I'm talking about for instance this frame

The white thing seems to go really close to the pentagon, it seems improbable that's a perspective thing to me.

If the white thing in this shot is smoke, why wouldn't it be smoke in the previous frame but a car reflection? I may have missed the specific argument for that.

For the sake of argument, I assume the white is smoke if it is not a reflection, not the actual plane itself. That is also my opinion, but leave it for this just as a "for the sake of argument thing". We don't need to drag a third option into this, as it is irrelevant for this tiny sub-discussion and only confusing.

__________________
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 think that looks like smoke. After all, the engine was damaged when it sucked in metal debris.
[Edit] For clarity, I am referring to the Pentagon security camera video.

__________________
"4th Law of Modern Thermodynamics: Where Mihoshi is, Chaos Reigns." ~W. Hakubi
"Gun control is hitting your target; Recycling is reloading your brass." ~ Lex of Dirty Work.

Fezzic, just to be clear, I am not attacking your claim. I am just asking questions to get your reasoning very clear in front of me, and to see if it holds water. I have no problems with different claims (as for example the white thing is the plane/is the smoke). Discussing different claims is good science as said. I will give you all chances in explaining your claim and will revise my opinion when convinced, just like I did for the recently released video from the hotel (I first thought it was the tail, but a car's windshield reflection is far more likely IMO) I found out after hearing the arguments for that and giving it some more inspection).

__________________
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 I get insults for weeks and nobody gets a warning and as soon as I start expressing my feeling I get a warning.
I've said before that it would take two hours a day to answer every question put to me. I don't have two hours a day for this so the questions I skip are the ones that I've already dealt with. Yesterday I didn't have enough time to deal with the question about the 757 crash in Holand and I don't have the time today either--maybe this weekend.
Speaking of ignoring quetions--nobody dealt with this.
I've dealt with all of this before--there are alternative explanations for all of it so it's mere evidence--not proof. I've already posted my alternative explanations and today I don't have the time to do it again. Putting forth a mere plausibility as proof is not scientific. All of those points are mere plausibilities.

As I've said before--whether it's been altered is a debatable point. There is no proof I can offer. All I can say is that if it hasn't been altered, the object is the nose of something other than a 757 and 9/11 was an inside job. If it has been altered, it was a very illogical thing for the government to do as they altered it to make it look like the nose of a fighter instead of the nose of a 757. It is highly unlikely that they did that so it probably hasn't been altered.

I've dealt with this before. If you look at the picture of the first tower hit by a 767 it shows the outling of the whole plane. If the wings could make a mark like that on steel, I think they could have made a similar mark on concrete. There are no marks on the Pentagon that show the outline of the wings. The damage on the walls could have come from the inside. I don't have time to look for the links now.


What a ridiculous thing to say--that's the proof I've been offering. That traffic cam picture of the nose of the craft that obviously is not a 757 is the proof that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon. You can downplay it all you want but it won't go away.


It might have all been planted just before the craft hit the building.

I've dealt with this before. She's probably living someplace with a new identity. Her family can visit her from time to time. That's a perfectly plausible explanation. The fact that she was on flight 77 is not proof that it was the craft that hit the Pentagon--it's mere evidence as there are plausible alternative explanations.

I never said it would convince me as that can be faked too. I said it was suspicious that the government didn't talk about serial numbers on parts found in the wreckage as that would be part of the scenario if it had really happened.
I was watching a movie once about a murder. Before committing the murder the murderer consulted an old seasoned criminal. The old seasoned criminal told him that when planning a crime there are fifty ways you can screw up and an intelligent person is only going to think of twenty five of them. If the government isn't talking about the serial numbers on the parts found matching the craft that was flight 77, it's circumstantial evidence that it's a detail that they didn't think of when they were planning the crime.

The white to the left of the object is some kind of glare.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...dodvideos.html
The object on the right is the front of some kind of aircraft that isn't a 757 as it has a shadow area and a lighted area. The shadow line is consistent with the position of the sun. There is a black mark on the tip of the nose. It's very clear--not blurry at all--nothing like glare.
Of course I don't expect you guys to admit anything. What really matters is what the viewers end up thinking. I think they can judge for themselves what that object is and I doubt that very many of them are taking your explanations seriously.
I know I didn't deal with everything but that's all the time I have today. There's only one of me and more than ten of you.


I was about to post when I saw this recent post.
It's my opinion that the smoke is from a missile being fired. That would explain the white-hot fireball in the first two frames--if it's overexposure, why isn't it overexposed in the following frames too. The sequence is consistent with a chemical explosion followed by the continued burning of jet fuel.

David
Just to be clear, is this photo the one you have been saying shows the pointy nose plane that cannot be a 757? Is this your smoking gun?
http://www.physics911.net/aircraftoutlined.jpg

Without any evidence whatsoever. Guilty until proven innocent?

__________________
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.

That one, and the same shot from the other camera. David C tends to refer to this latter one. The white thing is the nose of the aircraft and CANNOT be a 757 or smoke from its engine, but can be loads of other things, according to David C. Also according to him, the image is very clear, nbot blurry at all. Still he can't see if it's a missile or an F111 to name just 2 of the possibilities.

__________________
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.

A 757 has no shadow? You must be confusing with ghosts.

So the sun wasn't hoaxed.

But still none of them stands up to correct us. How strange.

__________________
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.

You don't have time to deal with the questions, or you have already dealt with them...

Which is it??

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

For reference, some handy links:

Relevant frames of video 1 (david C refers to the first non-animated frame, so pic #2)

Relevant frames of video 2

These are the wikipedia pics, so they're likely to stay online for quite some time.

__________________
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.

No. This is the picture I described in my last post.
http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/...gon1_plane.jpg

Here it is again.
You're ignoring the fact that it looks nothing like the nose of a 757. That's obvious--are you getting desperate?

Because it is not the nose of a 757. So what?
David, would you agree that your fighter passes the camera in a distance of about 200 meters? And that we only see the nose of it?

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

He then goes on to say:

Remember folks, Putting forth a mere plausibility as proof is not scientific.

__________________
"Transport of the mails, transport of the human voice, transport of flickering pictures - in this century, as in others, our highest accomplishments still have the single aim of bringing men together." St. Exupery

Yes, I'm getting desperate. When trying to discuss with somebody who only ever uses the word obvious in a positive sense for things fitting HIS theory (undefined plural) and works with 2 standards, I do get desperate and fear nothing positive will ever come out of it.

I can go through the same things over and over again but will just leave it.

Fezzic, I am still more than interested to discuss your car glare point.

__________________
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.

My Bold
If you can offer no proof, no matter how illogical you think it might be, then it is NOT PROOF and it is not even evidence (a difference you seem to love). We have answered all your quesions, and you just dismiss them; fine, I dismiss your evidence.

And if it so illogical, then how logical is your idea, that the single piece of evidence that proves the government did it was released to the public?

But on top of that, as Count Zero said "Putting forth a mere plausibility as proof is not scientific." So all of your "could have" and "might have" are not proof of anything. So stop with all the "Barbara Olson might have a new ID" and "the airplane parts were planted before the crash", you have to prove any of your wild ideas. And proof isn't someone else on the internet has the same silly idea and has a website and a video about it.

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

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

You are the one making insults, such as "anyone with a brain", and so forth.
Not one of us has done so.

We are only criticizing your arguements, not you personally.
You are doing differently.


How much of that time is taken up copying and pasting links?
I ask, because every response you make has the same old links and articles.



That would be my question.
It involved a 747 not a 757. And "Holland" has two "L's".

Seems more like you didn't answer it because you couldn't find any CT sites on it.

Also, I'd like to know this: why you seem to think that terrorists couldn't have been resposible for the attack?
I asked this once before as well.

And your saying your suggestions aren't mere plausibilities?

And what if it IS a 757? Where does that leave you?


You seem a bit confused or uninformed.
The hole was made in glass and light aluminum, not steel.
The steel was inside the building, not visible.

The wings amount to little more than metal ballons when slammed into concrete at about 400 mph. They're not meant for such stress to be put on them.
So, why again do you think they ought to leave an outline? Have you considerd anything about the structure of planes wings before making your opinion, or did you just make an assumption with no research?


Nor will the physical proof go away either, David C.
You can call the plane parts, DNA evidence, bodies, phone calls made from the craft, and radar tracking all "plausible" explainations all you wish. They won't go away.
It has been said many times, a single indistinct picture is not proof positive.

You're going to have to show us, with empirical evidence, how this could've been done. Until then, all you have is speculation, not evidenece or proof.



Sounds like you've been watching too much TV.
No, it is not a plausible explaination, no more than your "planted evidence" theory. More along the lines of a "highly unlikely" speculation.


Theories of the likes you present David C are not the type to be welcome with open arms in this forum (in contrast to Loose Change).
You must have empirical evidence to back up ideas. That, or credible resources. CT sites are often not of that kind.
Just pointing these things out to you, in case you didn't notice.

__________________
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

I personally am getting desperate, as every post by David C erodes my faith in Humanity just a little bit more.

However, I have taken one good thing out of this thread. I've actually paused for a minute to think over various parts of my world view to make sure that none of them hang solely on one small blurry picture and a massive dose of paranoia.

__________________
See? Because of me, now there's a warning. -Homer Simpson

I officially give up

__________________
"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'm close to joining you, Serenitude.

__________________
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 problem.

I was very troubled by the fisheye effect at the edges of the camera. I would venture to say that the camera (call it #1) showing the traffic gates is oriented slightly differently that the other camera. In effect, I think that the seemingly bent tree (or maybe an artifact of the sun shining on the lens) at or near the edge of the field of vision is not the same tree as shown in the camera (call it #2) that does not show the traffic gates (being located some feet before the traffic gates) though I admit they do look similar.

I originally presumed that #2 was looking at pretty much the same scene as #1. That those roadside trees were not in the field of vision. If so, then the "smoke cloud" was proving to be inexplicable. I couldn't find any substantial sign of the expected AA77 fuselage that should have been visible even faintly. The best I could get was to invert the image (MS Paint) and see what looked like a faint horizontal greenish color (which might be a sun-related artifact). I even toyed with the idea that the left wing was reflecting the sun, etc. It was all very insubstantial. I was concerned that I might be seeing what I wanted to see based on very insubstantial indications.

One reason I was stuck, I think, is that there are trees way off by the interchange in the background. One is located near the cloverleaf and I assumed that that was what I was seeing in the two cameras images. After all, they both seemed to have the same bent over part. The distortion at the edge is pretty bad. Without an undistorted panoramic pictue taken from the camera's location to show what is there, it is hard to be sure of anything.

So the best I can say, at this point, is that my hypothesis that the seeming "white smoke" captured in camera #2 at the tree is actually the glare off a windshield or similar, that the tree is not the one seen on the right in camera #1, and that the lack of smoke in front of the tree after the impact, seems to deal with all the apparent facts without obvious contradiction. Should it be shown that the same tree is visible in both cameras, then my hypothesis is blown.

)I will probably regret getting sucked back into this, but... )

Three highlighted statements to address:

First, if the "object" is the smoke from the damaged engine (which I feel is correct... I also think that's the tail of the 757 in front of the smoke trail), then it is not the nose of anything.

Second, you're right. It would be very illogical for the government to alter the video to make it look like another plane was responsible.

Third, however, it would be just as illogical for the government to hold onto that video for so many years, and then release it to the public without making sure it didn't give away their Dirty Little Secret. If it is so obvious to you that it shows an F4/F111/Global Hawk/comuter jet/something other than a 757, wouldn't it be equally clear to the government?

Addressed by others, but to enforce it, the WTCs were aluminum and glass and light weight steel exteriors; the Pentagon is highly reinforced concrete. The two will not react in the same way to an impact. The wings will cut through the light WTC framing the same way they cut down the light poles at the Pentagon; but the wings will collapse and fold when they hit reinforced concrete, just as they did with the 747 in Amsterdam.

Here's an interesting description and comparison for the 747 and 757 incidents. Start just after the Pentagon Graphic. (Note: The author does wander into politcal opinion further down the page.)

Also, how could they inflict that damage (facade knocked off, scorch marks) from inside the building?

Not really. Where are the rest of the passengers? Placing all of them in "witness protection" leaves a lot of witnesses running around. Letting any of them have contact with their families poses a risk of exposure. And you still have the problem of dealing with a 757.

What would be the purpose of the missile?

The overexposure is because of the explosion; any explosion will cause enough sudden brightening to overexpose a camera. It does not take HE to do this; a fuel explosion will do the same thing.

Here's a photo of a bleve; note that it is very bright:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/program...urce/d1_22.htm

And a truck fire that seems rather bright:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/program...urce/d1_11.htm

A bright chemical explosion:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/program...urce/d2_31.htm

(Y'know, all of these bear a strong resemblance to the Pentagon photos. Maybe the explosion at the Pentagon was from fuel/chemicals, too?)

You can get the same overexposure effect by having the sun peek through the clouds. The cameras can adjust their exposures, but not as fast as the lighting conditions can change.

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

Fezzic: I can't really recognize anything as a tree, never mind which tree . So I can't judge on the tree issue.

What makes me conclude that it's most likely smoke:

*the next frame shows the smoke dispersing, and it remains for some frames, getting thinner.
*the engine did hit objects, very likely to cause engine damage
*in the alternating image presented in this thread, I do recognize what could be a 757 in front of the smoke. It is not clear enough to really tell, so I'll stick to "could be".

What makes me think that your proposition is less likely, is that we'd have both a glare and smoke. Of course that's possible, but it simply seems more likely to me that both effects are the same thing.

As things are not clear at all, I am not intending to discuss things ad nauseum. Your reasoning is clear and I can't pinpoint any error in it. Same goes (IMO) for mine. SO it boils down to what each person finds most convincing, giving the vague nature of the footage.

__________________
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 C,

One other thing you should note. Look at the discussion between Nicolas and Fezzic as they evaluate some of the details of these videos. And Nicolas and Fezzic, please forgive me if I put words in your mouths (and correct me if I am wrong).

I believe that both of them believe that a 757, hijacked by terrorists, hit the Pentagon. Their small disagreement on this one piece of evidence has not changed their general conclusion. This is an example as to how science works. It also, in my opinion, shows how unimportant this piece of evidence is (because it is of such poor quality) and how overwhelming all the other evidence is as proof of the conclusion that a 757 hit the Pentagon.

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

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

A good argument for any of these 3 alternatives (white is smoke, glare, plane) would convince me, but the footage does not allow for such a thing. This piece of evidence is highly non-conclusive. Something happens, period. You can't say more about it. (don't link to the band, that's highly inappropriate here...) Looking at all the other evidence though, it is clear to me that the most likely thing to have happened by far is the 757 theory. In fact in this case I think the likeliness level is so high, it is conclusive by all standards. The only way to make the evidence presented for the 757 case non-conclusive, is by assuming a far less likely alternative plus a highly unlikely way to hoax the official story. Even if I would consider the evidence pro a 757 not conclusive, I would consider it conclusively enough to use in court. If this amount of evidence is presented against me, I would understand that I am found guilty. We must give alternative theories equal value when investigating them, but they turn out in nothing. There is no "rope" that connects the evidence into alternative theories.

I'll give any other theory presented equal value, and only judge it after having investigated it. That's how it should be. And I'm still willing to look into other theories even though I find the official one conclusive, because of my philosophical idea that absolute conclusive evidence cannot be recognized from other evidence by humans without any doubt. However, I also think that this should not stop us from eventually judging when the level of certainty becomes high enough. "high enough" is fuzzy indeed. Too bad, that's an everpresent problem in the philosophy of argumentation and evidence.

For the smoke/757 nose/flash argument in isolation, each theory has a clear "rope". Some theories are a bit more likely than others in my opinion, but all have enough likeliness to be taken into account, and no theory is so likely, both relative and absolute, it can be accepted as truth. A whole different story.

__________________
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.

Until I can get a better picture (nice clear one with a pretty wide field of view), I am comfortable with Nicholas not seeing what I think happened wrt that pesky "smoke cloud", "F4/F111" or "glare". With the distortion, especially at the edges, even trees don't look like trees.

I do happen to agree that one camera does show what should be the 757, although almost completely concealed by the traffic gate mechanism, and a smoke trail shortly before impact.

Use Media Player Classic

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

Well you are ignoring that the 757 is actually clearly visible in that image and you are refusing to see it because it'd destroy your case. You don't see it because you refuse to look for it and probably wouldn't know what to look for even if you did bother, but to me, having studied the photo numerous times and figured out what to look for, it is as obvious as an elephant standing in the room.

AA planes are unpainted aluminium for the most part, really shiney with a read and blue stripe down the centre. The shiney parts reflex colour really well, in this cae the top being blue from the sky and the lower part being green because of the grass. It's also dark because the sun is on the other side so you only see the shaded part.

In other words, there is a very fuzzy, dark object, the top being blue, the bottom being green and a red stripe separating them somewhere in the image. It's even plane shaped which should help you.

I still expect that you'll claim you can't find it, but oh well, that'll just prove to everyone exactly how close minded you are because you'll never accept anything other than your own version regardless of watch stares you in the face waving.

__________________
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

The hole was made in glass and light aluminum, not steel.
The steel was inside the building, not visible.

think this needs a little correction. There was a hole made in the steel in several places, but what is being seen in the imapct area is the removal of the Aluminium flashing and so the bare steel which is a lot darker appears. The impact bent and buckled the exterior coloumns where the wings hit, but didn't cut through them, if simply ripped the aluminium flashing off to reveal the dark coloured steel beneath. It's sort of misleading to say that the steel was inside the buildings and not visible, but it's also totally wrong to claim that the aircraft made an aircraft shaped hole, they didn't, though there was an aircraft shaped impact zone, but then there was on the Pentagon too,it's just that David C. continues to ignore anything that disagrees with his own conclusions. He reminds me of another david who posted pictures in his book that showed non-parallel shadows on Earth, and then elsewhere claimed that it wasn't possible. One day we'll get a CT or HB here that hasn't just read a ton of CT sites and swallowed it all hook, line, sinker, rod and fisherman, but rather one that has studied all sides of the story.

Oh, and David, I'm still waiting for your to tell me if you have read any of Painful Deceptions producer Eric Hufschmid's other work and whether you believe he is a credible source of information.

__________________
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

Oh you know, it's just an alternative possibility.

But...but...it's so obvious it's a missle explosion!


Chances are Jim, your evidence will be dismissed by David C as being "mere evidence", "having alternative explainations", or "not objective".

But at least now he'll have a link to info on the 747 crash I want him to look at.
Also, it does a comparison with Flight 77 (well, vice versa).
I am very interested to see if David C reads it, and if he does what his thoughts are on it.

__________________
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

Thanks for the correction, PW.

And of course, David C will misinterpret it, seeing it as adding more weight to him being right, and the rest of us wrong.

BTW, I'd like to share a little something that I find interesting:

If my friend is accurate in his statement, then your arguements, David C, fall apart a little more.

__________________
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