Imagine the launcher required to fire that DU...
And imagine it attached to a 757...
And imagine the energy needed to get the DU penetrator to its impact speed...

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

If you look at this picture, you'll see that there are no marks on the wall consistent with the wings having hit it.
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...pic=4223&st=30
There are no crumpled-up wings on the ground. If the wings had burned up, there would be some signs of a large hot fire on the chain-link fence that runs along the wall. From what I've read about burning aluminum in order for that much aluminum to burn up before it falls to the ground it would have to be powdered aluminum. Solid aluminum would have hit the ground before completely burning up and there would have bee some signs of an intense fire--the chain-link fence in the picture would look nothing like it looks.

I dealt with this in post 264

If you have anything about parts having been found at the crash site with serial numbers from flight 77, please post it. I've always been under the impression that nothing with a serial number was found. If that's not true, I want to know about it. Of course that is fakable too though.


Look at this video you guys posted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8
Start watching at the 2 min. 16 sec. mark.
According to this video that you guys posted it's a tail.
The Pentagon is about 70 fet high and a 757 is about 150 feet long. How long it should be can be deduced by comparing it to the height of the Pentagon a little above the point of the crash. The plane in this photo is behind the box.
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm
If it were a 757 the front would be visible as a 757 would be about twice as long. I know it's coming in at an angle but not enough of an angle to reduce it's length by half.

I've said before that the only thing I thought worth debating is whether these frames from the videos released by the government were doctored or not.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...dodvideos.html
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm
Even the CNN new anouncer says it the nose of the craft that hit the Pentagon.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pen...deo/index.html
He assumes it's the nose of a 757 although it's too pointed. If the footage has been doctored, it was doctored by the government. Why would the government doctor footage that would incriminated it? The government would have doctored the nose to look like a 757.
If the craft that hit the Pentagon had been a 757, it wold have looked more lke this.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...reallylook.htm
I know the scale is way off in this link. The plane is about twice as big as a 757 but it still would have been as visible. It might have been more blurry but it would have been unmistakably a long jetliner.

That's probably a missile being fired from the fighter.
http://www.physics911.net/aircraftoutlined.jpg


In no technician but I've seen lots of photos of objects that were moving fast. None of them ever completely disappeared. There was always a very distict although sometimes very blurry object. Sometimes the object is so blurry that it can't be identified but it never disappears. Don't incredibly high numbers of of photons travel at the speed of light? If exposure is at the minimum setting possible, won't lots of photons get through in this short time and give a blurry image of the object?
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/camcorder2.htm

I don't know enough about DU. I just posted that stuff because they seemed to be worried about contamination during cleanup.
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin...cgi?read=57785
Maybe it wasn't a uranium penatrator but a regular air-to-ground anti-concrete missile. I don't know exactly what happened. This might be some kind of missile being fired just before imact.
http://www.physics911.net/aircraftoutlined.jpg
If it was a missile being fired, the plane went into the resulting hole and left little debris outside.

Here's something I just came across.
At the 2 min. 30 sec. mark of his video is says that the Pentagon has an automatic defense system.
http://video.google.es/videoplay?doc...12283357950184

Is this true? If it is, why didn't it work?

No, it's not true. The Pentagon did not have an "automatic defense system. I've evaluated air defense systems for the Navy and nothing would scare me more than to have an automated one on the Pentagon that would shoot without a human command. The building is right on the final approach to National Airport and the false alarm problem boggles the mind.

Even if there were a self-defense system it probably wouldn't have done any good. The plane wouldn't have been in range of most point defense systems until it got close to the Pentagon. Also when you shoot down a plane it doesn't just vanish, it has momentum and the bulk of the plane keeps moving in the same direction. So Dave, don't base your beliefs on what you see in the movies. Real weapons don't work that way.

Enough said. Not even wrong.

__________________
"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

So in other words you have no intention of believing anything anyone tells or shows you.

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

Robert A. Heinlein

Just two things:
1. Like to comment on your 12 meter high jet fighter?
2. I have already shown you the debris of the wings waaaaaay back in this thread but here you go again:
http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Se...-8006R-002.jpg

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

Because it is not true. As mentioned, the Pentagon is in the approach path of a major airport. Good analysis of this bogus claim here
http://www.911myths.com/html/pentago...batteries.html
as well as some good pictures.

Any more crap you want to spew? So far your entire argument against the multitude of evidence presented is "it could have been faked." Using this same argument, I say you could be be faked so therefore you must be.

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

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

What, in your immense expertise, then, would you consider to be marks that ARE consistent with wings hitting it? And remember, people who actually DO know what they are talking about are going to read your answer, but that's ok. They could use a good laugh.

Have you ever actually stopped to actually read what you write? It doesn't strike you as silly?

What you keep reading and regurgitating from CT sites is your whole problem, David C...

No, you didn't deal with it. You typed nearly incoherent, nonsensical speculation. There's a difference. It's becoming more obvious with every word you type that you have no idea how to seperate baseless speculation from supportable fact.

Look at this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18eAky-QG8U

It talks about people with secrets they hide. Notice it gets interesting at the 48 second mark.

Great. Why don't you work it out and show us your findings, including the measurements and maths used to conclude your findings.

Ok. Why don't you produce for us poor sheep the method you used to determine the angle, and the formula you used to subsequently determine that it couldn't, mathematically, be a 757. Just so we know your conclusion isn't "faked".


That's because what you've done is taken one of the extremely rare pieces of evidence, out of several thousands of available and verifiable evidences, that's so ambiguous so as to be nearly unintelligable and hung your whole hypothesis on it, on the premise of "since it's hard to make out, therefor it follows that the government and tens of thousands of people lied, carried out ruthless executions, and faked a 757 crash."

David, this assertion is absurd. You are talking to people who make it their business and living following evidence where it leads. You aren't going to be able to handwaive and parrot your way into convincing with this, no matter how many times you ignore the questions asked of you and keep posting the same thing over and over. Repitition does not equal the truth.

You should do better with cites than "the new guy at CNN thinks it's a.."

See? Even he manages to get it right.

This should be screaming something to you, David. Can you hear it? Listen really closely...


You're right, this clearly demonstrates something. It demonstrates that your grasp of the dynamics of this photo are almost nill, despite almost unprecedented attempts to help you understand it in almost every concievable way. The only explanation is that, for some reason, you refuse to understand it.


What you highlighted, to me, looks much more like a duck than it does a missile. Do you see a pattern in the "evidence" you try to produce?

Yet more evidence that you don't have the slightest idea what you are actually talking about. The dynamics at work in this picture have been explained to you with painstaking detail and patience. You just refuse to understand. Don't get me wrong - I'm sure you're a great guy and all. But your hypothesis is pure garbage.

You have to be kidding me. Tell me you asked that to be funny

Seriously?

You know, if you're going to believe unverifiable, baseless speculation from rumormillnews.com, and furthermore cite it as evidence, but dismiss all credible evidence as "fakable", then there's nothing more we can do to help you.

Well, maybe we are getting somewhere. In only 700+ posts we've finally helped you get from "no debris" to "little debris". Baby steps, David C., baby steps...

__________________
"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

Personally, I wouldn't put too much weight on this picture as evidence for wing debris. It's after cleanup has begun, and crews have clearly been inside the building. That the debris is in a path extending from the doorway suggests to me that it's merely "junk" from inside the building that had been carried outside to clear a path.

OK, you could be right about that, but proove me wrong.

Whatever. You can clearly see the damage done to the walls on that picture.

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

The video is consistant with that of a 757 hitting the pentagon. A fighter firing a missile into the building would likely not even be seen in a PARKING LOT video camera. It would be too small.

Since you, David C insist that it was NOT a 757, that all remains were planted, I want to see the evidence of a missile, and the remains of a fighter jet at the pentagon. I've looked, and I've searched, but I can't find anything at all.

So do please enlighten us.

__________________
Don't believe everything you think.

If the craft that hit the Pentagon had been a 757, it wold have looked more lke this.

There are so many things wrong with that clip it's hard to know where to start.....

__________________
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 don't think he really cares. He is just throwing crap against the wall to see if any of it sticks.

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

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

It's not true. What is true is you're gullibility when it comes to these foolish hoax sites. (Navigators???? Dear Lord!!!)
My, you do have a mindset and an agenda here, don't you...?

round, round, roundabout and ooover again. This pic shows the wing damage even more clearly than the pic you said showed no wing damage pages ago. You were shown wrong on that one: the facade stone was gone over a wing's length. You see the same damage in this pic.

But whatever, ignore and post again, right?

__________________
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 is something I found about DU.

I can make no claim about the veracity of the source though I do recall reading that DU was used for the AP penetrator because it was denser than other materials.

Uranium powder oxidises rapidly when heated. When a DU round hits a hard object that removes the outer layers of the round as dust, heating it through friction, it tends to flash oxidise (burn.) Uranium as a solid metal doesn't do this in air and the effects are limited to a relatively small area (the point of impact.)

__________________
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

Any suggestion that the government "doctored" (I think the applicable contemporary term might be 'photoshopped') the Pentagon camera images then means (under that premise) that the images are no longer reliable as evidence. Hence, it cannot be inferred that they show anything (such as a F4 or its sillouette or anything). Hence, arguments based on the camera images "showing" a F4 or F111 or anything are baseless. In this line the only thing that can be done is to show that the images were "doctored" for it can't be proven that they show anything else.

Looking at the first link you give, David C, I have to keep from snickering.
The wall of the building looks rather messed up. The ground looks rather charred too. Seems like an ash covering it.
Tell me, did you bother to read other posts, in which aircraft aluminum has ignited simply by the friction of the plane sliding down the runway?

Oh yes, you make these assesments, yet later in your post, you admit that you're no technician (when it comes to camera angles, ect).
Since you're not an aircraft technician either, how can you make an authoritive judgement on what should be seen in the crash site of a plane?


So if anything is fakable, why bother showing it to you if that's what you think?
You make a losing situation for yourself. That's way it's frustrating to debate with you. Makes one wonder if you really are here to debate, or just to post links and just troll around.
Show us a sign that this is not your intention.





A simply web search can tell you about photons, David C.
Say, if you wish, you can post that question in the Q&A section of this forum.



At least your honest on that.

Anti-concrete missile?!?
David C, in the six years I've been in military service, I've never encountered a term for a weapon against a specifi material.
That's like making an "anti-steel missile" or "anti-dirt missile".
Now, I have heard of armor piercing weapons, bunker busters, ect.
Never heard of a device meant for concrete pulverization.

What about this:
Terrorists hijacked a 757 and flew it into the Pentagon.

Did that possibility ever occur to you?
If not, why not?


Please, please explain what exactly prevents a 757 making he damage seen at the Pentagon?

Oh, and the Pentagon doesn't have it's own defense system. You're thinking of the Death Star.

__________________
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

No, he doesn't have a sense of humour, he posted a serious claim to the lumpy gravy thread.

__________________
"The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head" Terry Pratchett

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8
1 min. 20 sec. mark
According to this video you guys posted the stuff that looks like smoke behind the craft that hit the Pentagon is really smoke (first picture in this link).
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm

However you guys say that the object in the photo on the upper right of this link is smoke too.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...dodvideos.html
It sure does look like the nose of a small plane to me. If you're so sure it's smoke, why does it look so different from the unmistakable smoke in the other photo?
I took conceptual physics back in the early eighties and I remember that when a camera lens is open, photons enter and make an image on the film, or in a camcorder, the tape. I don't know if the photons are measured in quadrillions, quintillions, sextillions, or what but to all of those photons travelling at the speed of light, a fast shutter speed is nothing. When blurry pictures are produced of a moving object it's because photons from the same part of the object in different locations are hitting the film. If there are both stationary objects and moving objects in a picture taken with a slow shutter speed, all the stationary objects are never blurry--just the moving objects.
In this picture you guys say the object on the right is smoke from a 757 that is not visible because it's travelling too fast for the camera to pick up.
http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/...gon1_plane.jpg
If there had been a plane in front of the object on the left, there would have been a blurry image of it as the photons coming from it would have entered the lens of the camera. It might have been a long blurry image but there would have been a very discernable image of an aircraft.
You guys are wrong. The object on the left is the nose of the craft that hit the Pentagon. There is nothing in front of it. It's obviously a solid object and the smoke in this picture is obviously smoke.
http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/...gon2_plane.jpg
That's what smoke looks like.
This is what an aircraft nose looks like.
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Education/E...ges/oileps.jpg
It's obviously not the nose of a 757 as it's the wrong shape.
http://www.airchive.com/airline%20pi...4/BA%20757.jpg

Therefore, we can deduce that the official government version of what happened is a lie and that 9/11 was an inside job.

Maybe you didn't understand what was said about interlaced video. Video tape doent' make a single image all at once like film. It scans an image line by line and recorde that information on the tape. If the video is inter laced it means that it does all the odd number lines first, then goes back and does the even ones (for example). If the shutter was open for , say 1/10 of a second and the image was a total of 10 lines high, you might end up with an image of a moving object that looked like this:

*
******
**
*******
***
********
****
*********
*****
but a camera using film would have recorded something like this:

****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
even though the real image was this:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

The stuff we have been sayng is smoke is not moving fast enough to create this effect, therefore it is not a plane, therefore, your claim that it is a plane is wrong, therefore the events could have happened just as the official story says.

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

Well David...
Still no comment on the fact that your "fighter" is about 12m high?

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

When I look at this picture, I can't see how you're getting that figure. I don't see anything unusual about it. Are you assuming the landing gear is lowered? Even then it doesn't look like it would be 12 meters high to me.

http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/...gon1_plane.jpg

Some of you guys are obviously just trying to waste my time so I don't spend a lot of time on those posts.

"We"??? We have "deduced" that you are a credulous believer who will accept or deny evidence based on personal whim.

Last time I checked, that's not how the scientific method "works".

So David...what happens when you "run out" of videos????...will you just recycle the ones you've already used??? (I haven't kept track, you could be doing that already. )

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

So, this is how smoke looks when taken with interlaced video.
http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/...gon2_plane.jpg

Why does the above look like unmistakable smoke while this looks like an unmistakable plane nose?
http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/...gon1_plane.jpg

You say my posts are giving you laughs. I think your posts are giving the viewers laughs.

You see nothing unusual.
You claim that the white thing on the right is the nose of a jetfighter about 200 to 250 meters away. When you look at the pentagon building at that distance your fighter nose is about 1/4 to 1/3 of the building height. And thats just the nose....

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

David picture #2 is one frame before picture #1.
So the dustcloud is simply expanding.

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

They're free to post objections. They haven't done so.

Now back to the discussion at hand.

__________________
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.

Speaking as a 'viewer' on this thread and of your other masterpiece on the moon landing on that other forum, have you ever seen the scene with the Black Knight from Monty Python's Holy Grail?

That's how we view your posts; you're the Black Knight.

Carry on.