this yet.
http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson.htm
(excerpt)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft -- and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Quote:
|
How many more times do we need to mention the pics of victims, the pics of 757 debris, the pics of damage of the same width as the wing, the animation showing how a 757's width could knock down the light poles, the eye witnesses seeing a 757, the fact that a 757 was hijacked and never seen again, the fact that the family members of the people inside never saw them again? But that's all nothing, because there is a white blob in that frame! What about the next frames showing the white spreading out, what about the frame showing a possible 757 outline in front of it, what about all alternatives proposed by you for a 757 are not only far less likely, but also are not fitting with the other evidence?
|
I've dealt with all of this before--there are alternative explanations for all of it so it's mere evidence--not proof. I've already posted my alternative explanations and today I don't have the time to do it again. Putting forth a mere plausibility as proof is not scientific. All of those points are mere plausibilities.
Quote:
|
Since you have been reminded to answer direct questions, I will ask you again, as I did in post 530, since you dismiss all the evidence we present to you as either planted or from people who are part of the plot, please present evidence that the video you say is proof has not been altered and actually depicts events that happened on 9/11/01 at the Pentagon. Shalamar has also asked for similar information. And you can not just claim that is good evidence because it was released by the government, since you dismiss all the other evidence released by the government.
|
As I've said before--whether it's been altered is a debatable point. There is no proof I can offer. All I can say is that if it hasn't been altered, the object is the nose of something other than a 757 and 9/11 was an inside job. If it has been altered, it was a very illogical thing for the government to do as they altered it to make it look like the nose of a fighter instead of the nose of a 757. It is highly unlikely that they did that so it probably hasn't been altered.
Quote:
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?
|
I've dealt with this before. If you look at the picture of the first tower hit by a 767 it shows the outling of the whole plane. If the wings could make a mark like that on steel, I think they could have made a similar mark on concrete. There are no marks on the Pentagon that show the outline of the wings. The damage on the walls could have come from the inside. I don't have time to look for the links now.
Quote:
|
David C, please provide evidence of your claims WITHOUT using that traffic cam picture, and without telling us to look at a video.
|
What a ridiculous thing to say--that's the proof I've been offering. That traffic cam picture of the nose of the craft that obviously is not a 757 is the proof that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon. You can downplay it all you want but it won't go away.
Quote:
|
Actually, for my question #8, I would like his comment on why slow moving evidence planters weren't captured by that camera.
|
It might have all been planted just before the craft hit the building.
Quote:
|
David,Where is Barbara Olson??? I mention her because she was the most well-known of those who died that day.In case you don't know who she was David,she was the wife of Ted Olson,then Solicitor General of the United States & a close personal friend of George & Laura Bush.
|
I've dealt with this before. She's probably living someplace with a new identity. Her family can visit her from time to time. That's a perfectly plausible explanation. The fact that she was on flight 77 is not proof that it was the craft that hit the Pentagon--it's mere evidence as there are plausible alternative explanations.
Quote:
Has the government announced that the serial numbers of the parts found in the crash match the plane that was flight 77? I haven't seen anything released by the government that said so.
So let me get this straight.
Every piece of evidence, like victim DNA, plane parts, eye witnesses, radar tracks, black boxes, etc etc could of been faked, planted, mistaken, bought off, etc etc and now you expect us to believe that a few serial numbers would somehow convince you.
|
I never said it would convince me as that can be faked too. I said it was suspicious that the government didn't talk about serial numbers on parts found in the wreckage as that would be part of the scenario if it had really happened.
I was watching a movie once about a murder. Before committing the murder the murderer consulted an old seasoned criminal. The old seasoned criminal told him that when planning a crime there are fifty ways you can screw up and an intelligent person is only going to think of twenty five of them. If the government isn't talking about the serial numbers on the parts found matching the craft that was flight 77, it's circumstantial evidence that it's a detail that they didn't think of when they were planning the crime.
Quote:
|
But in the video you're discussing, we can see the white dispersing towards the explosion in the next frame(s). Do you think that is still consistent with the glare of a car passing on the street?
|
The white to the left of the object is some kind of glare.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...dodvideos.html
The object on the right is the front of some kind of aircraft that isn't a 757 as it has a shadow area and a lighted area. The shadow line is consistent with the position of the sun. There is a black mark on the tip of the nose. It's very clear--not blurry at all--nothing like glare.
Of course I don't expect you guys to admit anything. What really matters is what the viewers end up thinking. I think they can judge for themselves what that object is and I doubt that very many of them are taking your explanations seriously.
I know I didn't deal with everything but that's all the time I have today. There's only one of me and more than ten of you.
I was about to post when I saw this recent post.
Quote:
I'm talking about for instance this frame
The white thing seems to go really close to the pentagon, it seems improbable that's a perspective thing to me.
If the white thing in this shot is smoke, why wouldn't it be smoke in the previous frame but a car reflection? I may have missed the specific argument for that.
For the sake of argument, I assume the white is smoke if it is not a reflection, not the actual plane itself. That is also my opinion, but leave it for this just as a "for the sake of argument thing". We don't need to drag a third option into this, as it is irrelevant for this tiny sub-discussion and only confusing.
|
It's my opinion that the smoke is from a missile being fired. That would explain the white-hot fireball in the first two frames--if it's overexposure, why isn't it overexposed in the following frames too. The sequence is consistent with a chemical explosion followed by the continued burning of jet fuel.