Can someone explain to me, why the dust reflects the light that much better than the plane?

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

Here's the best image I've seen. Flight 77 is the bright object on the right. ~Ian

__________________
Goddard's Journal

Ian Goddard, in a discussion such as this an argumentation would be most welcome. Just stating that does not convince anyone who has doubts on exactly this claim.

I previously asked you for argumentation on another statement of yours.

__________________
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.

...the hell? We've been through this already, Ian. Restating your opinion doesn't make it any more or less true. You've simply dismissed the object ahead of the smoke and poking above the horizon as more-or-less "something else". That's hardly convincing.

Not "more or less something else", rather "[It's] impossible to believe that there is a 757 where the arrow is pointing to [in front of the white]"

__________________
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.

And lots of a waving the "offical" report, which doesn't actually have anything about the identification of the aircraft in the image anyway. I have yet to see anything from Ian that is remotely convincing, he seems more interested in screaming that the white is the plane and that his report proves it that actually show why the wavey bright white stuff should be considered the plane.

__________________
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

You first contend that I need to try and twist the words in a way the authors did not intend them to mean in order to make my point. But you follow that by showing that no twisting of words is necessary for my point to be valid. To wit, that "..the sinking was to be real", leaving only "...the refugees.." who "..are "real" or "simulated..".

No. You claimed that having a Coast Guard cutter take off the "real" refugees before sinking the "real" refugee boat would constitute a "simulated" sinking, and, by implication, that only leaving the refugees aboard the boat would constitute a "real" sinking.

I said "only wounding" Cuban refugees as part of my argument countering your contention - that because the JCS said that the "wounding" of refugees was the specific intent of one scenario, that meant any other scenario which would, or could, harm or kill people, would have also been pointed out as a specific intent, or likely result.

And, again, your misparaphrasing changed the connotation from no injuries ordinarily expected to deaths ordinarily expected. Further, you have failed to address my contention that the lack of injury to or death of innocent victims is an implicit subtext of the entire memo, which is why it is not mentioned in certain cases--because it is assumed.

Yet again, you have failed to respond to my request; kindly answer the question that was posed.

Again, you are expanding the first scenario to include simulated elements.

No; you are assuming that blowing up or sabotaging a ship at anchor necessarily must include real casualties. As I mentioned, no great leap of the imagination is required to figure out how this could have been done with an excellent chance of no casualties.

Below is a specific example from the document which points out how one lethal scenario may be substituted with a non-lethal scenario.....

2. (10) Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires - napthalene.
(11) Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for
mock-victims (may be in lieu of (10)).

Sources describe napthalene (naphthalene) as....

The estimated lethal dose of naphthalene is 5-15 g for adults....In the absence of adequate supportive treatment, death may result from acute renal failure in adults.

First of all, as Jim pointed out, the authors probably intended some other petroleum derivative that is more combustible; however, even if napthalene is the correct substance, 5-15 g is a potentially lethal dose if ingested. National Fire Protection Association Standard 704 health hazard rating for napthalene is 2--"Intense or continued but not chronic exposure could cause temporary incapacitation or possible residual injury." By contrast, formaldehyde, found in any high school or college biology class, has a NFPA health hazard rating of 3--"Short exposure could cause serious temporary or residual injury." Also, TNT has a health hazard rating of 2--had TNT been mentioned, would you have claimed that that particular explosive was chosen in hopes of poisoning the crew?

They specifically state in point 2. (10) the use of napthalene. Now, they don't "flesh out" the reason it would be used, nor do they specify its resultant effects. As I pointed out above, its toxic effects are a fact. The JCS would certainly have known this, and why they would choose to use it do not need to be elaborated upon. Or, would you still contend that their reason(s) for using napthalene, and the effect(s) of using it on people, need to be "fleshed out"?

Or isn't it obvious enough - that they name a specific, toxic chemical agent to use in scenario 2. (10), and that the subsequent scenario 2. (11), with "..mock-victims..", could be used "..in lieu.." of it?

What is obvious is that you are frankly clutching at straws by claiming that the use of napthalene was somehow intended to poison the crew of the sabotaged ship, when the context makes clear the fact that such use would have been for the purpose of creating "large fires," which, as noted, suggests that some other similarly named substance was actually intended (napthalene's fire hazard rating is also 2). Finally, napthalene would have been an extremely poor choice of a poison, due to its relatively low toxicity and distinct odor that anyone would immediately have recognized as the active ingredient in mothballs.

__________________
--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

No, the JSC did not "green light" anything. That is not their function nor their authority. They suggest; SecDef and POTUS green light.

This is but a minor issue of semantics, but "green light" is a perfectly adequate description for the approval of Operation Northwoods by the JCS...

Synonyms: permission, approval, assent, consent, authorization, sanction, leave, warranty, confirmation, blessing; inf. OK, okay, go-ahead, thumbs up.

(Source: The Oxford Pocket Theasurus of Current English; 2006)

I understand you may mean that the implementation of the plan needed the "green light" of the Sec. of Defense and President, which is accurate in that regard.

And many JSC suggestions are extremely far off the wall. Again, it's not their job to offer only the most plausible; the offer every idea that has a chance of success and let those in charge make the decision.

"Extremely far off the wall"? No argument from me on that description! (Yikes!)

It's part of the military brainstorming process, and they are very good at it.

Double yikes!!

As I alluded to earlier, calling these suggestions "brainstorming" is supremely ironic, although that is the proper term for a group tossing out a bunch of ideas and then selecting the "keepers".

I guess calling them "very good at it" is a matter of what one considers "good" in this context. It's somewhat akin to saying that Hitler was "very good" at being the leader of Germany - within a narrowly defined context - he brought a nation out of poverty and unemployment into great prosperity. Of course, he also ultimately led the nation into ruin, leading to its East-West division, while in-between he happily created a Hell on Earth. The JCS are (were) certainly "very good" at coming up with extremely radical and often very unlawful plans for the desired objective - to create the global illusion of a nation being the innocent victim of multiple acts of foreign aggression. But I wouldn't call these types of "brainstorming" suggestions "very good" work by the JCS, on several levels.

Edit - double post.

No. You claimed that having a Coast Guard cutter take off the "real" refugees before sinking the "real" refugee boat would constitute a "simulated" sinking, and, by implication, that only leaving the refugees aboard the boat would constitute a "real" sinking.

"..that only leaving the refugees aboard the boat would constitute a "real" sinking."...you left out the refugees....

When they state....

We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated).

...that means either "simulate" the incident, in whole or in part, or make it a "real" incident - and have it actually happen [/i]entirely[/i] as written. Any element that is simulated makes it a "simulated" incident. If not, you are proposing that every element of an incident must be "simulated" to make it a "simulation", and if there is any aspect of an incident which is "real", that makes the entire incident "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.

You aren't getting my point. That is still an incident which includes simulated elements. There would not be any concern over whether or not the boat was a "genuine" refugee boat! I mean, it's not very likely that witnesses will say "That was no genuine refugee boat." So it could certainly have a "real refugee boat" - but "simulated" refugees.

In contrast, other scenarios would require careful preparation of "decoy" ships or aircraft. Like the passenger airplane scenario - a "simulated" plane would need to be created that would succeed in fooling any eyewitnesses. As well as the fake Mig scenarios.

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.

As I noted, is anyone really going to say that the refugee boat was a fake? Would they flip through "Jane's Refugee Ships" for identification? Unless "SS Minnow" is painted on a piece of the fake debris or something, it wouldn't be very difficult to "simulate" blowing up a non-descript refugee craft. Or not, because who would ever notice the difference?

And, again, your misparaphrasing changed the connotation from no injuries ordinarily expected to deaths ordinarily expected.

No, I wasn't implying "deaths ordinarily expected" in my point. It was meant to explain the fallacy of your argument - that because they specifically mention injuries in one scenario, that the remaining scenarios are harmless because they would have mentioned it otherwise.

Further, you have failed to address my contention that the lack of injury to or death of innocent victims is an implicit subtext of the entire memo, which is why it is not mentioned in certain cases--because it is assumed.

So when they suggest We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington, they don't mention that injuries could occur because it is "assumed" there wouldn't be any? Is that really your contention?

What is obvious is that you are frankly clutching at straws by claiming that the use of napthalene was somehow intended to poison the crew of the sabotaged ship, when the context makes clear the fact that such use would have been for the purpose of creating "large fires," which, as noted, suggests that some other similarly named substance was actually intended (napthalene's fire hazard rating is also 2). Finally, napthalene would have been an extremely poor choice of a poison, due to its relatively low toxicity and distinct odor that anyone would immediately have recognized as the active ingredient in mothballs.

Naphthalene alone is not used as an incendiary - but it becomes an incendiary when it's mixed with palmitate, and becomes the well known, and brutally lethal incendiary, napalm.

1973 General Resolution

...the recent report of the Secretary General of the United Nations on napalm and other incendiary weapons, a report which asserts that "napalm may be one of the most lethal weapons in existence today" and that these weapons are "already the subject of widespread revulsion and anxiety"; and

WHEREAS, United Nations consultant-experts have concluded that it is necessary to develop "measures for the prohibition of the use, production, and stockpiling of napalm and other incendiary weapons"

http://www.uua.org/actions/peace/73incendiary.html

The only way I have found that naphthalene becomes an incendiary is when it is used in combination with palmitate to create napalm. Do you know of any other way that naphthalene could be used as an incendiary?

Turbonium, spitfire, is this discussion leading somewhere? I think the relevance to 9/11 and the Pentagon crash is long gone...

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

2nd try:
Can someone explain to me, why the dust reflects the light that much better than the plane?

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

I don't know why that would be. Maybe a craft that reflects its environment on its skin is less visible than light coloured smoke or dust? Just a guess. Maybe the dust (or smoke) had (partially) somewhat less speed and therefore got better exposed on the camera than the fat moving aircraft?

__________________
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.

If the plane was to fast to be better exposed on the image, it would produce a strak in the image, distributing its reflected photons over a larger area of the cameras CCD, or film. On the image , the "plane" is no strak, just very dim.
So, the dust reflected MUCH more light than the bright plane.
I do not argue that in front of the white blob something possibly plane shaped can be seen. It just makes me wonder, why a metallic reflecting plane does actually reflect that much less light than a dustcloud.

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

The camera-facing side of the plane is more-or-less self-shadowed, whereas the individual particles of smoke/dust, not being shadowed by the plane, would reflect a greater amount of light toward the camera.

That's my take on it.

Good argument on the exposure time.

I think that it can be possible that as Cl1mh4224rd proposes, the random surface orientation of the dust might allow for better reflection that the self-shadowed plane side.

__________________
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.

here's the best image I have seen so far.



I'd note that from pictures of the actual plane previously linked too, the engine cowling is a similar colur to the white stuff.

__________________
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

I assume the coloured parts are the differences between both images? It does look like an aircraft to me. The white stuff also nicely lines up with the exhaust flow.

__________________
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.

I didn't do it, it was posted back all the way back on page 14 of this thread.

__________________
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

... as we are looking somewhat against the sun... ok. That settles my point.

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

How are you coming along with your reports from the rescue and recovery crews at the Pentagon, turbonium?

I know, but I preferred the normal colour animation back then because it had no image alteration

The strange colours in the form of an aircraft do appear to be correct with sun lighting: more change higher up on the fuselage (towards the more sunlit places) so more light there, and where the wing can be expected to be.

__________________
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.

While Oxford is a good source for the general meaning of words and phrases, this phrase was used in a military context. To the military, "green light" is permission to implement or execute a plan. In this instance, JSC cannot give that; only SecDef or POTUS can.

First, I call Godwin's Law.

Second, since you brought it up, the Allied landings in Europe - specifically the one at Normandy - were the fruits of the military brainstorming process.

So, yes, they are very good at it.

But, they didn't mention napalm. Are you saying the statement may have been incomplete, or in error? Will you admit that they could have meant naphtha? Or, if they did mean napalm, that they weren't planning on posioning anyone with toxic fumes?

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Operation Northwoods was essentially a compilation of various false-flag operations. And varying levels of deception were required to pull each one of them off successfully. That is, the goal of each scenario, and of the operation as a whole, was to create the appearance of unprovoked hostilities against America by Cuba. The greater the deception required within a scenario, the greater the requirement to "flesh out" the details within [the] document. [emphasis original]

This is not entirely correct; for example, no details are provided of how an assassination attempt would have been staged where the "victim" was wounded but not killed, or how an aircraft hijacking would have been faked.

So when you say, "..why should real casualties be required for an attack on a ship at anchor...if bogus casualties are deemed sufficient.." to create the desired effect, you have to take into account that the level of deception required for the latter is far less than for the former. That is, if they implement the scenario using "bogus casualties", they need to "create" people that never existed on order to "kill" them in the incident. Hence the need to arrange "funerals for mock-victims", to create phony "casualty lists in US newspapers", and use "selected passengers" with "carefully prepared aliases".

And you need to take into account, as I mentioned, that evacuating a ship at anchor in Guantanimo Bay before blowing it up or setting it afire would have been a relatively trivial matter. You are just assuming, because it suits your purpose, that real casualties were intended. Several of the other scenarios proposed, such as staged hijacking attempts and airliner harrassment by fake MiGs, involved no casualties, real or fake. How do you know that the plan was not to claim that everyone aboard the burned or blown-up ship had fortuitously escaped serious injury? The answer is, you don't; you just assume, because you have to.

One other point. If real casualties were considered an option, why is no suggestion made of shooting down a real airliner (as opposed to just harassing), or actually killing a prominent Cuban exile?

People "created" from thin air, such as the "mock-victims", would not have the very real emotional response of family and friends - since they never existed in the first place. Only if they were able to get some people to lie, and say "Joe Blow was my second cousin", etc., would it create a "personal" effect on the American public.

Irrelevant. Fake casualties or no casualties were considered sufficient for at least some of the scenarios; even granting for the sake of argument that your contention is true, you are merely stating a motive for causing real casualties, and motives are not evidence. Further, as I have shown, the primary purpose of Northwoods was not to whip up anti-Castro sentiment among the American public; rather it was to mute potential international criticism of an invasion.

The people with "carefully prepared aliases", who safely land in secret, effectively would join a program, en masse, that is even worse than the Witness Protection Program. Not only must they live out their lives with completely new identities, relocate to areas where they will not be recognized, and never again contact outside family and friends. Unlike criminals living incognito under the WPP, whose families and friends at least know that they are still living their lives in relative comfort somewhere, parents and children of the "victims" would have to deal with the devastating, tragic news that their loved ones were brutally murdered. The reports would quickly confirm that the perpetrators were barbaric Communists from Cuba.

You are assuming that the point of the "carefully prepared aliases" is to claim that the real passengers had died, and simply hide them--a frankly ridiculous and wholly unsupportable assumption. Who would reasonably be expected to volunteer for such a mission?? And if they didn't volunteer, what would keep them from blabbing to the media at the first opportunity??

The point, rather, was to claim that the aliases had died, as is made clear by the next scenario in the memo.

Also, as I again have previously discussed, because the primary purpose of Northwoods was to mute international criticism of an invasion of Cuba, the contrived nature of the "provocations" would only need have been kept secret for a period of several months, until Castro's replacement by a pro-US regieme had been accomplished, and the Soviets were unable effectively to intervene.

As we've established, I see the intent to kill Americans and foreigners as a concrete option within the document, whereas you do not.

And therefore your claim is extraordinary, and mine is not. Thus the burden of proof is squarely on you to demonstrate that your interpretation is significantly more likely to be correct than mine. Again (for about the fifth time), please state your understanding of the concept of proving extraordinary claims in general, and of proving conspiracy claims in particular.

But I appreciate your concession that at least some deaths could have been considered an acceptable consequence of the operation. Although I do agree that it would be far less significant, on many levels, than a deliberate plan for the mass murder of US citizens, it would still be extremely unsettling. I believe that any plan which would accept the deaths of innocent people as a reasonable price to pay for the "reward", is still profoundly despicable and murderous.

As is your habit, you have misparaphrased "risk of death" to "death," as if the plan called for such. I was conceding a relatively small risk of deaths (such as the risk of a fake MiG's attempting to near-miss a US Navy cargo ship and accidentally hitting the target due to a faulty bomb release, for example, or the risk that a few sailors might be killed or badly injured fighting the "napthalene" fires). I would characterize the final approval and execution of such a plan (but not necessarily its suggestion) as at worst a case of extremely poor judgment; your characterization of it as "profoundly despicable and murderous" is simply rank hyperbole.

The "ultimate" objective of Operation Northwoods was to "provide justification for US military intervention in Cuba". Not because Cuba posed an imminent threat to the lives or safety of Americans. And not because Cuba posed any sort of threat to the national security of America. The plan was drawn up because the military leaders of the US - the JCS - wanted to create the illusion that another nation provoked America into a justifiable act of retribution.

Irrelevant to the issue of whether or not real casualties were intended. You are merely proclaiming this to be an example of how evil and Machiavellian the US military establishment is, in a subtle attempt to insinuate that the US military might plausibly have planned and carried out the September 11 attacks. That aside, your claim that Cuba was no threat to US national security is laughably absurd, as demonstrated by the Cuban Missile Crisis later in the year.

The cost of several lives may have been deemed to be "acceptable", within the greater context of the "ultimate" goal. In no way do I see this as acceptable, or reasonable, or understandable. I can only see it as murder. That isn't even taking into account the untold number of deaths of both Americans and Cubans that would have been the result of the subsequent military intervention.

Which would have forestalled the Cuban Missile Crisis. Had the invasion gone forward, historians might well have viewed it as having possibly prevented World War III, had Soviet plans to emplace nuclear missiles subsequently come to light after the end of the Cold War, and had Robert McNamara (and JFK, had he lived due to the butterfly effect) subsequently stated that they would have insisted on the missiles' removal. I am not saying that a decision to invade Cuba during the summer of 1962 would necessarily have been the correct one, but I am saying that you are grossly oversimplifying the issues involved.

But the JCS called for the means to "justify" an unjustified attack on Cuba through deception.

As stated, I decline to accept your characterization of an attack on Cuba as necessarily unjustified.

Knowing that our service members would not willingly risk their lives without justifiable cause.

You have no evidence that this was a motivation for Operation Northwoods.

Through acts of deception, many of them would have been killed, many others wounded. Cuban military and civilian deaths would likely be many times more than our own. Is the intentional deception of Americans to manipulate them into a war not, at the most basic level, an act of mass murder? Or at least, an act that could have no other result but the eventual death of hundreds or thousands of innocent people?

Again, you are merely proclaiming the Northwoods memo to be evidence of the evil intentions of the US military.

The document states that the plan had a very limited window of opportunity - in fact, only a few months. That is, it needed to be implemented before the USSR had an agreement binding them to the defense of Cuba, etc. So it was only within months of actual implementation.

Equivocation. "Close" in time is not the same as "close" in the sense of barely avoiding some event.

The JCS gave the green light to all the various scenarios within the document. They left it up to the Sec. of Defense and JFK to pick the ones they wanted to implement.

Again, you exaggerate how well-developed the "plan" was.

I was simply pointing out that there was an entirely new group in 2001, from the JCS to the Sec. of Defense and President. And from that, if a 9/11 operation was proposed, was it implemented.

There was not "an entirely new group." As I mentioned, and you ignored for some reason, the entire JCS in September 2001 was composed of Clinton appointees (with one minor exception I have discovered). The Chairman, Army General Hugh Shelton, was appointed by President Clinton in 1997, and re-appointed to a second term in 1999. Both times he was confirmed by the US Senate. The Vice Chairman, Air Force General Richard Myers, was appointed and confirmed in 2000. The Chief of Staff of the Army, General Eric Shinseki, served from 1999 to 2003. Note that Shinseki's protracted feud with Donald Rumsfeld casts extremely serious doubt on the possibility of their having conspired on anything. The Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Vern Clark, was appointed by George Bush the Younger, and took office on July 21, 2000, due to the slightly early retirement of his predecessor. I suppose if one were exceptionally paranoid, one might argue that Admiral Clark somehow persuaded the rest of the Joint Chiefs to plan and implement the September 11 attacks in the space of seven weeks. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General Michael Ryan, served from 1997 to 2001. The Commandant of the Marine Corps, General James Jones, served from 1999 to 2003.

[edit: Maksutov has pointed out to me that I had a middle-age moment and misread 2000 as 2001 in the case of Admiral Clark. So the entire JCS really was appointed by Clinton.]

Similarly, then-CIA Director George Tenet was appointed by Bill Clinton and confirmed by the Senate in 1997; Tenet's deputy was appointed in 2000.

[edit: Upon rereading, it occurs to me that you possibly meant "entirely new from 40 years earlier." If so, I'm not certain why you felt the need to point out such an obvious fact. And that still does not answer my question--was Bill Clinton also in on the conspiracy? Also, why would his appointees decide to conspire with Bush the Younger and company?]

The objective was clearly to create the appearance of a justified attack against Cuba. The cost would have been the lives of untold numbers of people, no matter how one interprets it.

This is true of any decision to go to war, no matter how well- or ill-founded

With the need to keep secret the true fate of many US citizens living under aliases? That alone would take many decades of continued secrecy.

As shown, your assumption that this was part of the plan is completely unjustified.

[edit: spelling]

__________________
--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

[conspiracist]But don't you see? We have here a clear motive for the attack on the Pentagon!!!!!!!! (note the exclamation points). Clearly the attack was planned by Bush, Rumsfeld et al. in order to get rid of these unreliable appointees of the previous administration, especially Shinseki. Justification for the Iraq war was just some icing on the cake. The WTC attacks were merely a diversion to distract attention from this decapitation operation. [/conspiracist]

Keep up the good work Doug. I know how arguing with Turbonium can be like talking to a wall. On a personal note, I've worked for Admiral Clark in the course of my job, and a more honorable man you could not ask to meet. (and now that I've marked myself as a member of the conspiracy, I'll sign off.)

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

Okay, while it's hard to argue with any explanation that includes that many exclamation points, I must.

Clearly, the attacks WERE planned by the previous administration and its appointees. This was an OBVIOUS attempt to embarrass and discredit the Bush Admin. They even left LOTS of CLUES as to the BOGUS NATURE of the attacks.

Unfortunately, the attacks not only WORKED but the SHEEPLE FELL FOR IT!

(I hope my capitalization will convince you of the accuracy of my claims.)

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

I think that you need to either bold and/or color the text to be more convincing, like this:

Clearly, the attacks WERE planned by the previous administration and its appointees. This was an OBVIOUS attempt to embarrass and discredit the Bush Admin. They even left LOTS of CLUES as to the BOGUS NATURE of the attacks.

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

So many rules. :sigh:

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

What??? no font size changes? Everyone knows, the bigger the font, the more true it is...

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

Since rational argumentation is confined to domains containing logical or empirical entities, when someone points to an empty field and says there's a Boeing 757 there, counter argumentation is not indicated. All I can say is what I already said: you guys are pointing to trees and field. The line demarking the end of the field is plainly and persistently visible before the bright object that is Flight 77.

Your closest empirical-domain incursion presented for the unobstructed video is found in this analysis. But it means nothing. As it shows, there's noise all over and along the treeline, diminishing closer to the solar reflection. To know if changes near the bright object (F77) mean anything, you'd have to do a statistical noise analysis over many frames, and with respect to bright objects in sharp contrast entering the frame.

If the difference is statistically significant, a possible explanation is an effect of the bow shock forward of F77. Perhaps ground dust was drawn up into or before the wave. Bow shockwaves occur forward of aircraft at subsonic speeds. They approach the nose and pass behind it at and above supersonic speeds. According to the NTSB, F77 was traveling 780 fps on impact, and supersonic speed at sea level is around 1066 fps (by my calculation from). So it's highly likely that F77 had a strong bow shock before it, which may account for the only empirical data used to support claims against the official report (see page 13) regarding the location of F77.

__________________
Goddard's Journal