|
Post by scooter on Jan 26, 2007 13:05:52 GMT -4
So, we have a blurry picture of a something entering stage left. All else we have is the physical evidence left from the whatever in the picture that apparently hit the building, to include a Boeing 757 landing gear, wheels, sheet metal debris indicating an AAL airliner, a Rolls Royce engine fan disk, and a number of DNA body remains. All of which was in place immediately after the crash, it's implausable to imagine otherwise. So it had to be a fighter or drone there? What am I missing here?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 26, 2007 15:59:15 GMT -4
What am I missing here?
The proper mindset to believe in unfounded conspiracies.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 26, 2007 20:52:16 GMT -4
psst....A viola is a string instrument I used to play in grade 7...HA! Really? There's one in my closet right now! I've played since third grade.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Jan 27, 2007 5:58:18 GMT -4
Here's another link that has a few frames just before the nose appears. img65.imageshack.us/img65/7304/pentagon01gif8hw.gifIt's coming from the right--just like a plane would. It's the same shape as the nose of a fighter or an executive jet. This first link doesn't work. You have to copy and paste it. www.physics911.ca/Dewdney:_The_Missing_Wingswww.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesMeyer3March2006.htmlMy whole reason for asking the question about the nose is to check your objectivity so everybody will know if you are to be taken seriously when you talk about Apollo. That's also why I asked you about these two articles. www.theunjustmedia.com/major_general_smedley_butler.htmwww.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2567Just give a short analysis of one of them. Maybe a real 757 crash would have done too much damage. Just because we can't think of an answer right away doesn't mean there is no answer. There must be some answer--that picture of the nose of the craft that hit the Pentagon shows that whatever it was, it wasn't a 757. Evidently the shutter speed on the camera that took the picture of the dog's tail was slower than that of the camera that took this picture. www.hongpong.com/lib/images/plane77_contrast_adj.jpgYou have an attitude but you haven't said anything substantial. It looks very clear to me. I don't see how anyone can say it's blurry with a straight face. The shadow line is visible. It's consistent with the shadow of the Pentagon. www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222 Maybe the data that was made public was bogus. Maybe the other aircraft with the pointed nose knocked down the lamp poles. If one came forward, the press wold ignore him; he'd also be putting himself and his family in danger if he came forward. All of the evidence I've seen has multiple explanations so it is mere evidence and not proof. I see a gigantic reason to doubt the object was a 757. The shape of the nose is too pointed to be that of a 757. Witnesses can be planted. That there are a lot of people saying they saw it shouldn't be surprising in a plan this big. Also, there's the theory that a 757 actually flew over the Pentagon just before the "Killer jet" hit it. This video is about witnesses. video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6317630216235657870I figured a few of you would decide to leave when I asked you to analyze the speech by Smedley Butler. www.theunjustmedia.com/major_general_smedley_butler.htmI talked about the shadow line on the object which is consistent with the shadow of the Pentagon. Regarding reply #25--the object is the nose of a plane that's obviously too pointed to be that of a 757. The canopy bubble is not visible. It's on the right--not the left. Evidence can be planted. If that is the actual undoctored picture of the object that hit the Pentagon, the whole case is closed. The possibility of the picture having been doctored is still there though. Please don't leave without commenting on the speech by the american general Smedley Butler.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 27, 2007 8:05:57 GMT -4
It's coming from the right--just like a plane would. It's the same shape as the nose of a fighter or an executive jet.
It also looks pretty much like a blurry image of a car.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 27, 2007 11:02:09 GMT -4
Rocky, tell me this:
Do you ever consider that the white blob is not the nose of a plane, but rather the smoke from the damaged engine?
Have you checked to see just how large one of the planes you suggest would appear on the video from the distance of the crash site?
It seems that you can not see the object that is trailing the smoke. Even in that link with multiple images, I can see it. It's faint, but it's there. Perhaps I should question your objectivity?
Your claims of "planted witnesses" and evidence are just hand waving. Anyone can make any alternative claim. But such claims are useless without evidence. You're only speculating when it comes to the evidence and witnesses.
For threats to familes, I once again refer you to Frank Serpico. Read on his case, and then tell me why such a person doesn't exist for the events of 9/11. I'm sure you can do a web search on him, just as you do for your countless other claims.
Tell us how the evidence could've been planted without anyone seeing it. Tell us when it was done. Tell us how so many people could've been kept quiet about the conspiracy for so long. And again, refer to the case of Frank Serpico before making such an attempt to answer.
Note how many of your ideas start with "maybe". Well, two can play.... Maybe you are wrong. Maybe it was a 757. Maybe you don't understand the sciences involved to make a sound judgement. Maybe the people you read making the claims have it all wrong.
Are you seeing how this is going? Speculation works both ways. The desciding factor is which is the more plausible of the events. In this case, we refer to Occam's Razor. Learn it. Use it.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jan 27, 2007 13:22:19 GMT -4
My mistake was assuming that the image was being described accurately by the OP.
I'm not particuarly interested in the Pentagon conspiracy, so I havent spent a bunch of time watching the alleged evidence. Responding only to the single frame, and the "too pointed" comment, I led myself into a trap.
The evidence consists of, what, two frames? Plus the fireball?
First, there is nothing, then the smear of white at the right of the screen, then the fireball. Blam.
The reason I ask about the shutter speed, is because it's important. It looks to me like the shutter speed is too slow to have captured the plane at all. The smoke, once deposited in the landscape, remains for a moment, and is captured by the camera.
What color is the airplane supposed to be? Anyone? There is a smear in the next frame that might be an airplane, but it looks about a plane-and-a-half long. Like the end of the dog's tail, it has become virtually invisible by travelling so fast while the shutter was open.
I use shutter in a figurative sense, here, I'm pretty sure the "shutter" isn't a hard object in a video camera like it is in a Nikon or Bolex.
At any rate, I want to apologise for thinking that the white represents the nose of an airplane. I can now see that that is highly unlikely.
So how would you take bodies and simulate the damage done by slamming their airplane through a stone and concrete building? And who would do it? And what meds do they take to suppress nightmares?
If you want the Pentagon attack to be part of a Government conspiracy, that's fine, but it has to make sense. Wouldn't it be easier to use al-Qaida as a "cat's paw" and have hijackers do the job for you, rather than going through the risky hassle of the standard CT scenario here? The risk of this operation would be pretty huge - of one of the body manglers flips out and tells a therapist, or a spouse, then the whole thing comes unraveled. That's not how secret stuff gets done.
Look at how real operations are performed. The CIA kicked over governments a few times, back in the '70s and '80s. Usual method, they go in, find the radicals opposed to the government, arm them, support them, maybe stage a few events to get the blood flowing, and let the rabble do the work. All the risk goes to the naive natives.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 27, 2007 16:58:47 GMT -4
The reason I ask about the shutter speed, is because it's important. It looks to me like the shutter speed is too slow to have captured the plane at all. The smoke, once deposited in the landscape, remains for a moment, and is captured by the camera. You're absolutely right, apparently. I know this because it's been explained. A lot. But David, or Rocky, or whoever he is right now, refuses to acknowledge that that's possible, since he can "clearly" see the pointed nose of a plane that would, apparently, be way bigger than a real plane. And we're delusional for thinking that a single frame of a low frame-rate video showing something farther away than it's intended to is blurry. Pffff. You're an American, aren't you? Americans don't really know what their government does in other countries. He said. (Of course, he also said that Americans couldn't read Noam Chomsky's political stuff until the advent of the internet, but he's never wrong. We could all be lying, you see.)
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jan 27, 2007 17:18:32 GMT -4
Stage left, our right...(or maybe my thespian orientation has failed me...been a long time) The evidence planting is not plausable, fire, smoke, access, building falling down...and who is going to be inconspicuously running into the wreckage carrying very heavy airplane parts? Implausable, along with all the bits scattered around the site after the impact...where's the guy with the armful of plane bits in the pictures?...there is a lot of stuff lying about, some pretty large, someone had to run around laying it all out. Please outline the pointy nose in the photo, I don't see it. The last one you posted, many weeks ago, was a shot that had the entry control box in the frame, this shot doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 28, 2007 8:29:32 GMT -4
What color is the airplane supposed to be?This is one of the major problems in finding it in the picture. It was an American Airlines, so it was polished aluminium. That means the top was reflecting sky and the bottom was reflecting grass making it the same blue and green as the background. A touch of cream and red do help, but barely. This image uses tha previous frame to highlight the diferences in the teo images, the idea being that if there is a plane in there it'll show up slightly. The "smoke" os still obvious (as it should be) but there is certainly something else there as well.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Jan 28, 2007 12:12:10 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Jan 28, 2007 12:16:19 GMT -4
As soon as you address the overwhelming physical evidence and eye witness testimony that supports the official account.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jan 28, 2007 12:18:31 GMT -4
I disagree with Butler... can you outline your plane in the photo?
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Jan 28, 2007 13:18:46 GMT -4
Why not? Before the crash it would have been extremely easy to plant plane parts, bodies, or anything inside the building--it's out of sight. If we don't have a continuous video of the area that begins at the point of the crash, there's no way to prove this either way. It's the object on the right that's inside the circle. www.hongpong.com/lib/images/plane77_contrast_adj.jpgLook at the sun-illuminated area and the shadow area of the object. They are consistent with the shadow of the Pentagon. Even the anouncer from CNN says it's the front of a plane. www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pentagon.video/index.htmlPlease go into some detail. What Butler says is common knowledge outside of the US. What about what this ex-marine says? www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2567I know it's a bitter pill to swallow but the US is the "Bad guys" in the world. www.killinghope.org/ www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/guatemal.htm www.globalpolicy.org/empire/history/2002/0413angola.htm www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/42a/127.html www.namebase.org/scott.html We've all been lied to. The reason I'm asking this to you people who say Apollo wasn't a hoax is that I want to check your objectivity. After seeing your analyses of the picture of the nose of the plane that hit the Pentagon you guys are not to be taken seriously when it comes to photo-analysis. How is anyone supposed to take your analyses of Apollo pictures seriously now? So far you seem to be on the right track when it comes to what the US government does in third world countries except for the part about the natives who do their dirty work being naive. They're sell-outs but they're not naive. www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html(excerpt) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- on behalf of American business, and often with their help, the CIA mobilizes the opposition. First it identifies right-wing groups within the country (usually the military), and offers them a deal: "We'll put you in power if you maintain a favorable business climate for us." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What do you think about the reasons given in this article for what the US does in the third world? Do you agree that the US is the bad guys in the world? Remember-your credibility is on the line.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jan 28, 2007 13:44:43 GMT -4
No, no, no. Motive is not opportunity. I don't care if you have Vlad the Impaler planning a fake bombing of the Pentagon, you still have to deal with physical reality. These links have nothing to do with your case.
|
|