)I will probably regret getting sucked back into this, but... )
Quote:
Originally Posted by David C
As I've said before--whether it's (the "smoking gun" video) 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.
|
Three highlighted statements to address:
First, if the "object" is the smoke from the damaged engine (which I feel is correct... I also think that's the tail of the 757 in front of the smoke trail), then it is not the nose of
anything.
Second, you're right. It would be very illogical for the government to alter the video to make it look like another plane was responsible.
Third, however, it would be just as illogical for the government to hold onto that video for so many years, and then release it to the public
without making sure it didn't give away their Dirty Little Secret. If it is so obvious to you that it shows an F4/F111/Global Hawk/comuter jet/something other than a 757, wouldn't it be equally clear to the government?
Quote:
|
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.
|
Addressed by others, but to enforce it, the WTCs were aluminum and glass and light weight steel exteriors; the Pentagon is highly reinforced concrete. The two will not react in the same way to an impact. The wings will cut through the light WTC framing the same way they cut down the light poles at the Pentagon; but the wings will collapse and fold when they hit reinforced concrete, just as they did with the 747 in Amsterdam.
Here's
an interesting description and comparison for the 747 and 757 incidents. Start just after the Pentagon Graphic. (Note: The author does wander into politcal opinion further down the page.)
Also, how could they inflict that damage (facade knocked off, scorch marks) from
inside the building?
Quote:
|
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. ...
|
Not really. Where are the rest of the passengers? Placing all of them in "witness protection" leaves a lot of witnesses running around. Letting any of them have contact with their families poses a risk of exposure. And you still have the problem of dealing with a 757.
Quote:
|
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.
|
What would be the purpose of the missile?
The overexposure is because of the explosion; any explosion will cause enough sudden brightening to overexpose a camera. It does not take HE to do this; a fuel explosion will do the same thing.
Here's a photo of a bleve; note that it is very bright:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/program...urce/d1_22.htm
And a truck fire that seems rather bright:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/program...urce/d1_11.htm
A bright chemical explosion:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/program...urce/d2_31.htm
(Y'know, all of these bear a strong resemblance to the Pentagon photos. Maybe the explosion at the Pentagon was from fuel/chemicals, too?)
You can get the same overexposure effect by having the sun peek through the clouds. The cameras can adjust their exposures, but not as fast as the lighting conditions can change.