What about it? (For the record, I already know what you're going to say. I have to ask, even though it's off-topic.)

Nonsense.

Tower 2, (the first collapse, where the top tilted) was FAR from symmetrical. It is obvious from the video I watched (it's out there, was just on TV) the top kept rotating, and the very assymetrical dustcloud shows clearly that anything on the ground for some significant distance from the tower's "footprint" was in for a world of hurt coming down.
Don't ever see that clip on the CT sites...

That's exactly the shot I referred to.

I wonder what David C's response will be. I don't think claims like "it was planted" or "it's just an alternative explaination" or "its mere evidence, not proof" will work.
What else is there?

__________________
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

You know, the funny thing is, in many controlled demolitions the building deliberately doesn't fall into its footprint or symmetrically. In many of the cases, a lot of effort is spent to get it to fall in a specific direction, such as away from other buildings. I have never understood why the CTers think this means anything.

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

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

I am still waiting for DavidC to explain how, if a missile exploded within the Pentagon which resulted in 90 feet of the first floor wall to be destroyed, it is possible that no chunks of the concrete and limestone of that wall are readily visible on the ground in front of the wall.

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

You know there have been 400 men.
200 planted the evidence and 200 removed everything that would not fit in.

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

And you (still) didn't answer my questions.
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....574#post884574

(The information comes from a French newspaper, Liberation. It's actually used by several CT sites to "prove" the "official story" was a lie.... "First they say it disintegrated but now they have parts."
An FBI spokesman, Chris Murray, was quoted as saying: "The pieces of the plane are stocked in a warehouse and they are marked with the serial numbers of flight 77".
Various sources can be found at http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...a77+liberation. I cannot find any formal statement from the FBI, but I also cannot find a refutation.)

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

Wow. I've actually been learning something lately... who knew?

I hardly have any time today so this is all I can do.

The tail of the plane is visible in the first picture in this sequence.
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm
The angle of the path of the plane that hit the Pentagon can be seen in the first picture in this link.
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index1.htm

We can see the impact point in the first picture in this sequence.
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm

The height of the Pentagon is 77 feet 3.5 inches.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon

The length of a 757 is 155 feet 3 inches.
http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=101

If we double the height of the Pentagon a little higher than the impact point we get the length of a 757 at the point were the craft in the photo is. Judging from the position of the tail we can estimate the length of the craft behind the box. It's way too short. This settles the whole issue. Whatever hit the Pentagon wasn't a 757. 9/11 was an inside job.

This picture reenforces it even more.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...dodvideos.html
It's not a contrail of a plane that the camera didn't pick up. It has a point with a black spot on it. It's thick on the right side and pointed on the left side. It has a sunny side and a shady side with a shadow line that is consistent with the position of the sun.
Look at the smoke behind the tail of the aircraft in this picture (probably a missile being fired).
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm
It looks nothing like the object in this picture.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...dodvideos.html
It's the nose of an aircraft and the only other plausible explanation is that the photo was doctored. Whether it was doctored or not is really a moot point though as the other picture that shows the smoke and the tail shows that the craft was too small to be a 757. I suppose that picture might have been doctored too now that I think about it. Both of those pictures are the ones released by the government. If they have been doctored, the government doctored them. That makes little sense; why would the government doctor one picture to make it look too small to be a 757 and the other to make it look like the nose of a fighter instead of a 757? That's the only point worth debating here. If those aren't doctored pictures, the whole case is closed. The craft that hit the Pentagon wasn't a 757 and 9/11 was an inside job.
The issue of whether the photos have been doctored or not has been rendered moot by building 7 though.

Watch the last minute of the first video and the next few minutes of the second one. It's about building 7.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y92Z...elated&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BS4X...elated&search=

It's obviously a controlled demolition. The top caves in first even though the fires that the official story says caused the collapse were on floors that were much lower.

As far as I'm concerned the whole case is closed. The government planned and carried out 9/11. I'll try to deal with some of the other issues tomorrow even though they've been rendered moot. That's all the time I have for today.

Sweet Jesus on a pogo-stick...

You know, David C, that the lower floors collapsing would also produce this effect, don't you?

"Care closed. I declare myself the winner. You can all go home now. *bows*"

Cl1mh4224rd, while I agree with your sentiment completely, you may want to re-word it. It's pretty strong.

__________________
"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.

Considering how that phrase is usually expressed in this area, he watered it down pretty good. And I must admit, I share his exasperation. David C offers out one very shaky argument, tells us we're stupid or worse if we don't see it the way he does, ignores all hard evidence as manufactured and/or planted, refuses to answer questions beyond handwaving and dodging, then declares he is the winner.

Sheesh.

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

DavidC, again I will ask, is smoke incapable of having a sunlit part and a shady part?

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

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

David C, what has the height of the Pentagon have to do with the length of the 757?

At the very least, the outer hole made would be that of the width of the fuselage of the 757 and then some, to accomadate the engines.

The rest of the wings and the tail of the 757 are not strong enough to penetrate concrete.

Wrong. The other plausible explaination is that you are wrong in your interpretation, and that the thing is smoke (the black spot likely being an object in the way), while the 757 itself is blurry because it is moving faster than objects normally observed by traffic cams.

How is it obvious? There are no explosions visible prior to the collapse.
Did it occur to you that with the lower supports collapsing, the top caves in as nothing is now supporting it from below?
Things aren't so obvious.

Really? Then why not take your case to officals, with all your evidence.
You mentioned many times that you don't have education in the relevant sciences involves, yet you make rather definitive judgement calls. All you have supporting you are CT websites, which you seem to parrot.

So, because of all you shown us, you don't believe terrorists were responsible then?

When those that are qualified in relevent fields concerning structural engineering and aerospace engineering make the same claims you do with emperical evidence to back up their claims (rather than speculations and links to videos and CTer websites), then the claims you make might be taken a bit more seriously.

Unfortunately now, I cannot do that. The case is far from closed.

__________________
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, I think you're wrong, here. The case is closed. One side has literally tons of evidence. The other side has a blurry picture. Pick your legal standard. The case is closed. The CTs are wrong.

Do you know, I'm half-thinking of citing every error in that man's posts, but I'd have to read them all the way through in order to do it. Right now, I only skim, because I have problems with the writing style.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

I'm still trying to figure out why the "doctored" pictures don't show a 757. Wouldn't that be, like, the POINT of doctoring them?

"Sir, our F-111 shows clearly in the CitGo pictures." "Sweet Bread on Chili, son, get your people on it right now! Before the public sees this, I want that plane to look like an F-18!"

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

Now that I think about it, I suppose you're right.

The CTers create an issue when there is none.

All I'd want is a comprehensive description of the collaspes of the buildings. The Pentagon impact is pretty straight forward (doubters would probably need explainations as to why the traffic cam shows what it shows).

I would like to see the errors corrected in the post made. That way, we all learn something (or at least get more input into the issue).

__________________
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

David...maybe I'm slow. Can I have an annotated outlined photo that shows the plane you are looking at? I saw one earlier, the one with the smoke from the missile, but I don't think this is the one that you say proves your point. I don't see anything much in the regular low res shots...I need some special help here I suppose...

You totally missed the point. Look at this picture.
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm
A 757 is twice as long as the Pentagon is tall. By looking at the height of the Pentagon we can see how long a 757 would be where the craft in the picture is. If the craft behind the box were a 757, it would be protruding far beyond the box. Its front would be visible. The craft behind the box is too short to be a 757. If that is the actual picture taken by the camera and it isn't doctored, it is proof that whatever hit the Pentagon wasn't a 757 as it's way too short to be a 757. All your mere evidence which has multiple explanations such as DNA, plane parts, and witnesses is moot.

I'll deal with some of the other moot issues you mentioned tomorrow.

This might be true if the plane was perpendicular to the camera. It wasn't.

David C, for about the fifth time in this thread, you really need to pay serious attention to this video.

You can't deny that he's entertaining

__________________
"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

So is there a chance that you will answer my questions?

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

Hmm, well.

Assumptions:

Camera is 10 feet from traffic gate box.
Traffic gate box is 18 inches wide as viewed, not dimensionally.
757 corresponds to the edges of the traffic gate box (for convenience).
Flight path of 757 is at 135 degrees to the line of sight of the camera.

If 757 is traveling at 135 degrees to LOS, it is foreshortened by 70% (reason why i picked 135 degrees (or 45 degrees for the calc ). A 757 is 155 feet long and 70% of that is about 108 feet.



A full length (155 foot) object would have to be about 340 yards away from the camera in order that the traffic gate box to just obscure the object.

OTOH, a foreshortened (108 foot) object would have to be about 240 yards away in order to have the same thing happen.

It is not hard to work out the math. If the camera was 12 feet from the traffic gate box, then the corresponding distances would about 410 and 280 yards, respectively.

My best estimate from the overhead Pentagon photos would put the 757 as being about 250 meters (about 270 yards) from the camera, which I take as being in the ballpark.

If an object was 108 feet long, it would have had to be traveling perpendicular to the LOS to be 108 feet long otherwise it would be shorter.

So the claim that the aircraft photographed was way too short is not all that convincing. The available evidence still outweighs the assertion (which is subject to differing interpretations and explanations) that the aircraft photographed is too short. Believe what you want to believe, the recorded image still has a reasonable interpretation that supports the other evidence.

I hope you realize that you are submitting or proposing that there is evidence (not proof) in support of your contentions. To proclaim that what you have submitted or argue is proof, sidesteps the real issue that your evidence is flimsy, at best, and that it requires a whole host of other things to be true (all basically unproven) for it to have only your interpretation.

David C, you (still) didn't answer my questions.
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....574#post884574

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

Your link doesn't work, Jim. Best to double check 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

Oops! I copy/pasted the truncated version. Fixed now. Thanks.

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

Someone pointed all that out to him on the Loose Change forum months ago, but he didn't understand it then and he won't understand it now.

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

I took that into account. It's still too short.

I've said what I thought of this video several times.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8
Look at the 2 min. 19 sec. mark. The plane is too short to be a 757 in this simulation too.
Look at the 3 min. 58 sec. mark. The damage shown in the video is inconsistent with this picture.
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...pic=4223&st=30
That video is an attempt at damage-control by the people who planned and carried out 9/11. They hire public relations companies to think this stuff up. They probably have their own public relations department too.

You guys maintain that the object on the right in the upper right picture is smoke and you say I'm entertaining?
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...dodvideos.html
If there are twenty people maintaining a silly argument with a patronizing attitude, the argument isn't any less silly.

If I look at the first picture in this link the flight angle looks like it's about 40 degrees from the perpendicular.
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index1.htm
I don't have any drafting equipment but just trying different angles on a sheet of paper it looks like the plane is shortened by about 30 percent at most. That means the craft should look about 108 feet long in this picture.
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm
Judging from the height of the Pentagon at the perpendicular to the location of the craft, it looks like it's about 70 feet long at most.
Try using the height of the Pentagon instead of the box to do the calculations and tell me what you come up with.


Steven Jones is nobody to sneeze at.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eOrL...elated&search=
1 min. 20 sec. mark.
How did you come up with this? Is this something you thought of? Are you an authority on this? Show your sources please.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weqBy...elated&search=
According to the ducumentaries I've been watching if the pancake theory were correct, it would have left the core. The core wouldn't have collapsed too. Watch the video.

Show something you consider to be proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon and we can talk about whether or not it's proof. So far I've seen only mere plausibilities with other explanations--no proof.
This picture is not blurry. It's clear as a bell.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...dodvideos.html
I don't see how anybody can say it's blurry with a straight face.

They probably released the second video because of public pressure. I can't see why they released such an inciminating video that gives them away either. Only people who navigate seem to have gotten a good look at it though. People who just read newpapers and watch TV generally believe the official vesion according to what I've been reading.
There was a big fireball outside the building. That would account for the scorch marks. Maybe a piece of the rear of the plane hit the wall and maybe pressure from the explosion on the inside knocked off some of the facade.

I gave my explanation for the passengers. Watch the last five minutes of part one of "Painful Deceptions". http://www.question911.com/linksall.htm
http://www.question911.com/linkout.p...20part%201.wmv
It alleges that the plane landed at some military base and the passengers were killed by the conspirators. Then they did what was necessary to make the bodies look like they'd been in a crash and sent them to the morgue. Of course it couldn't have been a typical military base where there were people who were not in on the conspiracy watching.

That's plausible but it's also plausible that it's bright because of explosives.
Watch this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0R_A...elated&search=

I allege that you are an alien from the planet Moba, sent to Earth to spread hate among humans, so that the Mobas can more easily invade our planet. It is as meaningful as your allegations. You now have to prove me wrong.

You gave no explanation. Explanations have evidence and some basis in reality. There are no magic hidden military basis on the Eastern Seaboard of the US where these evil people do this stuff. Stacking together a bunch of made up stories is not an eplanation.

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

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