Turbonium...you are in serious need of a "reality check" as your posts are getting weirder and weirder.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

TWA Flt. 800 was reconstructed in an investigation - and was destroyed in a criminal act. Was it struck by a missile or did it have a bomb onboard the plane? Reconstructing the plane will help find out.

The NTSB report on TWA 800 determined that the most likely cause of the disaster was a center fuel tank explosion that resulted from faulty wiring.

The plane was reconstructed because the cause of the crash was not initially evident. When three airliners crash into large buildings within an hour of each other, and a fourth crashes into a field in Pennsylvania, the cause is evident.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

Turbonium...you are in serious need of a "reality check" as your posts are getting weirder and weirder.

R.A.F., you might want to check out the JFK thread if you haven't already done so.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

TWA 800 fell from the sky and they did not know why. A missile, a bomb, a fuel gass explosion, a meteor... even after the reconstruction of the wreckage it still isn't certain.

Flight 77 was flown intentionally into the Pentagon. What does it matter if they had bombs on board of the aircraft? It was intentionally destroyed anyway. TWA800 reconstruction was done to investigate why the apparent ACCIDENT happened, and hence to find a possible flaw in the design. I think it's rather obvious to see the difference with flight 77 and why that one did not need extremely expensive reconstruction.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

TWA Flt. 800 was reconstructed in an investigation - and was destroyed in a criminal act.

No, it wasn't destroyed in a criminal act. The aircraft was partially reconstructed to determine the cause of failure. It was reconstructed to a further extent to provide a teaching environment for future crash investigators.

For our example, could there have been any bombs on board Flt.77 that detonated at the time of impact?

Why would the aircraft need to be reconstructed to determine that?

Would it be relevant to finding out exactly what happened? It seems obvious to me that it would.

Begging the question. Basically you can't think of anything.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I'm still waiting for Brumsen and turbonium to comment on what several posters have pointed out:

Their apparant theory is that on September 11, three planes were hijacked and crashed into WTC1, WTC2 and a Pennsylvania field. And a fourth airplane was hijacked, but not crashed into the Pentagon. Instead, a missile was fired into the Pentagon, the plane crashed somewhere else, and then parts (plane and people) were planted at the Pentagon.

In what universe is this a more likely scenario than simply crashing the fourth plane into the Pentagon???????

I gave up on reasoned response, re. JFK conspiracies a looong time ago.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

In what universe is this a more likely scenario...

I think you know the answer. Missiles and bombs are contemplated not because doing such a thing would make sense, but because there is the urgent desire to see things like bombs, missiles, undercover agents, and paid disinformationists as part of the scenario.

These various "truth" movements have one thing in common: they concentrate on what didn't happen, not on discovering what did happen. They don't provide a plausible alternative scenario because there isn't one. They have only a rapidly diverging field of speculation. Any organization whose central tenet is, "Well, I don't know what really happened, but I can sure tell you what didn't happen," (i.e., one that predicates itself on the inexorable rejection of a certain viewpoint rather than the conditional acceptance of some other specific viewpoint) will never be able to reach any conclusion or consensus. They serve only to amplify meaningless doubt and attract attention to themselves.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Turbonium said:The photos and testimony at http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html would suggest you're incorrect here.

No, it wasn't destroyed in a criminal act. The aircraft was partially reconstructed to determine the cause of failure. It was reconstructed to a further extent to provide a teaching environment for future crash investigators.

I disagree, but that's not for this thread.

Why would the aircraft need to be reconstructed to determine that?

Are you claiming that if there had been a bomb in the plane that detonated, you would definitely be able to tell without a reconstruction? Please explain how this would automatically be the case.

Begging the question. Basically you can't think of anything.

Not if you can't explain how plane reconstructions are never necessary for determining if a bomb was involved.

I was referring specifically to CNN reporter Jamie McIntyre, who said "From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon."

In what universe is this a more likely scenario than simply crashing the fourth plane into the Pentagon???????

It's more likely based on the limited physical damage to the Pentagon and the lack of debris that proves a 757 hit it.

It's more likely based on the limited physical damage to the Pentagon and the lack of debris that proves a 757 hit it.

Ooh. Let me try. This is begging the question, am I right?

Why should there be more damage than what was recorded?

Turbonium, how do you square your complaint about the minimal damage with your complaint that no serious effort was made to find a bomb on the plane? Wouldn't the lack of additional damage argue pretty effectively against the possibility of a damage-adding bomb?

Always a sign that another thread is about to be closed.

This quote is taken way out of context.
From the CNN transcript

Further down the article where the quote is taken out of context:
Why must CT'ers continually make claims that can be so easily disputed? It took me about 5 seconds to find the CNN transcript.

Sad, very sad.

__________________
"The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest." - G'Kar

I disagree

So what value would a reconstruction and crash investigation by the NTSB be anyways, if you have just admited you don't agree with them over TWA-800, why should this be different with AA-77?

edited:

I thought I might just add a bit to this. Really Turbonium you are getting way out of the top of reality here. Perhaps you should actually read your own arguments back to yourself and realise how ridiclous you are being. Get real. Here you are demanding to have an evidence presented that you already know, and have basically admitted, that you wouldn't accept as valid anyway even if it was, and on top of that you don't even seem to know if what you were demanding has been done anyway because you contradicted yourself about it. Do you realise just how dumb and desperate that sounds? To start out you actually sounded like you could be reasonable, but now you've shown that you have your head jammed too far into your own reality and are so closed to the real world that nothing will enter your ears. All the learning you could have taken onboard here and elsewhere just washes over you like water poured on oiled leather. You have just cherrypick and google out of context quotes to made up your own pretty little reality where everything is a big bad conspiracy and then fight like to tiger so you can remain ignorant about anything and everything else. Well since that's the way you want life, good luck. It's a sad way to live but it's your choice. Perhaps one day you'll realise the error of your ways, but as long as you stick your fingers in your ears and blindly charge on in your own little world.....

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

What's saddest of all is that so many are willing to accept the story that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon without worrying about insignificant details like actual proof.

Your standards for satisfactory evidence seem to consist primarily of providing links to photos of a small piece of crumpled up metal or whatever and saying "See - there's the undeniable proof!" That's laughable, frankly.

These aircraft are built to mil-std. specs. That means an aircraft assembled with thousands of parts, each stamped with a unique identifying number which can be traced back to the exact aircraft to which they belong. It is simply impossibile for a Boeing 757 to crash into the Pentagon and not be able to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt from the debris.

They have failed to show that they have any such evidence for over five years now.

I refuse to accept that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon simply because they say it did. Why do most of the others here accept it without verifiable, conclusive proof? I honestly can't understand why.

What's your verifiable, conclusive proof for the following events?

Edmund Hillary summits Everest.
D-Day Landings.
Julius Ceaser Conquers Gaul.
Mary Queen of Scots was Executed.
Germany invaded Poland in 1939
Sputnik 1 was launched in 1958
Charles Lindenberg flew the Atlantic
Scott made it to the South Pole.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

What's your verifiable, conclusive proof for the following events?

Edmund Hillary summits Everest.
D-Day Landings.
Julius Ceaser Conquers Gaul.
Mary Queen of Scots was Executed.
Germany invaded Poland in 1939
Sputnik 1 was launched in 1958
Charles Lindenberg flew the Atlantic
Scott made it to the South Pole.

You really aren't getting it. Aircraft debris is physically existing evidence that is physically indentifiable for proof of where it originated. Your standard of evidence seems to be that whatever is officially said to have happened is the indisputable truth.

And your prevailing attitude seems to be - Why should we doubt them or be concerned, simply because they fail to show the evidence they have in their possession that would conclusively prove they are correct?

Sorry for bringing this up once again, but I'm simply too slow to keep up with this forum in real time

Ian Goddard:
...but it's clear to me that there's a large, mostly white sunlit object fitting Flight-77 criteria in the ASCE image.

If you take the toppled lamp poles as an indicator for the plane's approach path, or the angle ASCE got by examining the damage to the support columns inside the building, then the port sideof the plane (left side, in case my aero/nautical terminology got sc*ewed up in my memory) is in the shadow. It cannot be mostly sunlit on 9/11 @ 9:40 AM.

Approach path was about azimuth 240deg, while the Sun was at azimuth 113deg, altitude 32deg. The view from the cockpit would have the Sun at about 2 o'clock position, while the security cam would be at about 11 o'clock. I don't think there is a way the plane would be "mostly sunlit" on the side turned towards the camera. In fact, the opposite is far more likely - the side exposed to the cam would be mostly in the shade. If anything, the polished aluminum fuselage might reflect some of the surrounding scenery, which would be mostly green and blue. The tail vertical stabilizor, on the other hand, was completely in the shadow, at least the part turned towards the cam, and was painted. I guess it would appear pretty dark on the video, just like the rest of the shadows. Also keep in mind that the plane probably traveled some 5-10 feet during the video cam exposure. It was aledgedly traveling at a speed of up to 7-800ft/s and the cam's shutter was arguably not capping the frames any faster than in 1/120th of a second. That would leave a big smudge on the original tape all on its own, regardless of cam's resolution or its focusing abilities. VerticaI stabilizer on 757 is less than 10 ft wide on top and gradually widens to above 25 feet where it attaches to the fuselage. I also find it too optimistic to expect any reflection or any special highlight from the tail's leading edge. Plane was traveling too fast and the resolution of the security cam was too poor to register a tiny line of sunlit leading edge of the tail.

There are no trees tall enough or close enough to stick out above the skyline. Definitely none on such grand scale as the dark, triangular thingy on the videos.
http://www.army.mil/Soldiers/sep2001...s/Roll4125.htm
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2...109139f_hr.jpg
http://www.newsfollowup.com/images/d...11-0078_hi.jpg

There might not be eyewitness reports about smoke coming out of plane's engines, but I remember some reports about plane crashing on the lawn before hitting the building. Smoke might account for those reports, since there is no visible damage to the lawn itself. While this is pure speculation, there are also those pics.

Notice the leaves and other green tidbits on the tarmac at the bottom of this photo:
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/1.jpg

It sure seems to me like something trimmed those trees by the side of the road. As I remember, there actually were some witnesses who also mentioned this. Now notice the top of this tree/bush on the left.
http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photo...-9999J-007.jpg
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/pen...ages/1265a.jpg

Of course, this is still only armchair speculation, based on nothing more but a few pics, but that lite-colored top of the tree looks like the rest was chewed off by something quite large and circular. Something like a Rolls Royce RB-211 turbofan engine. The fact is that the plane's right engine would have to be pretty near this tree anyway, since one of the toppled lamp poles was standing right next to it.

Now, I don't have any particular clue about jet engines, so I can't say what amount of smoke, if any, would those leaves and branches produce. I suspect there would be some, since I've read somewhere that even relatively small birds can cause some smoke or unburned fuel mist when ingested into the engine. I'm not sure, though. Perhaps Jay or Nicolas or anyone else could provide some details about possible visual effects of a bunch of branches getting sucked into jet engines at full throttle?

Here's what I got about Pentagon videos. First off, I have no formal credentials in photo analysis or manipulation. If anything, I'm an amateur photographer and a long time Photoshop/Gimp user. What I do know, was picked up during the years mostly on the internet, from a wide range of sources, ranging from quite technical articles on aspects of space imaging, through web design, right down to "tutorials for dummies". And through about a decade of hands-on experience with the software, but dealing mostly with web graphics. Consider yourselves warned

I have recorded the footage as it appeared on may 16th on CNN over my analogue cable TV hookup. I have used the default DVD recording settings in my ATI TV tuner software, providing an MPEG-2 compression, with the size of 720x576 pixels @ 25 fps. I have extracted still frames from resulting avi using VirtualDub.

I did the next gifs with Photoshop's difference layer blending option, after which I corrected the levels, thereby enhancing the contrast. At the end I clipped the darkest pixels to eliminate noise. Files were saved with ImageReady as animated gifs, which means that full color original TV caps were converted to gif's 8-bit 255 colors. Every other pixel manipulation took place at 16-bit channel depth.

Difference blend is nothing else but simple subtraction. Each pixel's RedGreenBlue values from picture A, ie. first vidcap frame, are subtracted from RGB values of the same pixel from picture B, ie. second frame. Or vice-versa, depending on which pixel has higher values. Pixels with the same RGB values get subtracted and produce black, with RGB values of 0,0,0. The idea was to subtract similar pictures, like consequent frames from the security cam video, and only point out those pixels, where there is considerable difference between those frames. Since the only moving object in the frames is an alleged 757 and its effects, the difference blending mode would ideally cancel out all static objects. Of course there are some artifacts, due to image manipulation on the way from the original source to CNN's footage which got finally recorded on my disk. But those artifacts would more or less cancel each other out or would only produce chaotic noise.

Animations were composed in the same way. Each animation consists of 10 individual frames. First 4 frames alternate between 2 frames of the original footage. 1st and 3rd frame show the same original frame, just before the plane entered into view. 2nd and 4th frame show the same original frame where the plane is visible. Duration of each of those 4 frames is 0.5s. 5th frame lasts for 1s and shows the result of difference blending and level adjustements, along with all the noise and less prominent pixels. 6th frame, also lasting 1s, shows only the brightest 2-3% of pixels. The last 4 frames, each lasting for 0.5s, show the frame with the plane, alternately combined with the brightest pixels frame, using Photoshop's linear dodge blend mode.

Footage from the new released camera.


Footage from previously known camera.
http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/8...ch18bit7wf.gif

It was a bit more difficult with web based videos. Google video version is too blocky and I can't even get YouTube to work, but that's most probably my own fault. Recently provided original DoJ mpg versions proved more useful.

"New" camera. Original specs 352X240 @ 29.970 fps.
http://img60.imageshack.us/img60/225...nt28bit5kl.gif


"Old" camera. Original specs 352X240 @ 29.970 fps.
http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/2...nt18bit3ps.gif

Mpegs available here, each over 30MB:
http://judicialwatch.org/archive/2006/flight77-2.mpg
http://judicialwatch.org/archive/2006/flight77-1.mpg

Those two animations were made in the same way as previous ones.

They all show very similar features. Even when one takes different video frames and tries them in different combinations. I tipically took two different avi (or mpg) frames of the same original Pentagon cam frame. That means I started off with four pictures - two for the frame with the plane and two for the frame just prior to it. Every combination of a plane frame with a planeless one, produced very similar features. Animations only show one combination for every source. I actually did at least 4 combinations for every source. (I can provide original psd files if anyone wants them.) Other combinations came out very similar to those provided in animations. Even my CNN capture produced similar features as the original DoJ mpgs. This means that whatever is on those frames, is an original feature, which was not produced by my image manipulation.

It's quite obvious that there is a silhouette of something triangular above the skyline. Footage from the new cam also shows that there is something infront of the white, misty thing. Whatever that is, sure looks like smoke to me.

IMO the new cam captured the whole plane in plain view. Double pun intended. Silhouette is there, size does fit a jetliner, there is even the tail. Yes, there is a tail on both cameras. Of course all this is inconclusive by itself, because there are no marks visible on the plane and no windows with terrified faces behind them, hands holding up their IDs and passports, so that CTs would be satisfied. Why does it seem like you expected something like that on film, turbonium?
But there is still a chance that the original released footage has been faked. I'll leave that for philosophers or some other day. It's 4AM over here and I need some sleep.

Turbonium said:Have you looked at the link I provided? The photographs there show parts of a plane which I understand have been conclusively identified as coming from the same type of plane which is understood to have impacted the Pentagon.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you disputing this identification? Or are you disputing the veracity of the photographs?

You really aren't getting it. Aircraft debris is physically existing evidence that is physically indentifiable for proof of where it originated.

Typical CT rhetoric. Demand proof you won't accept anyway, after all what would have stopped the "conspriators" just stamping the right numbers on fake pieces? You're just moving the goal posts like every other time. You're not interested in get to the truth, you're only interesting in demanding that "one more little peice of evidence I need to have it proved" so you can carry on believing in your little CT world rather than facing up to reality.

Your standard of evidence seems to be that whatever is officially said to have happened is the indisputable truth.

And your prevailing attitude seems to be - Why should we doubt them or be concerned, simply because they fail to show the evidence they have in their possession that would conclusively prove they are correct?

To steal Jay's favourite phrase, Hogwash. No one here accepts the offical story because that's what we have been told to believe and you know that. I and the others here have looked at the evidence that -IS- in the public arena and compared it to the offical story, rather then doing the standard CT trick and ignoring it or making up reasons it might have been faked. The Eyewittness reports of the crash, the wittness reports of the recovery, the wreakage recovered, the damage to the building, the radar track, the location of the recovered black boxes, the coroner reports on the DNA from the recovered body parts, the damage to objects and items on the flight path such as the lamp posts, trees, fence and generator. All of that evidence says one thing, a 757 hit the Pentagon. To claim anything else means the burden of proof is on you to show that that evidence was made up or planted, it doesn't just disappear because you want "just one more little piece."

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

What reason is there to believe that a bomb was involved in the Flight 77 impact?

Wait... Aren't these two statements (this and the previously quoted) mutually exclusive? Suggesting a bomb was involved would imply that there was more damage than expected, but here you say there was very little (a very false statement on its own).

Explain how anything other than an airplane could produce the effect seen in those images, especially the first (another shot). Keep in mind, the most significant damage to the Pentagon is well to the left of the generator in the first image.

That's rich, coming from someone who's willing to take a CNN reporter's statement out of context in order to support his weak arguments.

Umm... because there is verifiable, conclusive proof. Your desire to ignore it is not a lack of such evidence.

I found this one to be particulalry worthy of a furrowed brow, headshake and sigh.

Turbonium, even if you do plant witnessness to support your claim, there is always going to be genuine members of the public hanging around who will be able to contradict you. Or you saying that the Government somehow managed to remove every person who was not a government plant form the surrounding areas?

__________________
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

Have you looked at the link I provided? The photographs there show parts of a plane which I understand have been conclusively identified as coming from the same type of plane which is understood to have impacted the Pentagon.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you disputing this identification? Or are you disputing the veracity of the photographs?

Yes, I have looked at your link. Yes, I don't believe that the parts in the photos have been conclusively proven to originate from a Boeing 757 (let alone as from Flt. 77 - Boeing 757, AA reg. #N644AA).

The photographs show debris that is wide open to speculation and interpretation (as a quick search will bear out) as to correct identification. The problems include determining proper size without an established scale reference, parts damaged beyond recognition, and so on.

Without qualitative examination, which includes locating part identification numbers, it can only remain in the realm of speculation.

That's cute. Do you even know what that means? MilSpec numbers are used to identify campatility between different types of grease in the aviation biz. They also are used for O-rings and adhesives but that's about it.

Not all parts are serialized but enough are to identify which plane crashed into the pentagon. Of course those would have been planted, right?

On this we can agree however I'm sure enough serial numbers have been checked to satisfy me. And I'm sure no amount of checking would satisfy you.

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

Turbonium said:Are you saying you have evidence that this did not take place? If so, what is it?

What's saddest of all is that so many are willing to accept the story that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon without worrying about insignificant details like actual proof.

Your standards for satisfactory evidence seem to consist primarily of providing links to photos of a small piece of crumpled up metal or whatever and saying "See - there's the undeniable proof!" That's laughable, frankly.

Short of being personally involved in the investigation, what alternatives exist for viewing the evidence? Anything turned over at this point would surely be suspect. Especially since the evil conspirtors are the ones that have custody of the evidence assuming any really exists. But let's say they do load up a few trucks and do a 200 city tour of the debris and evidence so people can see it first hand. Would that be acceptible. I'm guessing "no".

If the conspiracy is, as I'm assuming here because it's really hard to find anything defintite that DID happen accoring to the CT, that the US government attacked the Pentagon with a missile or bomb. Then the same government took control of the scene, held the evidence for 5 years. Finally it gets put it on display "at a city near you". The cries of "Oh it took that long to make all the so called evidence" would echo across the internet.

It is obvious that there will never be a standard of proof that will be acceptible to those who really want to believe.

These aircraft are built to mil-std. specs. That means an aircraft assembled with thousands of parts, each stamped with a unique identifying number which can be traced back to the exact aircraft to which they belong. It is simply impossibile for a Boeing 757 to crash into the Pentagon and not be able to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt from the debris.

So this means that every nut, bolt, seat cover and lightbulb on an airplane is marked with a serial number? I find THAT hard to believe. Does "mil-std. specs" mean Military Standard Specificaions? If so, what do you think that really implies? I would think it more likely that it refers to the abilty to rapidly swap parts from one to another, ensuring that 2 damaged units can be remade into 1 working unit whle the parts are made or shipped in, thus keepig some of the units in operation. At least that's the meaning I've always heard. Others may know it by the term "racing tolerance".

Also, I assume there is some of third party evidence of there being indentifying numbers on "each of the thousands of parts".

They have failed to show that they have any such evidence for over five years now.

I refuse to accept that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon simply because they say it did. Why do most of the others here accept it without verifiable, conclusive proof? I honestly can't understand why.

I refuse to accept that a 757, specifically flight AA77 did NOT hit the Pentagon, because there is absolutely no proof that it did anything else. If it did not hit the bulding where did it go? How did it get there? Does it seem likely that after the Towers and Pentagon were hit, that a plane with the radar siganture of a 757 could be off it's flight path and go unnoticed? Again I ask: If the government was behind it for whatever reason why increase the risk of being discovered by using a plane or device OTHER than what the official story was going to be? If a 757 could not be used for some unfathomable reason, then make the official story some other type of plane that could.

Edit for spelling

__________________
I'm not evil.
An evil person would do the things I think up.

Flight 77 was hijacked that day, the plane disappeared and all people on it as well. Something crashed into the pentagon. Wee have pictoral evidence of airplane parts, yes even scale references showing a large landing gear "anti-twist hinge" (that would be from the nose gear, as he would not be able to lift the MLG hinges that easy ). Note that a missile does not have this part. Nor does it have the clear Al constructions seen around the crash site.

Basically all you have here is disputing evidence on basis of information you do NOT have, but you can't make up a theory based on any info you DO have.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Well a new message from OBL was posted to the internet today where he attacks the US for holding prisoners who had no connection to the 9/11 attacks or al Quaeda, including Massoui who he calls a fraud. How does he now? He claims that the reason he knows is because he sent the 19 people that did do it.

Of coourse this new message not only admiting it, but taking pride in it will be written off as faked by the "9/11 for our Truth, and nothing but our Truth" brigade who will never let anything like reality seep between their ears.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Jenny, a rather prominent Lawyer, is found by her husband John, murdered in her home. She had been seen arguing eariler with a client, Tom, about a case that was going badly. They had parted after Tom had sworn vocally to kill her and had taken a swing at her and had to be dragged off.

Both John and Tom are held while the investigation is held.

Arriving are Detectives C Theorist and D Bunker.

C Theorist: Her husband John did it, he was having an afair and wanted the money.
D Bunker: Shouldn't we look at the evidence first?

They enter.

D: Looks like someone could have entered over here, the window pane's been broken.
C: That's just what he wants you to think, her husband broke the window after he killed her.
D: There's a blue woolen thread caught in the window frame. Tom is wearing a blue jersey this colour.
C: Her husband planted it there to incrimate Tom, it's too short to be from a real jersey.
D: There's blood on the broken glass, John had no cuts on him.
C: That could have been added after the killing.
D: Well look, here's the weapon and it has Tom's fingerprints all over it.
C: There's a lot of speculation about those being Tom's. Half of them are smudged slightly, and the others could be anyones.
D: You know the neighbour saw Tom running away.
C: He saw someone in a blue Jersey, he picked Tom out of the line up because he was wearing a blue jersey. Besides, he's John's friend, of course he's going to lie for him.
D: Look the evidence is pointing to Tom having broken in and stabbed her, killing her like he threaten to do.
C: No, John had motive to do it, he couldn't get a divorse without losing everything, so he had to kill her. There isn't any evidence that says that that it was Tom that did it. Now if the knife has his name on it I might accept that Tom did it, but until then it's obvious that John did.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran