Quote:
|
It is nearly impossible to tell which part of the Pentagon to use in that low resolution photo.
|
No it isn't.
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm
The top and bottom are still clear enough to see where they are. This is a ridiculous statement.
Quote:
|
You also have to take into account the effects of the lense which has curved everything.
|
The distances are quite clear. The height of the Pentagon is clear and the space between the tail and the front of the box is clear. This is a ridiculous statement too.
Quote:
|
It is much more accurate to use trigonometry. Why have you been avoiding that?
|
I don't remember enough to do it without having a full top view picture in front of me. If it's so easy, why don't you prove that it's the right length to be a 757?
Quote:
|
Your continued insistence that all the other evidence could have been planted is laughable. There is no evidence whatsoever for any planting. All it does is include hundreds of other people that for some reason have not said anything. The more people that need to be included, the more unlikely it is that they would keep quiet about the murder of thousands.
|
A 757 doesn't fit in the space where the craft is in this picture.
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm
The nose of the craft in this picture is too pointed to be that of a 757.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...dodvideos.html
Evidently the evidence was planted since a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon. If parts are small enough to plant, it's possible. If anyone talks, the press won't print what he or she says. If it's not in the press, it didn't happen.
Quote:
|
Faking the DNA evidence is nearly impossible too.
|
Difficult maybe, but not impossible; evidently they did fake it because the photo evidence is irrefutable if it hasn't been doctored. Do you think the government would doctor one picture to make it look like a fighter and another picture to make it look like a plane that's too small to be a 757 and then release it?
Quote:
|
All you have is a couple of blurry photos.
|
Blurriness is not an issue with this one--size is the issue.
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm
Quote:
|
What would it take for you to admit there is a ton more evidence in favor of a 757 crashing into the Pentagon?
|
Everything you've presented has other possible explanations so it's not serious evidence. Those pictures tell a different story so evidently the other explanations are the ones that reflect reality.
Quote:
|
Remember, if your plan calls for everyone to believe that a 757 hit the building, you are going to have a 757 go missing and all the people inside it as well, why would you then use something else and run the chance of a tourist with a camera exposing the entire plot? It doesn't make sense and neither do you.
|
Maybe it was too difficult to carry out. Maybe a 757 would have caused more damage than they wanted. Just because we can't think of an answer right away doesn't mean there's no answer. Those pictures are proof that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon so there must have been a reason.
If I'm wrong about the size of the craft in this picture, why don't you guys just use mathmatics and disprove it?
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm
Remember that this site has a lot of viewers. A lot of them are probably good at math.