*off topic*

Has anyone been able to get on the new Loose Change forum lately? If they have, I believe I have been banned, and I was wondering if you could see if anyone has posted the reason or reasons. Thanks.

*ok, back to the topic*

__________________
If you're going to tell people the truth, you'd better make them laugh. Otherwise they'll kill you. - George Bernard Shaw

The last whiner/banned person (i.e. sane person) said that you need to log out and then you can go in annonymous and just read. Alas your posting privliges may have been suspended. Or it could be a cookie thing.

Just remember that Dylan is only looking for the truth and if you get in the way, you'll have to be banned so that the cause can march on.

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

Funny thing is that I see the 757 far more clearly in the other camera's frame. In the frame you talk about, the only thing I clearly see is something that could be interpreted as the tail. If that is the tail, it's very clearly in view, but it's not clear at all that is the tail. If you follow me.

In the other frame, what appears to be the whole plane is very subtle in view, and if it is the plane indeed, it is completely unobscured by other objects.

But anyway .

__________________
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.

Indeed. I can't help but see it. To me, it's glaringly obvious, even in the small version, perhaps even more so. Grainy, sure but it's there and very 757 looking.

Had the ...s taken a UA 767 into the pentagon, I don't think we'd be having this conversation. It's the polished AA plain aluminum scheme that makes it so hard to see.

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

I have to admit I was wrong. I went over the video again and can make out what I think are cars passing between the camera and the "real close" tree, so the tree can't be "real close". That should put the tree(s) beyond at least the road leading to the south parking lot Also I see that the smoke also is inbetween the camera and the tree. Darn.

With that idea shot to pieces, I guess I actually did see something that could have been the fuselage. Can't say it's super distinct but I thought I saw something and looking at a minimally enlarged image it sure could be the fuselage.

Self-correction is the pinnacle of critical thinking.

Can you point where (camera, frame, location) you think you saw a pussycat the fuselage?

__________________
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 tried to post a tiny jpg to show what I thought might be the fuselage (red block around it) but it didn't get included and when I went back to try and fix that, it blocked me because I had posted within five minutes. I wasn't going to leave a post with no image.

Best I can describe is that there seemed to be something that projected horizontally from the vicinity of the "white smoke" and it could be the fuselage, but it is so indistinct, I'd hesitate to swear that it was. I put a red box around what I think I see but I should have made the box lines thicker.

Attached Thumbnails

 

Funny thing is that I see the 757 far more clearly in the other camera's frame. In the frame you talk about, the only thing I clearly see is something that could be interpreted as the tail. If that is the tail, it's very clearly in view, but it's not clear at all that is the tail. If you follow me.

Again, I suggest downloading and watching Mike Wilson's SolidWorks analysis. (I suspect the original from his web site is of better quality than the youtube.com version. Also the downloadable version has many photos of aircraft wreckage at the end.) It shows very clearly how the security-video evidence is consistent with a 757. As a side note, I also noticed that Mike has posted a video clip of himself being interviewed by CNN about his animation. In the clip he explains how the 757 appears to be too small because of the security camera's wide-angle lens.

[edit: I just noticed that I forgot to revise my comments about the pictures at the end of the utube version of the animation. I had originally linked to an edited version that someone had posted, claiming it had been produced by Eric Hufschmid! I noticed the mistake when I was previewing and corrected the link, but neglected to correct my text.]

__________________
--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

Congrats. That's exactly where the "white is smoke" people identify the 757 as well, so you're at least not alone with apparently seeing something overthere. For me, this is the most likely theory. And it fits with the tail in the other camera's frame indeed being the tail. And it fits with the white in teh other frames also being smoke. It fits quite a lot indeed.

__________________
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 know that is an excellent study, but still when looking at that frame, the only thing you really can see is what could be a tail. The rest is blocked by the pilar thing. But as explained in my previous post, when combined with the other footage and frames, the apparent tail supports the "plane is in front of white" theory.

__________________
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.

Know of that analysis video that SpitfireX refers to?
Shows pretty much the same theory; an engine had hit a light pole, started smoking, and thus left the trail which we see as the white blob. The plane itself is indistinct due to it's speed.

Isn't that white thing what David C calls the nose of a fighter?
If so, then all this time he's literally been blowing smoke.

__________________
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

The white thing I and that animation believe to be smoke seen behind the aircraft is what David C believes knows beyond any doubt to be the nose of a fighter (or take a random one from the rest of the list) indeed.

__________________
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 have to wonder if he watched that video, and what his thoughts are on it.

I also have to wonder what he thinks the blurred object in front of it is.

Whose to say when I'll get answers to those. I still await his thoughts on the comparison between the 747 crash in Amsterdam to that of the Pentagon, as well as why he doesn't believe terrorists are responsible for that, as well as the other 9/11 hijackings.

__________________
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

Empty space, according to David C.

__________________
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.

*snickers*

Are you pondering what I'm pondering?

__________________
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 think so Brain, but how do we get an elephant to play a tuba?
Narf!!

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

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

I'm still waiting to hear your comments on this.



If this is a doctored picture, it was doctored by the government before they released it.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...dodvideos.html
Someone asked why they waited five years to release it. I don't remember the reason they gave. I think it was just pressure to release video as a lot of people thought that they had a lot more video than they weren't releasing. I think the video is probably not doctored. The circumstantial evidence that it wasn't a 757 is pretty strong too. As far as I know the government hasn't talked about matching serial numbers from plane parts to the craft that was flight 77. That's highly suspicious. There's also the issue of the lack of video even though there were cameras all over the place. There's also the other very strong evidence that 9/11 was an inside job such as building 7 and the fact that the towers fell down symetrically and that there weren't any big plane parts at the site where flight 93 was said to have crashed. When we look at the big picture, I think it's pretty clear that 9/11 was an inside job.


I remember when the DC-10 that took off from Chicago back in 79 lost an engine and the uneven weight caused the plane to turn 90 degrees sideways. When it hit the ground its wings were pointed up and down. I see from the post that the wings of the 747 were in the same position when it hit the apartment building. Is that true? I looked at the pictures and I couldn't see any marks where the wings hit. Were the wings pointed up and down when it hit the apartment building?

I want to do more but that's all the time I have today.

Yes, the 747 was at approximately a 90 degree roll angle when hitting the building.

btw it was not simply the uneven weight that caused the steering problems. For example, the Chicago DC-10 rolled towards the wing with missing engine...

You have a thrust difference, different airspeed over the wings, a damaged wing, damaged control surfaces, possible fuel leaks... In case of the DC-10, the damage to the wing caused the plane to roll, IIRC. I don't remember what happened exactly to the 747. They lost engines, and slowly started to lose control. ut I forgot the details. ANyway, that's not the point of discussion now.

__________________
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, do you have any evidence that serial numbers weren't found on the wreckage, or are you just assuming that because there wasn't a press conference to announce that detail?

As I recall, a fuse pin broke, causing a loss of an engine. IIRC, it shot foreward, then struck another engine.
The damage also caused a failure in hydraulic power.
When the plane reduced speed to prepare for landing, aerodynamic forces forced it to roll over.

I know, you said it's not relevent to the discussion. But I figured "what the heck" and descided to tackle 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

There are things I brought up that I'm still waiting to hear from you on as well.

-Why do you not believe that terrorists were responsible for 9/11?

And...

-What are your thoughts on the comparison between the events of Flight 77 and the 747 crash in the suburbs of Amsterdam?


Also, I like to know why it is suspicious that the govt having not talked about the serial numbers?
Why would they? What's the point? They know it was Flight 77, because of radar tracking, the fact that that particular plane is no longer around, and that the passengers that flew on it are all dead (their DNA being IDed).
Now, what exactly is the problem?

__________________
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

According to this report
http://www.geocities.com/roboplanes/747.html
"We know from the official accident reports that although now fatally under powered, El Al Flight 1862 remained under control while descending into the building, and thus was horizontally orientated at the point of impact."

So no 90 degree roll?

Forget about it.
http://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/Pe...er/bijlmer.htm

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

I'm not sure about the 90 degrees. I just saw it on a drawing. I haven't checked 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.

The two pages I cited are a little long read.
I am not yet sure who is the CT.
But at the moment I would go for #2.

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

So no 90°? Very well possible, as said I didn't check that.

__________________
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.

These two seem to mix up two conspiracies.
#1 seems to refute a Pentagon and 9/11 conspiracy trying to explain why the plane left a smaller hole that its wingspan. Unfortunately he gets his physics wrong. He seems to support a CT that says, that the Government of the netherlands supressed the fact what was the cargo of the El Al flight.
He says it was a chemical component for sarine gas.

#2 is good in physics and gets its numbers right. From what he says the El Al flight was on a 90° roll. He supports it with better pictures and diagrams from the official report. So I will trust him on that (the 90° roll). On the other side he seems to be a supporter of the 9/11 and Pentagon CT.

I have to read everything, not just parts of it, as soon as I have time to do so.

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

I have only read 90° statements as faras I remember.

It is very well possible something was "not in the hook" with that flight other than technical problems, but the whole list of CT's blurs the actual facts again there. There might have been strange substances on board, it might have been just the Uranium balance weights, etcetc.

__________________
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.

Okay, how's this.

In April 2002, the FBI released a statement that they had recovered enough pieces of the aircraft to positively identify it as a 757. Also, the serial numbers found on many of those parts further identified the 757 as AA77.

Now, it's your turn to answer my questions.

Oh, and comment on this:

Please, David, no handwaving or "they lied/faked it" stuff. Give a thoughtful response.

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

Both are CT's. Just, in this case, different conspiracies.

Viallis is so far off in his analysis he should have just stayed quiet. Webfairy is just as wrong but by different paths.

I would find it extrodinary that a 747 with one engine out and the other on the same wing torn off that the plane would not roll. Roll would induce a turn and since power was down to the two remaining engines on the other wing they likely could not afford to reduce power to the outboard engine on that wing lest they stall. Further complicating matters would be the hydralic problems. If they could not apply airlerons to counter the roll they were doomed.

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

So at least the diagram and the roll claim of webfairy seems to be right.

So, if that plane impacted at a 90° roll, doesen't that make the comparison to AA77 a litte complicated?
I mean it hit vertically and the hole vanished to 100% when the house collapsed. How can you see if the plane left a hole smaller than its wingspan?
AA77 hit horizontally and left a partial imprint in the building, at least for some time until it collapses too.

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