I think that would be a sheepleish individual.

That is an American Airlines plane. This white-top plane is an AA 757. Then these are debris from the AA plane in question. As much as possible, assumed attributes of the plane should be derived from what we know about the plane, and that big white (or very light blue) piece looks like it contains part of the "e," "c," or "a" in "American" across the top of an AA 757 fuselage such as seen here. I can't find an example of smooth-curved shapes on an AA vertical stabilizer, which is usually white even when the fuselage is silver.

Consider also that sunlit silver is not black or dark green!

See: Which is Flight 77?

Pentagon and Flight 77: an animated size analysis

The piece of debris and the plane in your image are clearly from two different variants. The debris is silver; your plane is white.

Now, I don't have any professional experience in photoanalysis, but even I have to say that's pretty weak. No consideration for the position of the sun, for one. No consideration of distance, for two.

You should take a close look at this image that jt-3d posted earlier. There's clearly a silvery object ahead of the white object. You can barely make out the red stripe running along the fuselage, too.

I'll tell you why I reckon the white stuff is smoke.

This link contains two frames from the footage. In the first frame we can see the "smoke" on the right hand side of the picture. In the second frame the explosion has started, yet we can see that the area indicated now contains what appears to be an extension of the smoke. If the white in the first image is actually the aircraft, then it shouldn't appear in the second frame becasue by rights the plane should be in the building by now, hence, in my opinion, it must be smoke.

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

I'm not saying the less reported account is wrong. Obviously the peole two miles away would not have been likely to smell something they may or may not have been able to identify as cordite. What I AM saying is that given the number of people that reported SEEING a jetliner hitting the building, the only way to explain the presense of cordite would be to either have it on the jet or placed in the wall where the jet would hit.

Fair enough - I agree with those points.

Yes, I'm still saying a jet hit the building. I have not seen any witness reports that actually SAW something else hit it. "Felt like", "sounded like", etc, is not "saw".

There were reports of people who witnessed something else hit the Pentagon...

However, it appeared to be a small commercial aircraft...D. S. Khavkin, Arlington, VA, USA

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/1540586.stm

Steve Patterson, 43, said he was watching television reports of the World Trade Center being hit when he saw a silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City. The plane was about 150 yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground, Patterson said.

He said the plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington cemetary so low that he thought it was going to land on I-395. He said it was flying so fast that he couldn't read any writing on the side.

The plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon but was flying as if coming in for a landing on a nonexistent runway, Patterson said.

[url]http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/5m/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/daily/sep01/attack.html[/urk]

"The plane was a two-engine turbo prop that flew up the river from National." - Ken Ford

"..it was a mid size plane". - Meseidy Rodriguez

(cached from removed articles - no link to original sources)

...it looked like a commuter plane, two engined ... - Don Stanley

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/loc...home-headlines
(audio link)

The last two comments do not specifically state the type of aircraft, so without other details they are not definite accounts to the contrary.

To have it in the bulding already would require that the jet had a specific point of impact from the start. And then there is the problem of just why a 100 year old easily detected explosive would be used over something better.

Yes, a specific impact point would have been required, but I see no reason it could not succeed. Unless you want to cite a reason(s) it could not work. Why use a 100 yr. old explosive? Well, cordite N is still used today, as mentioned earlier. As for why they would use it when it's easy to detect, that's a big unknown, to me. Maybe they were confident enough of being able to control the situation - witnesses, etc. Or at least limit any reports.

All the witness acounts are speculation? Then why even consider them? Speculation will never hold up in court.

No, I mean that witness accounts have to be taken in the overall context of the event. There are several factors that can affect witness accounts...

Exposure time—the longer the exposure, the better the event can be remembered. Very quick elapsed time for the entire event
Frequency—the more the event is repeated, the better it can be remembered. Only one occurrence
Salience of detail—the more a detail catches our attention, the better it can be remembered. The witnesses describe a very fast moving object, which would make details difficult to discern.
Violence of event—the more violent the event, the harder it is to remember correctly. The event was extremely violent.
Stress to witness—increasing stress first helps perception, then hinders it. The crossover point varies with the difficulty of the task. Many witnesses mentioned how shocking the event was.
Wording of the question—leading questions result in more errors than neutral questions. Unknown if some witnesses were actually asked if they saw the 757 fly towards or hit the Pentagon.
Postevent information—hearing someone else discuss an event can plant false memories in a witness; learning of information that conflicts with a witness's memory can create a compromise memory or even introduce nonexistent objects into it; salient details are harder to affect than peripheral details; and false information can be deliberately introduced most effectively well after the event. Again, unknown if this was a factor for the Pentagon witnesses.

Another intriguing point - several witnesses reported seeing two aircraft at the Pentagon, one following the other, or approaching from different angles.

Kelly Knowles, a First Colonial High School alumnus who now lives in an apartment a few miles from the Pentagon, said some sort of plane followed the doomed American Airlines jet toward the Pentagon, then veered away after the explosion.

At the same time, [Keith Wheelhouse] and his sister, Pam Young, who lives in Surry, were preparing to leave a funeral at Arlington National Cemetery, which is less than a mile from the Pentagon, when they watched the jet approach and slam into the Pentagon. Both of them, as well as at least one other person at the funeral, insist that there was another plane flying near the hijacked jet.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/dailypre...T+HIT+PENTAGON

So many varying accounts have to be taken into consideration - not just the accounts that mention only a 757. Videos and airplane debris would seem to be the only way to figure out what happened wit any certainty.

Because at some point a thing can become too complex to be done. You are suggesting that an unidentified aircraft could appear over Washington DC and change places with AA77 on the radar screens. But earlier you said it had completely vanished from the screens. Now, once this change has been made, flight 77 needs to get out of the area undetected. This is going to take a lot of people to do. Air traffic controllers from all airports in range of the area. Military bases. People on the ground to spread the false witness reports. None of whom have come forward at all.

I said that they completely lost track of Flt. 77, and they assumed that what they later spotted on radar was Flt. 77. When it first vanished from radar screens, it could have flown off anywhere without re-identification. Amidst the chaos, there were already wildly contradictory reports, and several initial reports of other off-track or unidentified aircraft (later confirmed to be have been false reports)

I did get a laugh out of that actually

Cheers to that!

Okay... If "they" are able to smuggle in debris like engine parts and landing gear struts, why couldn't "they" also forge the ID numbers that trace it back to the originating craft as you are suggesting?

I had discussed that point earlier. I wouldn't say such a forgery was 100% impossible, but I believe it would be extremely difficult to pull off successfully.

1. You would need to have full access to all relevant documents of the specific aircraft - such as original manufacturing, and all subsequent repair and maintenance records.

2. You would need to have access to a complete 757 built at the same time as Flt. 77. for authentic parts.

3. You would need access to matching parts that were replaced later during repair and maintenance of the aircraft.

4.. Duplicate serial numbers / part numbers of components and sub-assemblies stamped, embossed, etc. Since your "spare" 757 would also have serial numbered parts, those would have to somehow be etched out and replaced with those of Flt. 77. That may be impossible to do without leaving signs of alteration - metal parts with punched in numbers, for example.

That's just a basic list off the top of my head. I'm sure other problems may come into play in trying to "forge" an identical Flt. 77, that would be able to fool expert analysis.

No modern missile would use cordite. There are far better options. The explosives planted at the scene must have been cordite then. So what made the huge fireball seen on the video? That is far more consistent with a combustable substance than an explosion, as has been pointed out on here more than once.

Also, how would a missile hitting be the building be mistaken for a jet liner? What did the people who say they SAW a jet liner really see? Cruise missile is not an aceptible answer. Cruise missiles run around 25 feet long, anyone that makes that error should not be driving in the first place, they have no depth perception or sense of scale. A missile will also not explain the damage to the light poles, the helipad, or the generator.

I think there are many unresolved questions about the Pentagon event. The witnessess saw one plane or sometimes two planes. Different types of planes. The aircraft debris and building damage shown in photos don't provide strong evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagin, imo. I'm just not convinced, honestly.

Let's start with these accounts, turbonium, and give us the reasons why we should discount them. Then present the eyewitnesses you have that would counter the above eyewitnesses and all of the other evidence.

Again, I am not dismissing these accounts. And I have already posted many differing accounts, and they should not be dismissed either. Are you saying the other accounts should not be considered? If so, please explain why.

Also, present the testimony from the hundreds of rescue and recovery personnel who were at the Pentagon in the minutes, hours, and days after the disaster and who were responsible for recovering the remains of human beings and the wreakage. Is their testimony consistent with the crash of AA77 or not? Why?

Please be more specific as to what testimony you are referring to.

We could sink a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated)

No mention is made of killing anyone. A viable plan would have been to have had a Coast Guard cutter take off the refugees before sinking the boat by gunfire, and subsequently to have coached some of the refugees to claim that they had been attacked by a Cuban aircraft. Presumably at least a few of the refugees would have been staunch anticommunists and eager to cooperate.

That describes a simulated sinking of a boatload Cuban refugees. A real sinking of a boatload of refugees is just that - real.

Further, the next point makes clear that the deaths even of Cuban refugees are not contemplated.

We could foster attempts on the lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized.

This is a separate plan, in which they would wound refugees already living in the US. Just because one plan goes into detail about "only" wounding people doesn't mean the other plans have suggested the same thing.

A "Remember the Maine" incident suggested that

"We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba."

Over 250 Americans died when the Maine blew up. The JCS added no caveat about avoiding casualties.

Yet another burden-of-proof confusion. The fact that this particular point did not include such a caveat does not imply that real casualties were intended, and again the point immediately following makes clear that they were not.

b. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both. The presence of Cuban ships or planes merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack. The nearness to Havana or Santiago would add credibility especially to those people who might have heard the blast or seen the fire. The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to "evacuate" remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.

Again, you are trying to prove there is no intention of killing anyone by comparing two completely different and separate plans. There is clearly a distinction between the two plans - the first plan says "Blow up a US ship", period. The second plan says "Blow up an unmanned ship", and goes into specific detail to explain how this could be done - making it look as if people are killed when they are not. There should be details to explain how to succeed with the first plan, if it too was meant to be a "simulated" attack with nobody being killed. But there isn't any. It would say "We could blow up an unmanned US ship".

Ian, you would say this is a white-top plane, right?
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=367505&size=L

Yet, it looks completely different on these other photos. Of the same plane, mind you.
http://www.airliners.net/search/phot...nct_entry=true

You cannot judge the real color of AA planes by their appearance on certain photos. They're silver and they usually reflect the colors of the surrounding area/sky. My first link and your "white-top" plane are obviously pics, taken on an overcast day. The white clouds make the plane's top white.

Here are photos of the N644AA, the actual plane which crashed into the Pentagon.
http://www.airliners.net/search/phot...nct_entry=true

It's not white-top, except perhaps on a cloudy day. On 9/11/01 in Arlington it was a literally cloudless sky with sunshine. You cannot get N644AA to appear white-top or any other kind of white on such a day. Unless it's way overexposed on the photo, but that's beside the point. As you can see in those pics, the silver fuselage does indeed sometimes look quite dark, even when sunlit or reflecting sunlit surroundings.

Yes, one can say that AA tails are some dirty, greyish kind of white. Something not too unlike this mostly white police car.
http://www.criticalthrash.com/terror/P1010016.JPG

Car, which can also be seen on the recently released videos, as it speeds up to the helipad shortly after the plane crash. Here's how it looks like on those videos.

"New" camera. Frame 4830 of Pentagon video.
http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/2...olice2b7jf.gif

Frame 4785.
http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/5...olice2a9xp.gif

Previously known camera. Frame 2930.
http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/1...olice1a2ur.gif

It doesn't look white to me. Except for a tiny strip, which actually was sunlit. Before you extrapolate that to the plane's sunlit leading edges and whatnot, keep in mind that the car probably wasn't doing 700+ ft/s at that moment and that the plane was some 2-3X further away from the camera. And that the sunlit areas on the car were mostly flat, unlike anything on the plane. Flat, thus providing a larger surface for the sunlight to reflect itself in the same direction.

As police car video caps show, I don't see any problem with the white tail showing up as dark on those videos, even if it was completely white. Fuselage was demonstratedly not white, but was reflecting the sky and the nearby hills, which would make it fairly dark, as you can see on airliners.net photos of the plane itself. The reflected blue sky gives it a fairly dark blue-grey appearance and the reflected hills would appear green, and thus dark, not too unlike the skyline in the background.

I think it's pretty fair to say that even a white airplane would appear something like this white car on the camera under those conditions. AA77 wasn't even white as the police car was. It's tail, engines and wings were only greyish white. AA plane would be even darker and less noticable or distinguishable from the background as the bright white police car.

Face it, you cannot explain why would the N644AA appear white on surveillance cam videos. The plane wasn't white even when sunlit, let alone when it was in the shadow as it would have to be on the Pentagon videos. The sky was essentially cloudless and the only relatively white parts of the plane would be in the shade, just as the brightly-white police car was at the time. You cannot explain why does the frame comparison show a certain shape infront of the white blob. Shape, which roughly fits the size of the 757.

You only have a photo from the ASCE report, but I don't see any reason to believe that the building performance report would be overly concerened about an exact position of the plane on surveillance cam stills. They just took the, as you say, easier explanation, without doing any further analysis, because it was completely irrelevant to their research.

I also fail to see any significance in your direct comparison between a more or less perfectly exposed photo of plane's piece of debris and the surveillance cam videos. I'm sorry, but it sounds like "no stars" argument from the Apollo deniers. Just because something appears bright/colored/whatnot on a certain photo/video, it doesn't mean it has to appear so in every photo/video.

Just one comment, it might be a white hangar that is reflected in the first picture instead of the clouds. But the point remains valid either case. As the colour doesn't seem to change towards the top, it probably are the clouds.

__________________
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.

Which accounts are consistent with ALL the other evidence?

I don't think I could be any more clearer than I was. I am referring to what the hundreds of rescue and recovery personnel said who were there recovering wreakage and bodies.

What were their accounts?

We could sink a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated)

That describes a simulated sinking of a boatload Cuban refugees. A real sinking of a boatload of refugees is just that - real.

Again, you are attempting to twist the document's wording in order to read into it the meaning you wish. The parenthetical words "real" and "simulated" are adjectives, which can only modify nouns. The three nouns in the sentence are "we," "boatload," and "refugees." "We" makes no sense, and the meaning is the same whether the modified noun is "boatload" or "refugees." Whether the refugees are "real" or "simulated," the sinking was intended to be real.

In any case, a real refugee boat's being sunk by real 3" shells from a real Coast Guard cutter would still be a "real" sinking. A "simulated" sinking would mean either that that no vessel was actually sunk (debris dropped in the water and strafed by US aircraft), or that some vessel other than a refugee boat (such as a disguised yacht) was sunk.

We could foster attempts on the lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized.

This is a separate plan, in which they would wound refugees already living in the US. Just because one plan goes into detail about "only" wounding people doesn't mean the other plans have suggested the same thing.

In yet another blatant attempt to twist the document's wording, you have misparaphrased "even to the extent of wounding" as "'only' wounding." The former clearly implies that the default condition is no deaths or injuries; the latter implies that deaths are expected. This goes to my point about a lack of friendly casualties' being an implicit subtext of the entire memo. Further, you merely assume, because doing so suits your objectives, that each of the suggested incidents was fleshed out in exactly the same amount of detail, when it is clear that even the incidents that explicitly disavow any intention of causing friendly casualties exhibit greatly differing levels of development.

We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba...

b. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both. The presence of Cuban ships or planes merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack. The nearness to Havana or Santiago would add credibility especially to those people who might have heard the blast or seen the fire. The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to "evacuate" remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.

Again, you are trying to prove there is no intention of killing anyone by comparing two completely different and separate plans. [emphasis added]

I'm not attempting to prove anything; I don't need to. As I stated, the burden of proof is on you, as the proponent of an extraordinary claim. You have repeatedly demonstrated your lack of understanding or willful disregard of the issue of proof in this and other threads. Previously, I have requested that you discuss your understanding of the nature of proof, both of extraordinary claims in general, and of conspiracy claims in particular. I now specifically renew my request that you do so.

There is clearly a distinction between the two plans - the first plan says "Blow up a US ship", period. The second plan says "Blow up an unmanned ship", and goes into specific detail to explain how this could be done - making it look as if people are killed when they are not. There should be details to explain how to succeed with the first plan, if it too was meant to be a "simulated" attack with nobody being killed. But there isn't any. It would say "We could blow up an unmanned US ship". [emphasis original]

As I explained above, you are just assuming that each suggested incident was equally well developed. Further, you are taking both of the above quotations out of context in an attempt to bolster your case. The first quote refers to blowing up a ship "in Guantanimo Bay." A ship riding at anchor could easily have her crew evacuated by small boats just before dawn, and explode two hours later with no casual observers being the wiser. No special explanation of how this might have been done would have necessarily been required. The second quote refers to blowing up a ship at sea close to a large Cuban city, which would have required some extraordinary means of preventing any US casualties (e.g., using a drone ship). Finally, if you're so certain that the discussion of each suggested incident should be considered to be symmetric, why doesn't the first state, "real casualties and military funerals would cause a helpful wave of national indignation," or something to that effect?

In conclusion, I note that, as usual, you've failed to respond to several of my points, though it appears that you've implicitly conceded that the "plan" was in fact only a list of suggestions.

__________________
--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

I'm going to be a bit picky here and point out that "sinking a boatload of refugees" is a gerund (functions as a noun) here.

More on gerunds:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerund

I think it is clear that "real" refers to the gerund here. Off the top of my head, I'm not positive if it is actually correct to say "really" instead, but that is how the sentence reads to me.

I'm going to be a bit picky here and point out that "sinking a boatload of refugees" is a gerund (functions as a noun) here.

The sentence to which I was referring is from the original document, which reads as follows: "We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated)." Obviously at some point the transcription was slightly mangled; however, "real" and "simulated still must logically refer only to "boatload" or "Cubans." The original sentence read "could sink." turbonium paraphrased it to "sinking" in his comments.

__________________
--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

I almost said the same thing, but then I realized that I was looking at the wrong quote. Turbonium is the one who phrased it that way, the original quote is "We could sink a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated)".

Probably my fault for being too lazy to repeat the original quotations in proper form--apologies to all who were confused.

__________________
--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

You know, I've thought of something that might be relevant here, but it starts with a bit of a tangent, so bear with me.

As everyone probably knows by now, my boyfriend was called up recently. In fact, he caught the Capital Aeroporter to the airport at 3:30 last Monday morning for a 9 AM flight to Spokane. Right about 10, I got a call asking to speak to him.

The Army had lost my boyfriend.

It's a roughly one-hour flight on a little prop plane, so he should've been there by then. The woman informed me that they had everyone from his unit (including several people who ought to've been on the same flight) but him. If I heard from him, she said, could I have him call them?

Needless to say, he was there the whole time. In fact, according to him, they'd in fact mislaid several members of his unit who were pretty much standing right there, and they'd tried to cancel someone's flight--that the person was on at the time. They hadn't thought the guy'd returned to Seattle, but he did.

So, in short, if the mere granting of less than a week's leave to a couple dozen guys produced so much confusion, how on Earth could they have managed an enormously complex conspiracy?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

See, they do stuff like that on purpose so you will be less apt to believe in the complex conspiracies folks in the Complex Conspiracy Thinktank^tm dream up.

It's all part of their ultimate plan....

I see. Apologies, as that is a drastically different sentence.

EDIT: (Especially since it raises the possibility of Florida being a hoax!)

This is claimed to be the best 911 conspiracy film
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...59923762628848

Does it bring up anything new?

Heh, no. Nothing substantial anyway...

It seems F77 was mostly silver, and I didn't say it wasn't. I said photos of an AA plane (silver or white) are not a substitute for the AA plane in question, and if F77 is silver: "Consider also that sunlit silver is not black or dark green!"

Well, you're making an inference about all of the sky from a sample of some of the sky, and induction is never certain. Indeed, this photo looking in the opposite direction as the camera in question and thus looking at what F77 would reflect to that camera clearly shows some clouds in the sky, and even more importantly, progressive lightening of the tone of the sky toward the horizon. While not as clear due to being closer in the frames to the smoke, this photo and this photo also show clouds.

I think you're looking at the underside of fuselage skin. As can be seen here, skin underside has a different tone. But the shaded exterior fuselage skin is not black. A problem for the invisible-757 theory is that reflected sky (blue or cloudy) is brighter than dark trees.


Actually, curved fuselage surface can allow for a broader area of reflectance, and the whole sky (with sun and being clear or cloudy) is brighter than dark trees. A problem with the distant car as a useful analog is that a small spot of extreme brightness can push nearby midtones darker than they are. Notice for example how pixels to the left of the sunlit car here are darker than the tone of the field they represent. But no such contrast-induced pseudoshading would exist for your invisible 757, since it has no bright spots.

What you guys should do is outline the otherwise invisible 757 in this clip that you claim exists before the white object that the official report and I say is F77. ~Ian

__________________
Goddard's Journal

*sigh*

This is at least the third time this image has been posted: http://home.satx.rr.com/jt3d/757_2x3.gif.

Zooomed and marked. I could outline it if you want (later tonight) but I think it's sufficient. Even so it's hard to see without the animated one. I did have them posted side by side but that supposedly brought the whole internet to a halt or something so I would ask that you save both and look at them side by side.

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

The fact that the security-camera view shows deep blue sky (see here) and its line of sight runs about 90 degrees to the Sun's rays and and that looking along a line of sight close to 180 degrees opposite of the Sun (see here) shows a whiter sky with progressive sky lightening toward the horizon is a predictable consequence of sky polarization. When the sun is close to the horizon as it was here, the opposite side of the sky will be brighter than seen at 90 degrees, in fact, it will be whiter. So the side of the silver (ie, reflective) AA 757 that faces the security camera would also be facing and thus reflecting the whiter section of the sky. Sky polarization is a daytime terrestrial version of the gegenschein effect (that astronomers should be familiar with) where atmospheric particles do during the day what interstellar particles do at night.

So there's clear evidence that the silver side of F77 facing the security camera would be reflecting a brightened / whitened sky, which also had some clouds to boot. As such, the reflective fuselage of F77 should appear to be of similar color, which would of course be much brighter than the dark trees behind it. So once again, it seems that the official report is correct. ~Ian

__________________
Goddard's Journal

Ian,

Can you then explain what the "silver/blue" plane shaped artifact in the animated gif is? Isn't a little conicidental that the shape would be a plane like shape, a similar colour to photos taken of the plane under a blue sky and that it appears to have streak of red long the center of it?

Can you explain why the plane would be a bright white rather than silver/blue since it dosesn't appear a bright white in the normal images, even with distant clouds and whitened skies? (I really think you're stretching on this one)

Can you explain what the traces of white in the first explosion frame are, both the lighter more dispersed white to the right of the box and the thicker cloud of white to the left, between the box and the explosion? How do these differ from the white seen that you claim is the plane?

Can you explain what the triangular shape that appears above the box in the second frame, then vanishes from the third, is?

Can you show catagorically that the feature you claim is the plane, actually is the plane? And no handwaving and pointing to an "offical document" (which isn't an offical document designed to identify the plane anyway) is not proof.

If you can not, then how can you simply dismiss the claims of the white being smoke as wrong?

__________________
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

Looking at the magnified, annotated and blurred images from the film, were I not told it was an aircraft, I certainly would not see it as one. I still see it as just "something"...
The frames don't really seem to show anything that can be interpreted accurately...all this photo intpretation resembles the antics of Jack White and his lunar tow trucks.
Just my 2 cents.

Dave

The frames don't really seem to show anything that can be interpreted accurately...all this photo intpretation resembles the antics of Jack White and his lunar tow trucks.

I agree and disagree. It's never going to be 100% certain if the artifact is in fact Flight 77, but then nothing in science ever is 100% certain. The difference between Jack and his dump truck and this is that we catogorically -KNOW- that Flight AA-77 is somewhere in the image, that's not in dispute. What is in dispute is WHAT is Flight AA-77. In that we can use deduction and reason to narrow it down to the best theory, that won't mean it is definately right, and I don't see anyone able to wave it about to "prove" that Flight AA-77 hit the Pentagon, but at least we'll have something to point to and say, this is the best theory going currently.

__________________
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

Ian... Comments. You seem to be completely ignoring this animation. There is clearly a large, sliver-blue object ahead of the white object. No other part of the animation shows such a distinctive change.

Edit: Additionally, this image (from one of stratus' links toward the top of this page) shows a 757's vertical stabilizer in shadow. The angle of the sun is different (it's coming from behind instead of in front, as in the case of Flight 77), but the vertical stabilizer, as well as the fuselage, is far from bright white.

Hey, where's coberst when you need him?

I don't know. When do you need him?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"