Pfft, and you thought the MEPs van took a long time.

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

Well, they did forget to pick me up at least twice.

__________________
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

And your very best was quite good indeed. I wish more of the native speakers around here had your fluency in English.

__________________
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!"

Don't expect too much.
I expect him do handwaive it away, flapping his hands strong enough to generate enough thrust so he starts floating in midair. After that he will simply point to the white smudge as proof for his inside job.

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

Even if Gillian was not specifically refering to me, it fits.

Sorry,,, (hangs head in shame) ,,, and I usually pride myself for my reading comprehension yet somehow I missed that line about only math errors.

I truly loved the paper and have it saved to my 'favorites' column for future use with CT's.

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

Just thought I'd point out something for consideration in Laguna2's calculations.

Mike J Wilson's animation and comparison (to the video imagery) seem to indicate that the 757's apparent length was about equal to the apparent width of that gate control box that just about obscures it, length-wise. The calculations indicate that an object up to 40 meters long (based on the assumptions) could be obscured while the apparent 757 fuselage length would be about 27 meters. This would make it seem that the 757 fuselage apparent length should be (pictorally) about 2/3 the width of the gate control box which does not seem to be a match to Wilson's animation.

I stopped by a parking garage near my work place and took a rough measurement of the gate box. It would be approximately 15-16 inches square. The cross dimension would have been approximately 20 inches or so. I don't dispute your research saying that the best information you had said it was 0.8 meters (or about 0.57 meters square?), just pointing out what I found. I would admit that the gate box in question seems bigger than the gate mechanism nearby, just not sure how much bigger.

I pretty much agree with the overall calculations made. I am pointing out that, despite the assumptions that have to be made barring actual field measurements, a skeptic (or CTer) might point to the discrepancy between how wide the 757 would appear versus the gate box, and the animation Wilson did and claim that you didn't prove anything.

The attached JPG shows the distortion of the fisheye lens. I have not the experience or knowledge to say if the distortion is completely applicable to the issues at hand.

At least I learned how to make a screen cap of something in the Windows Media Player.

Attached Thumbnails

 

Hi fezzic, thank you for your input.
The 0.8 meters are from product specifications of gates sold in the mid 80s.
Sold in Europe... I am no expert in products used in the US.
So you say the box you saw was about 20 inch in cross diameter?
That would equal about 0.51 meters. I would have to calculate it but I would guess this would result in about the same result as of Mr. Wilson.

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

Question for any photoshop pros in the crowd: Could the Sphere-ize tool in PS be used to remove the fisheye distortion, and if so, could those same settings be used on the other stills from the camera to alter the image in a way that would be useful AND valid?

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

As to Mr. Wilsons calculations.
My intention was never to end up with his results. I just took the numbers I found and did my calculations on my own.
Good that they back up his findings, but I will not alter mine so that they match his better.

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

Either way the results show that the plane can indeed be blocked by the post.

So far no good math from the 'other side' demonstrates anthing to the contrary.

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

My guess is that he will call it "damage control", just like he did that computer simulation of the crash by Mike Wilson.

__________________
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 flights would have been intercepted and four people armed with only box-cutters would be overpowered easily by a few hundred passengers.

Stuff could have been planted inside the building very easily before the crash and anything could have been put into a robot plane such as bodies, 757 plane parts, etc.

Groups of people can be corrupt. What we have to look for is what makes the most sense--not the credentials of who says what.
When I was shown this "YouTube" video, I didn't reject it because it was from YouTube. http://youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8 I pointed out the the flaws in it.
Here's an example of what makes sense.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...81047&q=9%2F11
At the 48 min. 45 sec. mark thermite is demostrated. At the 54 minute 18 second mark some liquid metal is shown pouring out of one of the towers. At the 56 minute 35 second mark Steven Jones gives his opinion of the molten metal pouring out of the towers. He said the NIST report explained it as possibly molten aluminum from the plane. They melted some aluminum and it never changed color. Steven Jones refuted the NIST report.
http://wtc.nist.gov/ Steven Jones makes more sense than the official sources do.
Go to the 49 minute 35 second mark of this video. It shows some steel beams that look like they were cut by thermite.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...71955308136871
The steel beams have solidified molten metal on them. That's an impossibility if the only heat source was jet fuel.

What he says makes sense. (See above)

There should at least be a wing mark on the side of the building. The damage on the building might have come from the inside.
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index2.htm
(fifth picture down)

Honest people with common sense is nothing to sneeze at. Some of them have credentials and some of them don't. What they say adds up and the official story doesn't add up.

What I said was that whether or not it had been doctored was open to debate. I distictly said I thought it most probably hadn't been doctored.
Here's my quote from post #1012.
You seemed to imply that these were difficult questions. There's nothing difficult about them. I don't have time to answer every question asked by twenty people as there is only one of me and I work. I try to concentrate on the most important ones if I don't have time to answer all of them.

Concerning the calculations.

I'm still trying to check that the angle is right in the third picture down here.
http://www.flugplatzsiedlung.de/Pent_gate.pdf
When I look at this picture, it seems that the angle on which he's basing all of his calculations goes too far toward the bottom of the picture. I can't figure out how to check it.
Also, this site shows the angle of the plane to be 40 degrees.
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index1.htm
(Fourth picture down)
I measured Laguna2's picture with a protractor and got 46 degrees. How did you get 46 degrees?

You guys seem to think that the idea of 9/11 being an inside job is ridiculous. If you've only been reading American newspapers all of your lives, that's understandable. On post #29 of this page I posted some articles and videos that explain what is generally known outside of the US.
Noam Chomsky Says...
I'd learned about a lot of this info just by living abroad before I ever read anything about it in English. The idea that 9/11 was an inside job makes a lot more sense if you look at the big picture.
If some of you guys who say you're non-Americans disagree with what that info says, I'm going to wonder if you're speaking your true thoughts. Almost all of the conversations about those subjects I've heard in my seventeen years of living outside of the US have been based on the info in those articles. I've spoken to people from the countries dealt with in the articles and they say the same things the articles say.

That is the problem David. You take the evidence that agrees with your POV and disregard any that doesn't.

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

ummmm Im going to go WAY out on a limb here....
Understand that i Do Not find it Credible that the Pentagon attack was an inside job.

http://0911.site.voila.fr/index4.htm

This Link DavidC has posted many times and up til now i couldnt get the page open- i opened it today and BRIEFLY scanned it ( i have to go to some customer calls and short on time
Another thing DavidC points out is that it makes SENSE.

Ok so i scanned it and i see Discrepencies it states that Do INDEED APPEAR ( i resay it APPEAR... Ok one more time for the hard heads who cannot Read APPEAR) to make sense
Example one: DavidC points out no wing damage. according to Photos - there isnt even a SCRATCH! it "makes sense" that there should be something right?
Example two: According to the site -it Shows the Video footage and claims that the Frame in which the aircraft would be in FULL view has been removed- variable in demonstrations it ELLUDES TO MATH, but doesnt show the work
Example three: By Comparing a 757 image to the building (superimposed to scale) it states that the left engine would have Dug into the ground- yet there is no groove.

ALL these claims seem to make sense. (Invite DavidC to read the Moon Hoax pages on Bad Astronmy where the BA clearly says these things SEEM to make sense until you study the Factors involved (e.g. lighting- reflective surfaces etc)
This SENSIBLE approach easily appeals to the crowd <shrug>
Sensationalism- so ... later ill try to figure out the math involved in the photos on that site- (Speculation) Engine should have grooved but didnt? engine Struck once and broke free? Ground is Lower in rreality than depicted by a flat Schematic- need Photos of that area.. Etc
i repeat
im NOT SAYING these claims are correct-im saying we can Address the "Sensible" claims and debunk them the way BA demonstrates in the Moon Hoax Claims
After which the crowd says "Ohhhh.. i GET IT!"
(third time)
why i say? cuz yeah- it does APPEAR to make sense..

too true

the last point i made is for the Fence Riders reading the thread more than for DavidC

Ah, you're finally back.
You're claims are still of the same quality though...

What is your basis that the flights would've been intercepted?
The terrorists also gave bomb threats to the passengers.
And as for box cutters, have you looked at one recently? Note the sharpness of the blade. I've been cut on my hand by those things. Having someone holding it against one's throat is a life threatening situation. Given that the crew of the plane weren't military personal, it's understandable that they complied.


You have yet to show how this planting operation could've been "very easy", not to mention unseen.

A poster on these boards gives a great evaluation on this type of thinking:
Bascially, just because an explaination makes sense doesn't mean it's the correct one.

[qupte]
The steel beams have solidified molten metal on them. That's an impossibility if the only heat source was jet fuel.
[/quote]

And just who is it that makes claims of molten metal?
How do you know that it's not some other metal with a lower melting point?
How do you know that it's really solidified molten metal and not some other substance?

No, what he says merely agrees with your view of the situation.
See the above quote.

Yes, might have. But are you examining the mechanics of this conjecture?


The problem with you is that it seems that you consider everyone that agrees with your view of things as honest, and those that don't agree dishonest, regardless of creditials.
The maker of 'Loose Change' was shown to be dishonest; he made the movie just to get attention.
Others just happen to jump on the bandwagon of conspiracy theories.


No, just questions we wanted answers to.


No, it's because there is no evidence suggesting an inside job. On the other hand, the evidence does support the offical story, as you call it.

And it has nothing, nothing, absolutly nothing to do with what country the information is from. Got that?
That claim of yours is such a crock of feces.


Yeah, so does the moon hoax.
As said, things SEEM to make sense until you study the factors involved.
You skip that part, and just stick to what you like.


How do you know that it's not because they use crititcal thinking, look up the relevent information, and/or have their own education in the relevent fields?

Your "country of origin" idea is lousy.


I highly doubt that.
Seems more likely that you're just speaking to the conspiracy theory crowd, and not anyone that is educated in relevent fields of structural engineering.

__________________
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

Don't bother responding to David C. I think he safely and permanently put himself out to pasture with his "answers" to the questions...

Thread done.

__________________
"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 saw this comment made on another website. It was related to religion, but I think it applies equally well to David C's position.

Thought I'd add that:

Prior to the events of 9/11, (to the best of my understanding) US (and most other countries) procedure on hijacking was to cooperate with the hijackers, not fight them. Let them take control, stay alive, and wait for Delta Force or somebody deal with them AFTER the aircraft was landed some place. In general, 9/11 was about the first time, that I am aware of, where the hijackers actually took complete control of the flight controls and flew the plane instead of telling the pilots where to go.

The idea that the passengers and aircrew of an airliner would do something that violates [then] standing rules and would be considered inherently risky (fighting the hijackers) -- before it was burned into our psyche that letting hijackers take control of the aircraft could mean certain death -- is ludicrous.

And now...

So the material was easily planted in advance? So pray tell, when did they (the conspiracy) get their hands on the passengers (who would all or mostly have to be confirmed as taking the flight) in sufficient time to kill them before transporting their bodies (or the remnants with crash-type injuries or burned beyond rcognition) to the Pentagon, all undetected by the security and other workers there. It would certainly be noteworthy of comment (and inspite of orders to be quiet) if an area was cordoned off especially if it was the side hit by the airliner. This does not even ask about the engine parts and such and the real possibility that a miss by even a few dozen feet (or worse, the aircraft actually crashing early and then bouncing or skidding into the building) would have a significant impact on the way that the stashed bodies (or body remnants) and smashed pieces of the airliner get distributed around the crash site in what experts could think was a suspicious pattern. Certainly, it not being implied that the parts and bodies were completely pre-positioned in the the places where they should have ended up or is that the implication intended?

If, OTOH, it was all loaded on a robot(controlled) aircraft, then where are all the parts and pieces (and there would be many) of that robot aircraft?

More to the point, if the alternative of using a robot aircraft is to be considered viable then your contention that the "smoke cloud" in the video image that you claim is definitive or irrefutable evidence of the true events can't possibly be a fighter class aircraft like an F4 or F111 or another aircraft like the Global Hawk, now can it?

Actually they talk about 50 degrees...
I defined the flight path from where the light poles were hit. Then I did just as you did. I printed the picture, took my protractor and measured the angle.
If you like you can take the 50 degrees. In that case you have to calculate with 40 degrees in the last calculation. That does not change much.

Actually I have never read an american newspaper in my life.
If you like to see my main newssites:
www.spiegel.de
www.faz.net (rather conservative)
www.stern.de
www.giessener-allgemeine.de
www.taz.de (left wing paper)
All of this Newspapers and magazines have only one thing for 9/11 CTs.
Laughter!
Here just two examples:
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/zeitg...434908,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,408732,00.html

BTW I cannot find any newspaper in post #29.
Nada, nothing, null!

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

I am NOT a US citizen and I live in a country whose president routinely bashes the US and its president. Yet in this country, I have not seen any attempt to challenge the findings by the US government about the 9-11 incident.

As for me speaking my true thoughts, well I do so. I do it according to the rules of this board since I am a member of it, nothing else.

__________________
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi

Your using post 9/11 hindsight to interpret a pre 9/11 event, standing orders pre 9/11 were to let the hijackers land the plane somewhere and then negotiate or use force as the situation called for.

"could have been", I see, no real evidence just handwaving that it could have been.

You have pointed out no flaws, your argument has only been "I dont believe it"

This has nothing to do with the Pentagon, you are following the CT script, if all else fails change the subject.

There is damage to the side of the building in the fifth pic down. The red line drawn from the left wingtip leads right to a row of missing masonry between the windows on the first floor. The damage the right wing caused to the masonry is covered by foam in that pic but in the top pic you can see the damage to the masonry from the right wing, above and to the left of the question mark on the right side.

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

I know several people have already said this, but I have to comment. First, I have been flying planes since the early 1980s. There was a period in the late 70s/early 80s where hijackings were actually fairly common, for example, multiple hijackings of planes to Cuba. What fezzic and others have described, of not fighting the hijackers, is exactly the procedure that was followed.

Second, once the people on the fourth plane learned the fate of the other three planes, they did exactly that, they fought the terrorists, and probably prevented that plane from striking another target in Washington. So how does the crash of the plane in PA jive with your little dream David?

I also would like your response to what I posted in post 1058. Remember, there was debris and human remains outside of the Pentagon. This could not have been planted before the crash. You need to explain how that was done.

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

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

Were you aware that Stanley Knives - for that is what we mean by "box cutter" - are the weapon of choice for gangs in the west of Scotland and although primarily causing disfigurement are nevertheless responsible for a number of murders every year - usually where veins are slashed?

So stop saying "box cutter" like we're talking a glorified nail file!

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________
Okay, okay, Mr. Contractor...you can have an extension of time under clause 25 but forget the consequent direct loss and expense under clause 26 - I mean, hell, I thought it was obvious that the foundations went under the walls but there you go.....

...now, I need a clause 13A quote for C4 coated rebar, please.

Good point Architect.One thing the CTers overlook is that all the hijackers trained in street combat,where almost anything can be a weapon.
Dylan Jones of Loose Change laughed about it,I'd like to see anyone fend off an attack when they're strapped into a chair & the attackers have the dual advantages of speed & suprise.
I know a little about fighting & my main weapon in my last few "incidents" have been those.

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

Robert A. Heinlein

In germany those "box cutters" are called Teppichmesser (engl. carpet cutters).
Go, take a knife of your choice and compare it by cutting some thick carpet.

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

I am confident and satisfied that he cannot or will not answer the questions posed to him, which I contributeed to. I ask for the thread to be closed on these grounds. He has debunked himself, and everything else is dead.horse.

__________________
"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 mentioned this once on another thread: One time, I had a utility knife (not sure if it was Stanley brand or not) and had the bright idea to cut a little off something I was holding (stupidly) in my left hand. I applied pressure, something gave, and the knife slipped and cut through the skin and fat pad on the palm of my left hand before I even realized what had happened. It sliced through the tissue like it wasn't there. It was the next thing to a scalpel cut, and luckily hadn't caused any serious damage, but if I had held the knife slightly differently, it would have. Of course, I had to go to the emergency room for stitches, though due to the clean cut they didn't need to get very fancy.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

I've come to think of this issue as some kind of pre-9/11 amnesia. Everyone knew that, in the event of a hijacking, you were much more likely to get out alive if you let the hijackers get to whereever they wanted to go. Much of the shock of 9/11 was that these terrorists (not just hijackers) were slamming the planes into buildings. Hijackers take planes somewhere and make demands. Or at least, that's how we thought.

Further, even with post-9/11 thinking, unless you managed to take out the terrorists before they gained control of the plane, very likely you were signing your death warrant, just as happened on flight 93. You had to be sure, really sure, that there was no choice, and even then, you would know that you probably were going to die with only the hope of protecting others. We aren't Vulcans, and it takes more than a bit of logic to make that horrible decision. That's what's so impressive about flight 93.

So, that's why I've come to conclude that people who advance this idea, who presumably were born prior to 9/11, must simply have amnesia, and not remember what was generally accepted before that happened.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser