At least I'm startin' my day off with a good laugh.

From one of your links david:

Anybody care to explain to me what a "citizens grand jury" is?

I'm not a scientist but I am interested in military stuff & I know that's not how DU works in the 30mm Vulcan cannon on the A-10 Warthog.

__________________
"An armed man is a citizen
An unarmed man is a subject"

Robert A. Heinlein

I have no idea what smiley is more appropriate here.

David C, you say we ignore all the evidence, while you are dismissing all the evidence as being 'planted'. Not a single thing you have posted, or linked to, happened.

We have posted links, and maths, and science to show why the things you keep posting are incredibly improbable. You are so narrow-minded that a vast CT happened, that you ignore the possibility that there was no CT!

Lets do it this way. You are incredibly certain. So, I'm calling you out on it. Prove it.

We've proven that a 757 impacted the pentagon. You deny it.

Show the evidence that the remains of a 757 at the pentagon were planted.

Show the evidence that it was a missile.

Show the evidence that it was a fighter jet of some sort.

Show the evidence that a DU impactor was used.

Show the evidence on how the light posts were knocked down.

Show the evidence of those who planted the evidence that we show.


No links to other sites. Just proof. Find someone who planted the evidence. Show the remains of a fighter, or a missle at the pentagon. ANYTHING.


You are not allowed to say 'might', 'could' or anything of the sort.

You cannot point to a video and say 'watch it'. You have to SAY what you mean, and want to show.

You cannot point to a still blurry picture, and say 'Its obvious!'. Show us the maths. Show us the science. That is what this board is for.

You are an incredibly frustrating person to debate, because you dismiss everything not within your scope. It would be like me saying '9/11 was filmed on a sound stage! Its so obvious!' without giving a single shred of evidence towards it.

I am quite open towards the possibility that A vast CT was perpetuated. But the evidence is so strongly against it, I believe that terrorists flew airplanes into three buildings, and a third one crashed into the ground. It is simple, and it is easy to pull off. It is the simplest solution. And it fits Occams Razor far, far better than the government paying off thousands of people, and killing far more just to pull off this CT.

Again. Show us the evidence. Spell it out right here, in your own words, with science, and maths to back it up.

__________________
Don't believe everything you think.

Lets see, so there are twin WTC towers in Venezuela? And they were hit by high speed jetliners, burned, but didn't collapse?

Jet fuel ignited owing to the high temps developed by the DU hits...surely they had other means of insuring ignition...hmmm, yeah, I guess running a fuel laden jetliner into a steel framed building is kinda iffy when it comes to getting a fire going...

David, please....

Let's not forget that the impacts knocked most of the fireproofing material off of the columns in and around the impact area. If this had not happened then the towers may have survived the fire.

__________________
"Eternal vigilance is the price of supremacy"
------------Mark Twain

"Women are like Voltron. The more you can hook up, the better it gets."

The game continues, and the band played on...

Why would I be suspicious after seeing a blurry photo from a low resolution traffic camera?
It has nothing to do with being objective. It has everything to do with looking at all the evidence.
You dismiss the evidence of the plane debris and DNA evidence as being planted because you know that it would mean you are wrong.
Your dismissal is ridiculous for reasons that have already been discussed; the method of planting such evidence is improbable to have been carried out. You're talking about parts that require two people to lift, and to have them mixed with burning debris of the building.
And somehow, all this activitiy would have to go unnoticed by security cameras and the many witnesses that were there.
Just as you say we are not objective, you are not being realistic.



I'm not saying that the front is smoke either. Did you ignore what Nicolas posted regarding that claim?

Now, let us look at the situation between us:
Our evidence of a 757 is the debris of the plane itself, DNA of the passengers, radar tracking, and witnesses that saw the plane.

Your evidence is a few blurry photos, and a claim that our evidence could have been planted.

Now, which of us would be laughed at in a debating hall again?

__________________
This is no fantasy. No careless product of wild imagination. - Jor-El

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

Exactly.
The stuff has a lot of kinetic energy when it hits, so it's ideal for armor piercing.
It does not blow up, like whoever made that quote thinks.

BTW Freddie, would you call yourself the rootin'est, tootin'est BAUTer in the forum?

__________________
This is no fantasy. No careless product of wild imagination. - Jor-El

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

My few cents on the DU Penetrator/missile claim:

1. Wouldn't "they" be concerned in the WTC case that their aim might be off? If the missile was just a bit off target, and missed the "central core", wouldn't the DU head of the missile end up going right through the WTC... and be found embedded in some other building, or in a street as (I think I read) one engine was?

2. Why fire missiles into the WTC from the planes at all? It's pretty obvious beforehand that the planes are going to enter the buildings. Why not just have explosives in the planes, made to blow up after it impacts the WTC? Why risk the missile being caught on camera?


It seems to me the risk of failure of the cunning plan is quite high.

Implausible.

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

This is another CT contradiction, right? An aircraft is required to follow the Third Law of Cartoon Physics ("Any body passing through solid matter will leave a perforation conforming to its perimeter"), but a DU penetrator is exempt, in fact, is allowed to make a hole many magnitudes greater than its diameter.

http://funnies.paco.to/cartoon.html

__________________
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

I was going to include this in my last post but it slipped my mind. Look at the first picture in this link.
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm
The tail of the craft can be seen.

You say the plane in the picture on the top right of this link is in front of the pointed object but cannot be seen because it was moving too fast to be picked up by the camera.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...dodvideos.html
If that's the way things work, why is the tail of the craft visible in the first picture but nothing is visible in front of the object in the second picture?

Because the tail happened to be moving through the camera's field of view whiel the camera was taking a picture, but the other thing wasn't, perhaps.

Assuming that's a tail.

Looks more like a wire to me

Probably has something to do with shutter speeds since I have read (but do not know) that cameras like that can adjust their settings to accommodate a range of lighting conditions. With the sun peeking more directly into the lens, I would assume that to maintain clarity of the intended area, that the shutter speed would change. A faster shutter would be less likely to allow capture of an image of a fast moving object, hence the image of the airliner would be much less clear.

I am not a photographer so I may be wrong in this.

It's the next best thing to this, the European 9/11Citizens Jury

"The European 9/11 Citizens Jury website is a reach out to all genuine 9/11 truth seeker groups in Europe,...to set up an organisational body to establish the European 9/11 Citizens Jury...to thoroughly investigate every aspect of the atrocities of September 11th 2001, and produce their verdict. It is clear from the outset to all people who seek truth concerning 9/11 what that verdict should be."

But of course, the best way to run research, inquiries, or a trial, is to start from the conclusion and work backwards.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Well who would dare argue aircraft with an electrical engineer at Amtrak?

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

Especially the recovered 757 parts, recovered bodies from the 757, the missing 7557, the 757 seen flying into the building, the flight path damage consistent with a 757's span and the facade damage consistent with a 757's span point to something smaller than a 757. I'm with you.

__________________
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.

So that is the amount of "looks like" required to definitely say the white thing cannot be a 757 or its smoke, but must be an F4.

Or an F111.


Or a Global Hawk.



Or a missile.



Or a small commuter jet.

__________________
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.

Different camera, different results.

David C, please comment on what I propose about your scenario in post #677. Please look up Occam's Razor on the Wiki, apply that to my analysis of your hypothesis, and prove where I would be wrong in it's application. I will reproduce it here, so you don't have to look back:

"I've been asserting for a little while, and I'll say it again. David C, even YOUR plan makes a heck of alot more sense if the evil government conspirators fly a 757, either the actual one or the "fake" one, into the Pentagon. If not, you end up with a sarin-gas loaded 757 (or blood soaked, I don't know what sickness your mind conjures on this) that you have to hide somewhere, somehow. Best not to leave that evidence just sitting around, eh? So. You want to fool the "sheep" into believing the innocent Muslim extremists have flown a 757 into the Pentagon so we can wage war against them. Once you have your design document in place, it occurs to someone that after all is said and done, you have a spare 757 you have to hide, and another you have taken apart for parts that you'll only have spread around the entire Pent. lawn and all over the building inside. Gee, you wonder, even if the people had invisibility shields, people would notice spare parts floating through the air and dropping in random places around the scene.

How to get rid of that pesky, evidence laiden 757, put parts at the Pentagon, AND fool EVERYONE who sees the crime into thinking a 757 hit it? Why, you could just fly that 757, deceased inside, remotely into the Pentagon. Every single loose end tied up.

David C, even in your paranoid scheme, flying a 757 into the building makes ALOT more sense. Why on Earth would you take the chance of a missile or fighter plane strike going awry and exposing your plot, when at the end of the day you still have this 757 you have to do something with?"

I see you are throwing out the "you must be getting desperate/they'd laugh you out of the debate hall..." Please read post #330 for an analysis of your "debating" skills.

Instead of responding to most of your recent spew, your arguement is so repetitive and circular that I can point out post #331 as a response to today's posts.

However, I would like to add that your condescention is amazing considering you post as evidence links to suchs sites and "rumormill.com", who's frankly ignorant statement is backed up with NO science, NO cites, NO credibility, NO links verifying it's absurd statement. It is unbridled, wild, paranoid, and unintelligent speculation. And you are now forced to resort to linking to it to maintain your paranoia. THAT, my freind, is desperate ;-0

And frankly, I wish that, at least, you would quit with the debating hall comparison. Quite frankly your argeument is absurd, and meets absolutely none of the critical criteria necessary for you to even have a side in an organized debate. You wouldn't be laughed out of the hall, frankly, because your premise is so patently absurd you wouldn't be let in to begin with.

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

David C, I'm sorry, but your links are useless. The photos could have been faked, or photoshopped. And the people on those sites could be lying. We can't use that as evidence.


After all, if you can dismiss the 757 parts, the engines, the fire, the bodies as 'They could have been planted', then ANYTHING you post as evidence must be used with the same measuring stick.

__________________
Don't believe everything you think.

I'll take that as a compliment

__________________
"An armed man is a citizen
An unarmed man is a subject"

Robert A. Heinlein

David, your thoughts?
Edit: FF, outstanding thought process, my compliments...very succinct.

Good luck with getting an answer Shalamar, I asked for proof that the photo wasn't faked in post 530.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Serenitude, your replies are BAUT gold.

It's unfortunate that it may go ignored by the intended audience.

Take my compliment, please!

And also, I hates that rabbit too.

__________________
This is no fantasy. No careless product of wild imagination. - Jor-El

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

Why thank you for the compliment!

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

Oh. I know. He'll just ignore me. HIS evidence is all real. OURS is all planted, after all.

__________________
Don't believe everything you think.

And the smoke trail can also clearly be seen in all the image sequences on this page. Good job of destroying (what's left of) your own argument.

(As a side note, the claim made on the linked page that there is a missing video frame from the released sequence is laughably absurd. The gap in the frame sequence is most likely due to the time stamp's being rounded to the nearest second. And there's no reason to assume that the frame rate should be constant; if some sort of electrically actuated timer was used, power fluctuations could cause the frame rate to vary slightly, just as power fluctuations can cause some electric clocks to gain or lose time.)

Because the conditions in the two shots are not identical. Different angles between the cameras and the object, different apparent motion of the object, and different (by several degrees) lighting of the obbject. Also, the cameras may have had different exposure settings, as they were pointed in slightly different directions (i.e. more of the sky and less of the Pentagon in the frame could cause a slightly different weighted-average light level. All of this is basic physics and photography.

__________________
--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

That's funny. I posted, on page 22, a link to the same frame (on a different site, though).

DavidC writes
OMG!!!

The wall collapsed well after many photos of the lawn were taken in and in those photos there is no evidence of that blown out wall that is in fact missing before the collapse.

The order of events is:
-missile enters building
-missile explodes blowing out the wall
-photos get taken showing the missing front wall but no wall debris in front of the building
-much later, the building collapses


No debris from a missile explosion=no explosion of a missile
Vastly assymetric damage between the front wall and the rear wall=no internal explosion


Perhaps someone else mentioned this, sorry I didn't read all the interveneing posts.


Now DC wants us to believe that depleted uranium explodes. I'd be interested in a description of the reaction or process involved. Perhaps his source is confusing this with purified, weapons grade uranium.

__________________
"Man has always found it easier to sacrifice his life than learn the multiplication table." - Somerset Maugham

I can't really tell, but in Dave's ramblings I got the impression that he's trying to suggest that the "depleted uranium missile" was used to merely punch a hole in the Pentagon wall so that his "killer fighter" could then fly into the building and explode...

...or something.

Yes, that one has me confused as well. He has stated that the DU 'bullet' was meant to break the core of the WTC towers but what is the point at the pentagon? Simply to make the otherwise nonCT explainable 'punchout' hole I suspect. Forgetting that the hole is around eight feet wide. That's some DU penetrator.

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