LOL. Yeah that white blob nearly got us, it's so obviously an F4. erm, F111. erm, UAV. Erm, missile. Erm, small commuter jet.

Unlike you of course. I can't even repeat what you slinged at me in that thread, as it's almost all bannable overhere. But what does it matter, you determined I was a disinfo agent eh.

But hey, for fun, let's just take some out of your last post.

Aaah, that was one nice, respectful post, unlike our patronizing attitude.



Not without very serious evidence.

How many more times do we need to mention the pics of victims, the pics of 757 debris, the pics of damage of the same width as the wing, the animation showing how a 757's width could knock down the light poles, the eye witnesses seeing a 757, the fact that a 757 was hijacked and never seen again, the fact that the family members of the people inside never saw them again? But that's all nothing, because there is a white blob in that frame! What about the next frames showing the white spreading out, what about the frame showing a possible 757 outline in front of it, what about all alternatives proposed by you for a 757 are not only far less likely, but also are not fitting with the other evidence?

__________________
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.

Direct question right here.

Show clearly and conclusively why a very fast moving, distant, off-centre object should be clearly picked up by the security camera.

__________________
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.

Because "common sense" tells him so...

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

David, when will you ever get it?
Your "fighter" is about 12 meters high!

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

David.
You claim, you proove. It is all that easy.
If not a 757, what kind of plane was it? Can you be specific?
It should be very easy as the picture is so clear...

Oh, about that wavy smoke. Have you ever seen a contrail?
Right behind the plane it is strait. Farther away it is not anymore.
This plane flew right above the ground. The air had to be REALLY turbulent behind it.
So easy...

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

You guy's can't admit that 911 was an inside job.

It's very difficult to "admit" something that evidence shows JUST ISN'T TRUE!

If your reason for posting here is to get some kind of "admission", then do yourself a favor and quit while you're behind.

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

Because it was picked up clearly by the security camera. Look at it.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...dodvideos.html


There you go again with your silly tactic of denying the obvious. That picture is serious evidence. You're not fooling anybody with any brains.
Like I said before--you're giving the viewers a good laugh; I'm referring to the real viewers and you know what I mean.

Ever heard of circular reasoning?

"the white is a plane, it can't be smoke, that's ridiculous, because you say that the plane shouldn't be picked up in the image".

Show that the plane should be picked up in the image then.

"the white is the plane".

Applaud.

Can you explain me exactly why you of all people would have an issue with patronizing behaviour? I won't say anything else about it.

__________________
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.

David...you REALLY NEED TO STOP THIS. Your continued mis-characterzation of other posters on this board will get you nothing but trouble...trust me.

You either need to make reasoned/reasonable arguments, or stop posting. Right now that decision is up to you...soon it may not be.

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

All that typing, yet you failed to address a quetion I posted to you, David C.
To refresh your memory, I asked for your thoughts on the El al 747 Amsterdam "Bijlmermeer" (Bijlmer) crash.

You conviently clipped that part off of the quote I mentioned you being backed into a corner.
Let me refresh your memory (with emphasis on the part I really wanted your response too):
The section in italics is the kicker in my quote, the part that you simply ignored, because in all likelyhood, no CTer website, nor anything on Loose Change can draw parellels between the senerios I put forth for you to consider.
So, I ask you again, why wouldn't a 757 produce damage in the Pentagon as we see it just as the 747 crash I referred to did?
An answer to that will be a good test of objectivity on your part.
It is your failure to provide an answer to that that will show your concession.
Misquote me again, and you ruin your creditbility more than it has been already.

Well, I offered a test for your objectivity, so we still have yet to see if you are really objective.
To the photo, the plane is indistinct, due to being so far away, not to mention appearing very small. And it's appearence is blurred, because it's moving too fast for the camera's capability (it's a traffic cam, not a standard cam).
To base your arguments on magnifications of that object in that photo is what is ridiculous. As you say, there are alternative explainations.

Also, you never addressed as to why you seem to think that terrorists couldn't have been resposible for the attack.
Please, tell us why. Such an answer can also show how objective you are.

We did already. The wreckage, pieces of the plane that have marking, the bodies, DNA testing that matched that to the passengers of Flight 77, the radar data, and witnesses that saw the plane.

Your only alternative explaination is that these are plants.
Yet, we've already explained how ludicrious this is. Mixing heavy plane parts in a burning building? All in a matter of seconds? And without being seen by hundreds of people?
The problem with your alternative explaination is that it fails Occam's Razor miserably. It requires a very complex network of agents, all who would have to keep quiet, for a vague cause.
Even if that was the case, where is the Frank Serpico of this whole ordeal?

To enlighten you to history, Serpico was given considerable financial inducement to keep secret the corruption of the New York police. When that failed, he was nearly killed. Yet none of this prevented Serpico from doing what he felt was his duty.

The same applies to your explainations David C, wether you like it or not.
And as we've seen, you really don't like it, because it doesn't fit into your view of the world.

__________________
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

How is it obvious?

An indistinct picture is not serious evidence, no matter what you say about it.

Wreckage, plane parts, bodies, testimonies by witnesses, DNA results, radar tracking; that is serious evidence.

You are appearently not familar with those that visit this website, David C.

There may be laughing going on, but it is not at us.

__________________
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

Hi David C,

I sent you a warning via Private Message, and I'm guessing that you didn't receive it, and perhaps haven't realized that you get private messages here.

This is another warning. You are welcome to make bold claims, but you must respond to people's refutations and requests for details, AND you cannot say insulting things to people you disagree with.

This goes both ways. Other people cannot say insulting things about you either, and you can let us know when you see it happening by using the alert icon on the upper right part of the offending post's window.

This is a warning to you. Answer questions, and stop being insulting, or you will be suspended.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

David,

Since you have been reminded to answer direct questions, I will ask you again, as I did in post 530, since you dismiss all the evidence we present to you as either planted or from people who are part of the plot, please present evidence that the video you say is proof has not been altered and actually depicts events that happened on 9/11/01 at the Pentagon. Shalamar has also asked for similar information. And you can not just claim that is good evidence because it was released by the government, since you dismiss all the other evidence released by the government.

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

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

Given that he failed to answer my recent questions, it's questionable he'll remember yours Swift.

You know, I do believe the BA and Tinaa also gave warnings to him in the past. I know he's also had a short suspension.

__________________
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

Good. Questions I've asked and recieved no answer to:

1.a What damage marks on the Pentagon would you consider to be consistent with it being struck by a 757?
b What damage in the current pictures do you find inconsistent with 757 damage?

2. Please show the results of your deduction, including all maths and formula you used to reach it.

3. Please show us your deduction of the actual vs. apparent angle of the 757, and how you deduced the correct angle, including all maths and formula used to calculate the correct angle.

4.a You have stated the photo you use has been doctored. Please explain why it is still useable as evidence, when undoctored photos have been dismissed by you as "doctored" or "planted".
b Please explain why the standards of evidence should not work both ways.

5. Demonstrate you now know how many photons travel at the speed of light. These kinds of basics should be known if you are going to have the stones to debunk scientists.

6. Please demonstrate why www.rumormill.com can be considered reliable evidence of, well, anything. Please give a convincing and clear, fallacie, speculation, handwaiving, dismisive, evasive, and ad-hom free answer.

7. I have asked this 4 times now. I request again you answer this: Look up Occam's Razor anywhere you like, even the Wiki. Study it, then apply it to the following:

"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?"

Demonstrate why my hypothesis, based on your own arguement, is not a) better and b) simpler than your own arguement.

8. Please state how you think heavy (several hundred k) evidence could have been "planted" on both the grassland surrounding the Pentagon, and inside the super-hot burning impact site, in only seconds after the impact, and how witnesses and your beloved "cameras" both failed to detect them. You're beloved photo also doesn't show ANY evidence planters stalking the grounds, you know.

__________________
"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

If he gets banned, he'll just take it as proof that we cannot 'debate' him, and that we have no evidence at all.

David C, please provide evidence of your claims WITHOUT using that traffic cam picture, and without telling us to look at a video.

__________________
Don't believe everything you think.

Actually, for my question #8, I would like his comment on why slow moving evidence planters weren't captured by that camera.

__________________
"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,Where is Barbara Olson??? I mention her because she was the most well-known of those who died that day.In case you don't know who she was David,she was the wife of Ted Olson,then Solicitor General of the United States & a close personal friend of George & Laura Bush.

Come to think of it,wouldn't the Solicitor General himself be in on this massive plot?

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

Robert A. Heinlein

So let me get this straight.

Every piece of evidence, like victim DNA, plane parts, eye witnesses, radar tracks, black boxes, etc etc could of been faked, planted, mistaken, bought off, etc etc and now you expect us to believe that a few serial numbers would somehow convince you.

__________________
Reality is for those that can't handle video games.

when cornered, deny the obvious with a patronizing attitude.

You mean like handwaving away the witness testomony with "They could be lying."

Or the wreakage with "It could have been planted."

Or the knocked down poles with "They were planted and the witnesses staged"

Or that "The area could have been cordened off so one one could see it."

Or "They covered evidence in a tarp and carried it away" (then shows a picture of a team carrying a tent onto the lawn)

Need me to continue?

__________________
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

Some really good points that DavidC should consider.
from Nicolas
and from Grand Lunar
And from Serenitude
My guess is DavidC will respond by saying look at the traffic cam pic, we're all blind, everything could have been planted, and then he'll throw in some more ad hominems for good measure.

Which is why I now post this picture

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

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

ooooooooooooooooh

__________________
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.

Do you have any evidence that these are real kittens? Maybe they were planted? Maybe they are really very tiny dogs or large mice? It looks like the shadow of the black one is in a different direction than the one from the tiger, proving two light sources (opps, wrong conspiracy).

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

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

There also shouldn't be any shadows, since some photons can travel as fast as the speed of light.

__________________
"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

edit: never mind, on topic.

__________________
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.

There's still a topic?

__________________
"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

I think that the "white smoke" or "F4 or F111 silloutte" is neither. I think what we see there is the glare from a passing vehicle on the roadway that runs past the Pentagon. The tree that is behind the "white smoke" I believe stands about 150 meters away from the camera. Given the probable branch clearance for traffic, it might be possible for the vehicle to be a bit beyond the tree and the glare line of sight passed under it (but this is pure conjecture) If you check an overhead view of the Pentagon you should be able to see the trees that overhang part of the roadway.

I don't claim that this is irrefutable, just that it makes the best sense to me at this time.

A ground-level photograph taken for clarity from the camera's location would help in settling where everything actually is. A blurry photo is a blurry photo and little can be definitely stated about the blurry part.

I would also comment that the possible time that AA77 spent in the field of view of this camera might be anywhere from nearly a second to maybe near half a second depending on its speed. This means (to me) that it is by no means certain that AA77 would have been captured on the recording media.

Just to clarify this, before David C says "See, you guys can't even agree. You have 3 or 4 different opinions..."

David C, this is called "Good Science". Nobody's ideas are sacrosanct, no fact unchallengable. This back-and-forth between us is good, because we spare nothing to try to get as close to the truth as the evidence allows. Ideas can be brought in, examined, and shown to/or not hold merit. Courteous discussiong on variables and possibilities is a great micro-example of good science. Any one of us introducing an idea is prepared to have them challenged and is prepared to offer what knowledge, cites, etc... they deem necessary. And then we follow the evidence wherever it might take us. I've been corrected countless times just in the Conspiracy Theory section, when I've proposed ideas that have been demonstrated incorrect by those with expertise. It happens. I'd be glad to link to them. It's no bid deal. You don't take it personally. You do your best, to be sure, but you have to have the courage (yes, it takes guts) to recognize when someone better versed than you (or heck, even less versed than you, if they're correct all the same) is right, and say, "Yeah, you're right about that. I didn't realize (X)," or "I hadn't thought about (X)" etc....

In short, before you even try, what you would call "Bickering", we would, all of us, call "Good Science".

__________________
"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

In the video released about a week ago, I agree that the "tail" most likely is windshield glare from a passing car.

But in the video you're discussing, we can see the white dispersing towards the explosion in the next frame(s). Do you think that is still consistent with the glare of a car passing on the street?

__________________
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 downloaded my video from the government that was made available due to a FOIA request. I can't do screen capture of the images on the video (maybe I could but don't know how, the few times I tried I got the WMV player and no image), so the images I looked at in Paint and such were from other sites.

I would say yes it is consistent. AA77 probable passed through the field of view of the cameras roughly 250 (scaling off the overhead shots I mentioned earlier and assumptions of where the flight path and camera LOS actually was -- should be in the ballpark) meters or more from the cameras themselves. The tree I refer to is, by scaling off the overhead view, about 150 meters away from that second (the one not showing the traffic gates). This would place it closer to the camera than the flight path AA77 probably followed to impact.

I took a quick look at the video of the impact from that second camera before writing this and it appears that the dispersing smoke does not pass or appear in front of the tree, which appeared relatively smoke-free (or as smoke free as one can tell in the blurred and somewhat distorted image at the edge of the field of vision) and that impression continues as the fire and blast continue and the smoke trail continues to disperse.

I think AA77 passed behind the tree, as viewed from the cameras, so the smoke trail wouldn't pass in front of it.

A nice clear photograph would help soooo much.