The Pentagon Thread Part 2

[DulceDecorum]

Please post on this new thread since the other one takes so long to load. The journey so far:

The original thread on the original DU 9:11 Forum was called
Post Your Pentagon Crash Questions Here.
It continued for nine threads each one containing a list of all the preceeding threads. The most recent one is,

Post Your Pentagon Crash Questions Here.
Part 9!!!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=5620&forum=DCForumID43&omm=0

Then DU upgraded to a new server.
Hence,

The Pentagon Thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=405&mesg_id=405

There has been a lot of discussion concerning eyewitness accounts. Let us therefore read and review THE PENTAGON BUILDING PERFORMANCE REPORT
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

This report which was written, in part, by Paul Mlakar who also worked on impact reports after the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Office building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
It was very interesting and highly informative.
I was pleased to see that
the Outer Perimeter of the Pentagon,
the E Ring,
is indeed
the Mother Of All Walls.

On impact, the plane penetrated through three outer rings of the building, traveling 310 feet in less than one second. It destroyed about 50 structural columns on the first floor and burst into a fire that weakened the building and caused a small area above the point of impact to collapse about 20 minutes after the crash.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0103/012303a1.htm

The debris that traveled the farthest traveled approximately twice the length of the aircraft after entering the building. To come to rest at a point 310 ft from the area of impact at a speed of 780 ft/s, that debris experienced an average deceleration of approximately 30g.
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

What else do you know of, that can exert 30g worth of drag?
Oh, Mother you are Queen!
You are queen of the drag.

[acerbic]

1. After 106 posts, no illumination to the great "window mystery"...

...not even a clear statement about what the mystery was supposed to be. So it's time for a new "mystery"... :eyes:

[DulceDecorum]

2. It's a fine line, a very fine line indeed.

The hijacked aircraft, a Boeing 757-200 designed to accommodate approximately 200 passengers and 1,670 cu ft of cargo, approached the west wall of the Pentagon from the southwest at approximately 780 ft/s. As it approached the Pentagon site it was so low to the ground that it reportedly clipped an antenna on a vehicle on an adjacent road and several light posts. When it was approximately 320 ft from the west wall of the building (0.42 second before impact), it was flying nearly level, only a few feet above the ground. The aircraft flew over the grassy area next to the Pentagon until its right wing struck a piece of construction equipment that was approximately 100 to 110 ft from the face of the building (0.10 second before the impact). At that time the aircraft had rolled slightly to the left, its right wing elevated. After the plane had traveled approximately another 75 ft, THE LEFT ENGINE STRUCK THE GROUND at nearly the same instant that the nose of the aircraft struck the west wall of the Pentagon. Impact of the fuselage was at column line 14, at or slightly below the second-floor slab, and the right wing crossed at a shallow angle from below the second-floor slab to above the second-floor slab.
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

Schwartz said that from information received from the radio tower at the Virginia state police barracks, as the aircraft came in, it actually dipped its wing to avoid hitting the tower and brought the wing back up before going into the building.
"THE AIRCRAFT DID NOT STRIKE THE GROUND BEFORE IT HIT THE BUILDING," explained Schwartz.
http://www.ftmeade.army.mil/SoundOFF/archives/SO2002/May02/html/05-02News-pentagon.htm

[DulceDecorum]

4. 106 posts, NINE days, who's counting?

Powerful Contrasts
by Robert Kober,
Publisher
bizlife Magazine

Maybe it was reporter's instinct; maybe an urge to see for ourselves; maybe a touch of patriotism for a couple of old dogs. When my friend Dick Harlow from 98.7 the Point called and said, "We need to go," the fact that I had had the same urge not five minutes earlier suddenly made sense. Without a clear agenda, we found ourselves in a car, manned with cell phones and cameras, headed north.
I knew the reality of what awaited would be bigger and more dramatic than pictures or television could convey. I was right; and the reality has changed me. It was the contrasts that hit me hardest.

Thursday, September 20, 2001
11:00 am
From an entry terminal to the Pentagon, we saw a gaping hole large enough to swallow a Navy destroyer. Standing on a slight hill in front of the damage, we realized that the plane must have been on a fairly steep descent to hit the building the way it did. A virtual small town of tents for rescue, recovery and media covered one side of the building. On the other side, normal activity prevailed, including an employee soccer game on the lawn.
http://www.bizlife.com/chip_shots2001.htm

[LARED]

3. The journey so far?

Well apparently DD now believes flt 77 actually crashed into the Pentagon and he's going to learn about deceleration.

Here's a primer. http://www.ahsd25.n-cook.k12.il.us/School%20Info/South/Southfiles/science8/motion/calcaccel.htm it even has a nice picture of a plane on it.

[DulceDecorum]

5. Good job Lared.

Now tell us what g means as in 30g.

On edit:
The article says that hijacker suspects "who most likely were near the front of the aircraft, were found relatively close to the aircraft’s point of impact with the building."
The article also says "The remains of most of the passengers on the aircraft were found near the end of the travel of the aircraft debris."

Does that mean that the plane kinda turned itself inside out?

Gee whiz,
How many g did the hijacker suspects experience?

Foidermore,
please calculate the force that Paul Gonzales needed to exert on that wall in order to break through it.

Thank you, Mr. Engineer.

[LARED]

6. Ok

You don't know what a G is. That's fine, but then what do you mean by this

What else do you know of, that can exert 30g worth of drag?
Oh, Mother you are Queen!
You are queen of the drag.

If you don't know what a G is, why do you assume 30g's is high number or presents some sort of mystery?

[DulceDecorum]

7. I have never claimed to be an engineer, Lared

but I am claiming, here and now, to know what a g is.

And yes, I do think that 30 g is a high number.
Do you have any idea what a g is Lared?
Did they teach that in engineering school?

What about force?
Surely you must be able to calculate force if we tell you how many gs were involved.

HINT:
F=MA

[LARED]

8. DD

Take a marble and throw it at the sidewalk as hard as you can. The G force will far exceed 30 G's.

So why does the estimate that flt 77 was decelerated at 30 G's have to do with.... well anything.

[DulceDecorum]

18. Speed is measured in seconds.

The equation below can be used to calculate the deceleration forces generated when an object slows from one speed to another in some given distance. The deceleration is measured in G's.

Deceleration = (speed change)² / (30)(Deceleration distance)

To obtain the forces exerted the weight of the object is multiplied by the G's. For example, a 10 pound object subjected to a 30 G deceleration will have an effective weight of 300 pounds.

It's surprisingly easy to generate 30 G's: a vehicle coming to a stop in 4 feet from 60 MPH would generate a 30 G deceleration.
http://www.vcu.edu/cppweb/tstc/kinetic.html

If a car going at sixty stops suddenly and abruptly, then a 30g deceration is normal.
If the plane came to a sudden and abrupt halt, then a 30g deceleration is normal.

Everyone agrees that the outside wall took more than half an hour before any appreciable damage was seen.
We are not sure where the plane was during this time.
In fact we are not sure where it is now or where it has ever been.

"High energy levels, by themselves, do not lead to disaster---consider how much kinetic energy a Boeing 747 has upon landing---it's how that energy is dissipated that determines the outcome. We know we can throw a raw egg into the air and catch it without breaking it if we recoil our hands during the catch. In contrast, the egg will probably break if we let it smack into our hands without any give. The egg's kinetic energy is about the same in both cases but the distances in which that energy is dissipated are drastically different depending on whether or not we recoil our hands. There's considerable wisdom in the quip that if you fall off a tall building it's not the fall that kills, it's the sudden stop."

In order for the plane to enter the Pentagon, it had to get past the wall. If the plane did this in milliseconds, then the deceleration would be the expected 30g. If it took the plane longer to worm its way pay those invincible windows and the specially hardened masonry, then the deceleration is much lower.

"The debris that traveled the farthest traveled approximately twice the length of the aircraft after entering the building. To come to rest at a point 310 ft from the area of impact at a speed of 780 ft/s, that debris experienced an average deceleration of approximately 30g."
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

Think of it this way.
Mike Tyson used to earn millions in one prize fight.
Mike Tyson's prize fights lasted only seconds.
If you divide up the money earned by the seconds worked you get the pay rate.
Take for example the 49 second fight Tyson had with Clifford Etienne.
Etienne was paid one million dollars.
Mike Tyson was paid five million dollars.

At 49 seconds, Tyson made more "Per Second" than nearly EVERY kickboxer in the world has made for their greatest payday ever.
Tyson made $102,040 Per SECOND!
http://www.ikfkickboxing.com/Opinion-Whatarewedoing.htm

And THAT, my good friends, is the Mother Of A Pay Rate.

Suppose you made 52 million dollars this year.
That is one million dollars a week. At the end of the year you would have earned far more money than Iron Mike. But you would not have come anywhere near his pay rate because it took you much more time.
The SPEED is the thing.
How much are you making PER SECOND?

What I am saying is that 30g happens when you stop suddenly.
But as we all know, if you take your time slowing down you will be just fine.
How much speed did you lose PER SECOND?
How many seconds are there in half an hour?

[LARED]

21. Don't quit your day job.

Although if you're working on a comedy act, you need to bring it down a notch as when you try the punch line that flt 77 took 30 minutes to come to a complete stop, no one will get.

I can't believe you even attempt to create this new mystery.

[DulceDecorum]

23. A "missing 757."

As he and Rescue Engine 335 responded toward the Pentagon, there was confusion from the control tower in an alert of a "missing 757." Initially, it was thought to be another crash, possibly at the end of the runway or on nearby George Washington Parkway. But it was quickly confirmed the crash was at the Pentagon, and Captain Defina ordered a response by one of National's crash rigs, Foam Unit 331, and SERV-329, the mass casualty/disaster unit, from the now-closed airport.
<snip>
At 0952, the airport crews started an interior attack and search and rescue. Although National was not part of a pre-incident fire plan for the Pentagon, a few of the airport personnel were familiar with the building since National's medic unit often responds to calls at the Pentagon.
One of the world's largest office buildings, with 23,000 employees, the Pentagon has five concentric office rings, with "E" ring being the outermost. Each of the Pentagon's exterior walls are 924 feet (281.6 meters) long, with about 400 windows that are roughly 5 feet (1.8 meters) wide and 7 feet (2.1 meters) tall. The wall that the 757 hit was the first and only one so far to be reinforced and have blast-resistant windows installed after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.
Still, at 1005, Captain Defina "saw the classic signs of a collapse – buckling along the roof line and debris falling" around the 50-foot-wide (15.2-meter-wide) hole the jetliner had torn into the five-story building. He notified the Arlington fire command post, which sounded an evacuation tone several minutes before the collapse. No firefighters were injured.
<snip>
That afternoon, Captain Defina and airport Battalion Chief Walter Hood, as well as other jurisdictions' battalion chiefs, led crews inside with attack lines to fight fires on every floor of the "D" and "E" rings. The aircraft had penetrated all the way to the "C" ring.
"The only way you could tell that an aircraft was inside was that we saw pieces of the nose gear. The devastation was horrific. It was obvious that some of the victims we found had no time to react. The distance the firefighters had to travel down corridors to reach the fires was a problem. With only a good 25 minutes of air in their SCBA bottles, to save air they left off their face pieces as they walked and took in a lot of smoke," Captain Defina said.
http://www.nfpa.org/NFPAJournal/OnlineExclusive/Exclusive_11_01_01/exclusive_11.01.01.asp

I guess that the nose gear was right next to the point of impact.
Where are the hijacker suspects? And the poor passengers?
And what do they mean when they say that some of the victims they found had no time to react?
Are they referring to red paste on the nose gear?

Or are they refering to the victims of a bomb?

Pentagon, Va., Sept. 12, 2001 — "I've been in the Army for 33 years…Unfortunately I've seen this happen before, in Kenya," Sgt. Maj. of the Army Jack Tilley said. "It doesn't get any easier."
http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/Pentagon_hit_by_hijacked_plane.html

And Jack Tilley is a man who really ought to be able to tell when someone has been killed by ordance seeing as how he managed to lose half his platoon in one night. He is also very well aquianted with the effects of BOMBS on buildings.

Tilley recalled a meeting with the commander of U.S. Central Command, Gen. Anthony Zini, shortly after the Embassy bombing in Nairobi, Kenya.
"I talked to Gen. Zini and asked him, do you think this is going to happen again," Tilley said? "And he said 'It's just a matter of when and where.' He said they'll watch us for a long time looking for a weakness."
The sergeant major stressed how fire drills and battle drills saved lives on Sept. 11. and how anyone with knowledge of first aid helped the injured.
http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/pentagram/7_25/local_news/17803-1.html

And lets see what the Office of the Chief of Army Public Affairs has to say about this affair.

Immediately following the INTENDED CRASH of American Airlines Boeing Flight 77 into the west wedge of the Pentagon at 9:38 a.m. on a bright autumn day, Braman offered his body and Army experience to help in any way he could. As it turned out, Braman stayed at the crash site for three days straight looking for life.
As he prepared to go into America’s damaged symbolic defense fortress, Braman said he told himself, "Dear Lord, give me the strength for what I’m about to do...follow me through here."
What he then experienced was something unimaginable, or at least, straight out of a war movie. With a fire burning around 2,000 degrees, Braman, an airborne Ranger soldier who was working as a purchasing agent at the Army’s General Officer Mess in the Pentagon, had to breath jet fuel, asbestos, carbon dioxide, human matter, computer and office furniture in his frantic search for survivors.
http://www.usma.army.mil/publicaffairs/PV/020906/pentagon.htm

Hmmmmm.
INTENDED CRASH.
What happened with the actual crash?
And why did the control tower mention a "missing 757?"

I like the war movie bit though. It kinda helps explain how this guy still has ANY working lung tissue after breathing in 2,000 degree heat. Not to mention the toxins.
But then again, that Pentagon crowd is something else again.

Question:
How does Louise Kurtz set her indestructible Penta-hair?

"When I got out of the building, I heard someone call me, 'Sheila!' and I looked up and it was Louise. She was sitting in the back of a police car. She got out and came over to me. I could see that she was burned because there was a layer of skin hanging off her arm, but she wasn't bleeding. HER HAIR WAS MATTED LIKE IT HAD REALLY SINGED, but other than that she looked fine."
"I was having a hard time breathing. It was really a struggle to breath and my hands were really hurting. They were bringing people out and they had set up a triage area along the road. She and I were there together and the paramedics were trying to assess who needed immediate help and who didn't. One was going to by pass Louise, and she said, 'No, I need help.'"
Kurtz had suffered burns to her face, back, legs, feet, arms and hands. She lost her fingers and thumbs to amputations necessitated by deep burns. Moody said it was as if Kurtz had been "BAKED BY THE FIREBALL" THAT EXPERTS SAY REACHED AS HIGH AS 1,600 DEGREES.
http://www.dod.mil/news/Sep2002/n09092002_200209093.html

Lared, the fact of the matter is that all these people describe a Pentagon WITHOUT a plane or plane victims.
Also, you will recall that we have previously heard that the plane "vaporized" or turned to liquid either just before, or at the moment of impact.
The formulae provided assume a collision between solids.
How long did it take a vaporized or liquid plane to enter the Pentagon?

[RH]

25. a Pentagon WITHOUT a plane ?

"pieces of the nose gear"?

"breath jet fuel"?

[Bolo Boffin]

28. Missing common sense

As he and Rescue Engine 335 responded toward the Pentagon, there was confusion from the control tower in an alert of a "missing 757."

The confusion was from the control tower. They were missing a 757 that had dived off their radar. They were examining likely possibities of where said aircraft had gone.

But it was quickly confirmed the crash was at the Pentagon...

Missing 757 found. :thumbsup: Alert DulceDecorum.

Dulce sez: I guess that the nose gear was right next to the point of impact.

Why do you guess that, Dulce? That afternoon, Captain Defina and airport Battalion Chief Walter Hood, as well as other jurisdictions' battalion chiefs, led crews inside with attack lines to fight fires on every floor of the "D" and "E" rings. Defina doesn't say where he saw the pieces of the nose gear. They could have been anywhere in the D or E rings where he was fighting the fire.

Nose gear = plane found at Pentagon. :thumbsup: Alert DulceDecorum.

Intended crash is the opposite of "accidental" crash. "Intentional" would have been a better word, but that convicts the Office of the Chief of Army Public Affairs of a little sloppy word choice. The plane was intended to crash into the Pentagon, and that's what they wanted to convey.

Intended crash = plane found at Pentagon. :thumbsup: Alert DulceDecorum.

Dulce, you simply must let go of this "vaporized - liquid" meme you keep brandishing about. People groping for metaphors or computer models approximating certain aspects of the plane crash are not the ironclad proofs you seek.

A little more focus on recent John Dean articles would be a more helpful memetic source in our fight against BushCo. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[DulceDecorum]

61. Missing passengers and cargo

Where is my mush, Boloboffin, where is my mush?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=5103&forum=DCForumID43&archive=yes

There were six crew members on the plane that left Dulles.
We assume that there were about 50 passengers.
We have been told that some of the passengers were children.
Since the average American child these days is quite chubby and since we want to keep the math simple, let us assume
(we are getting rather good at that where the Pentagon is concerned, aren't we)
that each person on the plane weighed 100 lbs.
OK.
That is 100 x 56 = 5600 lbs of human flesh.
So where is it?
Wherdy go?

Have you ever seen a really bad car accident?
How come everyone who staggered out of the hole allegedly made by that plane did not have even the faintest trace of red on ANY of their incredible fire-proof soot-resistant Penta-uniforms?

The big scientists at Purdue tell us that the plane lost its outer covering when it hit the wall. That means that the passengers who may or may not have been wearing their seat belts, all had to squish their way through that tiny hole.
Surely someone grazed an elbow or something on the way in.

The Pentagon Report tells us that "the remains of a few individuals (the hijacking suspects), who most likely were near the front of the aircraft, were found relatively close to the aircraft’s point of impact with the building."

That means that somebody didn't make it through in one piece.
And apparently that person was not Salem Alhazmi.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers.html

However, the indication is that Paul Gonzales must have stepped into that mess just before Rumsfeld pulled him out.
Therefore, Boloboffin, you are claiming that Donald Rumsfeld must have gotten some blood on his hands on the morning of September 11,2001.

Somehow I don't think he is going to like that.

[RH]

76. human flesh. - wheredy go?

Is nobody yet aware that 58 bodies from on board Flight 77 were positively identified during the subsequent mortuary examination?

On page 21 of the eventual ASCE report a diagram was even supplied to show where in the building bodies were found. The very same diagram was posted to this web site some time ago.

So now we're going to have to endure a few more posts of ad hominem abuse with undue regard to the pathologists and the ASCE are we?

It is all so horribly tediously predictable.

[LARED]

31. Okee Dokee

all these people describe a Pentagon WITHOUT a plane ....

Ahhh, how do you explain that you posted this?

"The only way you could tell that an aircraft was inside was that we saw pieces of the nose gear.

Having a logic free moment? It's ok. It happens to the best investigators.

....or plane victims.

I was not aware there was a standard of what people are supposed to talk about in these types of interviews.

Also, you will recall that we have previously heard that the plane "vaporized" or turned to liquid either just before, or at the moment of impact.

Who's 'we'- It's really old - this thing the believer does to create sophistry. Someone says the plane vaporized and it is somehow a dark mystery as to did it really vaporize. When in reality it is just a word used for lack of a better term to describe what they witnessed.

[RH]

24. Chuckle chuckle.

;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)

How about the chemistry of the combustion of disintegrated aluminum?

;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)

That could be fun!

[DulceDecorum]

57. It took about 30 minutes

for the wall to come down - courtesy of Paul Gonzales.

Assuming that the plane had to go through the wall to get inside the Pentagon, then it most certainly did take a while for the plane to enter.
Planes are used to doing that.
I hear that it is not so easy to get into the Pentagon.
Especially through that newly re-inforced wall complete with windows that remain in place even if the masonry collapses.
Perhaps it maintained a holding pattern until its nose, one wheel, and a few scraps of brightly painted fusilage obtained the correct security clearance.
Or maybe it crossed over - John Edwards style.
That would explain the inital "vaporization" stories.

If the plane made a ghostly entry into the building, then it did not need to disturb the wall.
The existence of a ghost plane would explain why none of the heroes who staggered out, have anything to say about seeing the twisted metal of the wreckage or of the mangled bodies of the passengers.
All they speak of is a fire which is more amazing than that of St. Elmo.
The fire that feareth the camera.
The fire that burneth not hair.
The fire that scorcheth not the eyebrows.
http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/stripe/6_39/local_news/10754-1.html
For if even one hair is singed or one eyelash groweth not back, the PRtenders in WARdrobe will take away your PAG card and strip away your acting award.
http://wewereonduty.soundprint.org/images.htm

Army Specialist Michael Petrovich, 32, threw a computer through a window, then jumped out behind it, officials said. He has second-degree burns.
Army Lt. Col. Marion Ward, 44, jumped from a second floor window after the plane hit, and suffered smoke inhalation and a sprained ankle. Retired Navy Cmdr. Paul Gonzalez, 46, a budget analyst, got out through the hole in the wall just before the area collapsed. He was in serious condition with burns and respiratory distress.
http://www.registerguard.com/news/20010913/6a.nat.pentagon.0913.html

Hmmm
Tough windows.
Tough wall.
But even tougher are the Pentagon survivors.
And you can forget about the plane.
Better you should look for WMD in Iraq.

Paul Gonzales' nightmares started immediately after Sept. 11. They've subsided, but the guilt about surviving has not. The Defense Intelligence Agency lost seven people that day. Three worked for Gonzales, the civilian deputy comptroller.
"It doesn't make sense — two young mothers and a man a year from retiring. That's what keeps you up at night," says Gonzales, 47, a retired Navy commander who was hospitalized with lung damage. That he received his agency's highest award for LEADING FIVE PEOPLE TO SAFETY doesn't ease the pain.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-08-20-pentagon_x.htm

Paul Gonzales has it easy in comparison to Juan Cruz-Santiago.

Kurtz and Cruz suffered third degree burns over 80 percent of their bodies. Kurtz lost all of her fingers, her ears, and has had dozens of surgeries. And will have dozens more.
Cruz’s CONTACT LENSES MELTED ONTO HIS EYES. Beyond his burns, he’s had to cope with impaired vision.
http://www.uticaod.com/news/specialreports/911anniversary/sept11/moody.htm

Hospitalized for three months, he underwent nearly 30 surgeries. His eyelids, initially sutured shut to protect the corneas, were lengthened with delicate grafting, and more is planned. New skin was applied to his legs, hands, right arm and much of his face.

His mustache inexplicably survived.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/sept11/2002-09-10-survivor-cruz_x.htm



But the poor man does not seem to an occupational therapist. Daughter Marrissa, 14, had to fill in where Medicaid left off.
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/special_packages/attack_on_america/stories/4002269.htm

Juan Cruz-Santiago, 52, an accountant at the Pentagon, is an exception. He suffered severe burns over 70% of his body, requires years of continuing surgery and will never work again.
Married with one child, Cruz-Santiago recently received a $6.8 million award.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/84499p-77258c.html

However, unlike his Yankee counterpart Johnny, our Juan can still read.
And he can probably see his way into writing his name too.
And he 6.8 million more reasons to do so.
Spend Juan spend.
Money trickle down.



And poor Louise who was on her second day of work at the Pentagon, now retired with 75% of her new salary which is untaxed.
However, like a true Pentagon hero, she too had abandoned the hospital setting by January 2002.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june02/burns_1-29.html
What a change from November 2001.
http://www.wounds1.com/news/mainstory.cfm/10/1
When, due to insufficent casting, the Pentaheros found themselves playing a dual role.
John Yates displays some of the burns he suffered over 38 percent of his body, in a snapshot taken during his hospital stay. Naturally, his receeding hairline is untouched and he needs no complicated medical equipment.
http://www.hamptonroads.com/pilotonline/special/911/pentagon4.html

But only about 80 people were treated at area hospitals, according to Walter Reed officials. At Virginia Hospital Center in nearby Arlington, over 100 nurses and 50 doctors were called in–16 times the normal emergency staffing. They treated 44 victims in the first 24 hours, more than any other hospital in the region. But it was a mere trickle compared with what they expected. Inova Alexandria Hospital treated just 22 victims, 16 of whom were released Tuesday. Six patients were helicoptered from the Pentagon to Washington Hospital Center. "We got the first wave," says Marion Jordan, director of the hospital's renowned burn unit. "After that, nothing." In the end, his trauma teams treated about as many people as they would from a large house fire.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/terror/articles/010914/misc/er.htm

A large house fire WITHOUT a 757.

[LARED]

82. Is there a point to all that?

The existence of a ghost plane would explain why none of the heroes who staggered out, have anything to say about seeing the twisted metal of the wreckage or of the mangled bodies of the passengers.

I don't know DD. If I was trapped in a burning building, I'm not so sure I would be site seeing and taking notes so I would be able to provide evidence of the obvious in some future date.

Then you go on telling the horrific stories of the victims as if there is some purpose.

Well is there?

[Abe Linkman]

92. Missing red and Red herrings

Who told you anything taking notes to "provide evidence"?

If survivors saw the managled bodies of passengers; at least one person would have talked about it. And, the media whores would have milked even that one story. But, all we get in response to DD's very reasonable observaton and question is a Red herring. Why?

[LARED]

123. Irony at its best

But, all we get in response to DD's very reasonable observaton and question is a Red herring. Why?

[dick_eastman]

70. Noteven deceleration into solid block concrete wouldgenerate thatmuch heat

You give this equation of deceleration.

this is just a comment on this interesting article -- read my reply to crispy below for systematic proof that flight 77 was not the killer jet at the Pentagon.
==========

Deceleration = (speed change)² / (30)(Deceleration distance)


I notice that speed influences force geometrically, while mass only linearly. Thus an F16 travelling at the speed of sound could hit with as much force as a Boeing travelling at 350 mph. (Think the damage done by a bullet versus a slower rolling bowling ball.)

You making the point that speed of the killer jet (you speak in terms of a Boeing 757) in a crash is not the only determinant of the force that will be upon the structure of the plane -- there is also the factor of how quickly the plane comes to a stop -- and you well illustrate this with the example of an egg stopped suddenly by a stationary hand versus being caught by a hand that catches will moving back to more gradually decelerate the plane.

Many have seen the clip of an F-4 Phantom jet crashing into a solid block of concrete -- a very rapid deceleration case -- and yet, even with that extreme force of near instant decceleration -- there was no huge white hot explosion generated by the force.

But in the case of the Pentagon we see tremendous force in the form of white hot-exposion that reaches 100 feet in the air (the Pentagon is 71 feet hight) -- we know it is not burning kerosene fuel that made that explosion -- but the question is could it have been heat energy generated force of rapid deceleration (impact) where the kinetic energy hit a wall and cannot push any material ahead of it back (like those dangling kinetic energy demonstation balls on strings that I am sure you played with in physics class) -- when nothing can be pushed away, the force cracks pulverizes or else heats like hell. But there was only one wall and it broke pretty easily and quickly and after that there were only the pillars to interfer with the progress of the fuselage unitl it broke through the C-ring, depositing the engine in the corridor between C and B rings (it was a single-engine jet fighter, by the way).

BUT THE PENTAGON WALL EVEN WITH THE BULLET PROOF WINDOWS COULD NOT SLOW DOWN A BOEING (HAD THE PLANE BEEN A BOEING 757) ENOUGH TO GENERATE ALL OF THAT SUDDEN CONVERSION OF KINETIC ENERGY INTO HEAT ENERGY -- THE WALL WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUBSTANTIAL ENOUGH TO TAKE ALL THAT KINETIC ENERGY -- IT WOULD HAVE TO BREAK APART FOR JUST THE FIRST FEW FEET OF FUSELAGE LENGTH -- THE REST "GETTING IN FOR FREE"

THERE IS NO WAY A BOEING WOULD HAVE MADE THAT WHITE HOT EXPLOSION (WE KNOW FROM OTHER EVIDENCE THAT A MISSILE WARHEAD WAS THE CAUSE OF THAT) -- NOR ENOUGH HEAT TO MELT ALL THAT ALUMINUM (REMEMBER, MOST OF THE FUSELAGE WOULD HAVE GOTTEN IN FREE !!!

MOREOVER, THE FUEL IN THE WINGS AND THE "SADDLEBAGS' NEAR THE WING ROOT WOULD HAVE BLOWN OUT UNDER THE PRESSURE, MOST OF IT BURNING UP ON THE SPOT OR LANDING ON THE FLOOR IN (OUTER) e-RING WHILE THE MASS OF THE FUSELAGE PROCEEDED FURTHER INTO THE BUILDING WITHOUT THE FUEL ACCOMPANYING -- SO THAT THE FUSELAGE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BURNED UP BY THE FUEL EITHER -- AT LEAST NOT TO THE POINT WHERE THE ALUMINUM WOULD MELT. (AND ALUMINUM WILL NOT BURN UNLESS IN POWDERED FORM, BECAUSE OF THE COAT OF OXIDATION (ALUMINUM OXIDE) THAT PREVENTS OXYGEN FROM COMBINING WITH PURE ALUMINUM.

IF A BOEING HAD CRASHED IN THE PENTAGON THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN LOTS OF UNMELTED ALUMINUM TO CART AWAY, UNBURNED ALUMINUM. AND IN FACT THERE WAS NOT -- NOR WAS THERE, OF COURSE, 50+ TONS OF MELTED ALUMINUM REMOVED EITHER. (NOR PASSENGERS SEATS, NOR LUGGAGE -- AND MOST OF THIS WOULD HAVE RODE BY THE SPILT KEROSENE ON THE FREE RIDE" THOUGH THE OUTER WALL AFTER THE NOSE BROKE THROUGH."

So, Dulce, I appreciate everything you say here -- except one statment that makes no sense to me, You say:

"Everyone agrees that the outside wall took more than half an hour before any appreciable damage was seen."

We have the hole that was made. The energy of the crash went through the materials in the building with the first shock wave (which shoke wave ddid NOT and could not make the hole in C-ring, contrary to the assertion of SR, btw,. -- do you agree, Dulce?)

Anyway -- the only thing that could have caused the collapse of the buiding on its own after the crash was the slow lever action working on supports where pillars were missing and additional continuing damage done by fire -- however the fire under the collapse was brought under control -- the building had been holding very well until the collapse -- and it was the new portion that collapsed while the offical story, supported by the ASCE report has the fuselage tunneling through at an angle under sections of the older portion of the building.

I say the crash alone did not cause the collapse of new-wedge building over the visible hole in the outer wall. The wall was brought down over the hole by demolition from behind. (As you learn more from me, the things that happened around the event, you will, I predict, come to agree with me.

And I cetainly agree with you on this statement -- although I will be suggesting that the Boeing landed at Reagan National after overflying the crash.

Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington
Every man is responsible to every other man.

-------------

We are not sure where the plane was during this time.
In fact we are not sure where it is now or where it has ever been."

"High energy levels, by themselves, do not lead to disaster---it's how that energy is dissipated that determines the outcome. We know we can throw a raw egg into the air and catch it without breaking it if we recoil our hands during the catch. In contrast, the egg will probably break if we let it smack into our hands without any give. The egg's kinetic energy is about the same in both cases but the distances in which that energy is dissipated are drastically different depending on whether or not we recoil our hands.
In order for the plane to enter the Pentagon, it had to get past the wall. If the plane did this in milliseconds, then the deceleration would be the expected 30g. If it took the plane longer to worm its way pay those invincible windows and the specially hardened masonry, then the deceleration is much lower.


The SPEED is the thing.
How much are you making PER SECOND?

What I am saying is that 30g happens when you stop suddenly.

[LARED]

83. Dick

Many have seen the clip of an F-4 Phantom jet crashing into a solid block of concrete -- a very rapid deceleration case -- and yet, even with that extreme force of near instant decceleration -- there was no huge white hot explosion generated by the force.

If you had bothered to read what it said there was no fuel used on those experiments, only water to simulate the weight.

But in the case of the Pentagon we see tremendous force in the form of white hot-exposion that reaches 100 feet in the air (the Pentagon is 71 feet hight)

That would be the fuel explosion. Just like those seen in the world trade center.

-- we know it is not burning kerosene fuel that made that explosion --

Who is we?

(it was a single-engine jet fighter, by the way).

So, exactly what kind of fuel do those jets use anyway? You can't have it both ways. If "it is not burning kerosene fuel that made that explosion" and a jet fighter hit the wall just what kind of fuel was the jet fighter using? Fairy dust? Or was it powered by lizard men. That's right I forgot, it was a missile fired from the fighter jet right before it impacted the building. Which of course make complete and total sense if one lives in an alternate reality.

A question for you.

You state you work part time in a video store. The video stores I go to have 18 year olds manning the counters. So either you are independently wealthy and work in a video store for kicks, you live with mommy or you have other income. You also claim to be a propagandist. Is that your other income. Are you an Ickes wannabe trying to crete a Dick E's mythology for the irrational.

[RH]

106. What about the aluminum?

The instantaneous production of fragmented aluminum would of itself produce heat. The newly exposed surfaces of the disintegrated metal would oxidise spontaneously.

How much heat would that then generate?

Powdered aluminum is added to rocket fuel becaue its cumbustion thus adds enormously to the heat generated. In such a circumstance the metal is extremely reactive.

To what extent then would something similar be likely to occur when an aircraft disintegrates and an explosion ensues? Without wishing to get ahead of the argument I would not be too surprised if some sort of chain reaction were to ensue.

Remember also that one of the plane's engines hit an active electricity generator.

[Abe Linkman]

109. How does that contribute to "wherdy go"?

FL 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon. That much is clear. What happened to it is not clear. Tell us, if you know.

[RH]

111. "How does that ....

Boring

:boring:

[LARED]

124. Good point

Remember also that one of the plane's engines hit an active electricity generator.

Depending on the impedance and voltage, electric arcs can be easily over 10,000 deg F and generate very large flashes.

[Abe Linkman]

128. Well, there you go. Mystery solved.

"Both" of you can go home now.

No wait; sorry, that active electricty generator might be a good one to use for all sorts of distractive purposes.

[QuietStorm]

149. LOL

you are kind of funny. you know that?

[LARED]

150. Abe, Abe, Abe

There was no mystery solved. There was an interesting, but mundane possible explanation of some unusual element of the 757 impacting the Pentagon brought to the surface. This of course was immediately rejected because it doesn't jive with the official true believers revisionist theory.

Come-on Abe, try and interject some critical thought processes into the forum or go home. :hi:

[QuietStorm]

14. you do not have to be an engineer to see what is what at the pentagon

All that trajectory and angle stuff, with the lamposts for god sake the plane came in pretty straight after all. The pentagon security video, the fraud that it is, pretty much substantiates that this smaller craft glided straight across the lawn pretty much hit that building straight on. They found one or two seats I believe with lime green upolstery? That is what someone is peddling now. What commercial liner you know has lime green upolestry? Some of this stuff being argued here I thought was already put to bed. This is the same line of Bull that was being peddled back months ago.

Always the snafus are sidestepped completely ignored like the violations in procedure rendering medical records fiction renderd after the fact. and the initial report of boeing having crashed on runway 1-19, which is corroberated by another article regarding Cap defina. Wallace's testamony his eyewit has shifted from one account to the other... and we are still with the letters and the scrap metal.

For god sake the Feds set up offsite they could have hauled much of this stuff in the place was evaculated completely 4 times after the explosion. Two completely different ems units were setup one in the courtyard. ems from inside the pentagon was not in communication with Arlington County EMS unit, who it was was suppose to be in control of the site at that point ARLINGTON COUNT AT THAT POINT. They had no knowledge of the Pentagon's internal EMS crew. they did not even set up baseline parameters on the friggin site. BASIC RESPONSE PROCEDURE VIOLATED. COMMUNICATION INTERFACE POOR. AT THE BEGINNING NON EXISTENT. NO TRIAGE TAGS. There was a coverup in place from jumpstreet.

strange High rise fire reported in roslyn 9 fire units dispatched two minutes before this alleged flt 77 hit the pentagon at what was it 9:38am. Not one of the fire units happened to see the plane descend. In the official response report only Captain McCoy (in crystal city) and Captain Gilroy at Ground Zero called in the explosion. The eyewits saw different planes from different locations. I do not believe this has to be rehashed AGAIN. There was even a bizarre conversation that was had between the FBI office and someone name at the pentagon after the explosion also telling I do not recall the mans name at the pentagon. What he said was not consistent with a boeing having hit. OH MAN DO I HAVE TO GET THAT DOCUMENT AGAIN. That document raises so many questions unanswered instead these PR guys side step it entirely and bring our attention to scrap metal and cracked windows and count lamposts. LOOK THERE IT IS THE SECRET IN THE CORNER PLEASE WILL SOME ONE FINALLY WAVE AT IT.

And the ego and insults LOL. That is my favorite part. I can not believe we are back to this.

[RH]

35. So?

lime green upolstery?

who said that?

Did you discuss this with those who had known N644AA?

:shrug:

are you sure it was "upolstery"?



which medical records were not correct?

Did you discuss this with the hospitals?

:shrug:

How do you know that there was originally a report of a Boeing crashed on runway 1-19, that this was not just an erroeous message to Captain Defina?

Did you discuss this with him?

:shrug

According to the AAAR Captain Steve McCoy and the crew of ACFD Engine 101 disd see "a commercial airliner in steep descent, banking sharply to its right before disappearing beyond the horizon" and ACPD Corporal Barry Foust and Officer Richard Cox, on patrol in south Arlington County also saw "a large American Airlines aircraft in a steep dive and on a collision course with the Pentagon."

Yes, the eyewits did see different planes from different locations. There was B757 and C130.

You must get a grip.

Calm down.

Take some professional advice.

:nopity:

[QuietStorm]

16. of course the truth about the pentagon security video

is that it is actually useless, as it was doctored before it was given to msnbc. the date stamp is even off. we all know this right. or are we still arguing that pentagon security video that the pentagon handed msnbc is real?

[RH]

33. References please.

Who said that the security video was a security video (not a series of single shots) and who said that it was handed to msnbc?

None of the original reports that I saw described it as a "video".

[QuietStorm]

89. I am not going round with your RH

http://www.msnbc.com/news/720851.asp?cp1=1

snip
WASHINGTON, March 7 — Never-before-seen photos obtained by NBC News show American Airlines Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon on Sept. 11. NBC’s Jim Miklaszewski explains that the sequence of five photos, taken from a Department of Defense security camera, shows the Boeing 757 hitting the ground an instant before it plows into the building and explodes in a deadly fireball. The crash left 189 people dead, including 59 victims and five hijackers who were aboard the aircraft.

They were series of photos taken from the DoD's security camera. Which is telling in and of itself. why do that why not just edit out that part of the security vid for viewing by MSNBC. There was no hoopala that I remember at the time recanting that they were from the pentagon security vid.

AND MANY WENT ROUND AND ROUND ARGUING WITH MUCH POMP AND INSULT but not much circumstance THEY SAW THE PLANE with contributions of test crashes explaining how it was we didn't see the plane and BLAH BLAH

WHILE OTHERS COULD NOT SEE THE PLANE or RH didn't you know?

Than came the dragonsword which made it easier to see the craft and then came this:

http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1188

[QuietStorm]

91. now if you will notice the sky in the link provided RH

It become very clear that the sky was completely painted in.

check again

http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1188

As for what america was shown on MSNBC and those sequence of photos being handed to MSNBC my semantics are misleading. Has the Pentagon ever made any comment that the series of photos that MSNBC ran were not photos from the security camera at the pentagon?

If so please provide link!

[RH]

110. completely painted in?

:eyes:

Do you know anything at all about .jpg file compression techniques?

The fringes around hard edges are a normal result.

An academic I know mailed some questions last year to the Pentagon about the moot images. He got very short shrift. Off hand I recall that "A Boeing B757 hit the Pentagon. Period" was their reply, or words to that effect.

I doubt that the images were completely faked. It would be too difficult to do so without original in situ shots to work from.

To what extent what was published may have been enhanced is another matter. It is usually much easier to remove a detail from an image than it is to add something to one.

There is no such thing as an absolutely authentic photograph. No medium records all visible wavelengths of light absolutely, in a linear fashion. There is always to some extent a degree of interpretation.

[QuietStorm]

120. RH

I am a graphic designer. Please tell my how many people you interviewed to come up with these considerations. All you need to do is look very closely. the outlining of shadows is a dead give away something is wrong. And the sky as it hits the building seems strange to me as well. Can I say with surety no.

No one can. The only way authenticity could be ascertained with certainty is if any one of us had the exact series of photos that were shown on MSNBC. Photo manipulation would be very easy to spot.

Also if you look at the 35 m shot. The one with Rumsfeld et al. It becomes difficult to see the guard rail which is clearly evident in the 35 m. version. It is not as easy to make the guard rail out in the series of photos (said to be from the DoD security vid). It almost fades in places. That guard rail behind the rumsfeld and powell.

The link I placed which questions the authencity also points out the stick or two by four of wood that does not even seem to be present in the photos taken from the security vid. While some denigration is surely expected, this indicates acute denigration of quality which I find odd as it was presented as from the security camera of an establishment which utilizes state of the art laser weaponry and bio chems some of which are genotypic.

One would think the quality of a direct digital output frame by frame without any manipulation would not be so lacking in quality.

Also

Why pictures? Why were a series of photos released. If they went to the trouble of "direct" frame capture to output, why not just present MSNBC with footage. It is certainly easy enough to edit out a clip from the video camera. Why not present that. instead the these "series of photos"

[RH]

132. Why not answer the question?

Do you know anything at all about .jpg file compression techniques?

The fringes around hard edges are a normal result.

The fringe beween the Pentagon and the sky is also a normal .jpg effect.

Nobody should have to interview anybody to realise this, you should only need to experiment with Paint Shop Pro or any similar software.

The images in question are web page quality, heavily compressed to reduce file size to load quickly. An 'image hardening' technique may also have been employed at some stage to try to improve out of focus images.

We're talking here about web page filesizes of around 20 or 30 k. That means a serious loss of quality. The file size of a normal digital camera image, even with a lesser degree of .jpg compression, would be at least 10 times that size.

The "series of photos" were possibly the only ones available. No original report ever referred to a "video". Why should a camera set up to record the traffic passsing by a security booth need to record constantly?

[QuietStorm]

136. Can you read?

I work with images regularly. I use photoshop. these are photo images not illustrations. generally when I export to web what I find is a color loss can occur not a color enrichment. jpgs rendered for web, reduced and compressed certainly could cause banding (a kind of gradiation in solid color areas) depending on what number of colors are chosen (8, 256, thousands, millions) and yes, even without a decrease in colors the compression itself on a low res photo would cause pixelation frays around egdes of things (as we see in the renderings here), but this is not what I was referring to.

I was referring to the DARK STROKE LINES they can even be scene across the top of the pentagon which WOULD NOT becaused by pixelation, even in a significant reduction in size. Generally this softens or blurs edges. It would not create DARK STROKE LINES especially around shadows. Instead they would fade out just as the stated in the links.

The only thing that would have create DARK STROKE LINES OF THIS NATURE would be a redraw or if the photo was sent through an artistic filter of some sort which would render it more an illustration. For clarity sake utilizing artistic filters would certainly defeat the purpose. The purpose here would be MORE CLARITY not less.


NOW if the photos ARE authentic IMHO we still have a problem HOUSTON

http://digitalsword.co.uk/impactvideo.htm

tell me does that CRAFT that is enlarged look to you like a boeing 757 or any other commercial liner you have seen? Even with significant denigration of quality it would not render a long sleek line as one sould see in the body of a beoing to that strange curvey looking blip we see on in the enlargement. That always struck me as a draw in of a craft and a very poor one at that.

SO TO ME I DOES NOT. There are too many curves evident it in fact. I will also capture that but the curves within the body of the craft is more consistent with an F-16 than a boeing or actually even a cumulous formation in truth it is quite small IT COULD EVEN BE A MISSILE. To my eye it is impossible to identify what that craft actually is.

ALSO notice in the enlargments of the area of the photo where the plane is. There is pixelation i the horizon but no where in that enlargement do you see DARK STROKE LINES. The fraying of pixels WILL NOT CAUSE dark stroke at the outside of objects. It just would not occure... if you blow up a photo in photoshop so that you can see the pixels what you will notice is that the pixels (the squares) FADE IN COLOR NOT DARKEN.


DARK STROKE LINE AROUND THOSE SHADOWS ARE PROBLEMATIC.


YOU ASK THIS
<<The "series of photos" were possibly the only ones available. No original report ever referred to a "video". Why should a camera set up to record the traffic passsing by a security booth need to record constantly?>>

I DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS FROM THE DIGITALSWORD LINK

snip
The footage was released about six months after the Pentagon was attacked and some have claimed the foootage is a fabrication because the date and time details are wrong.

snip

As can be seen from the time stamp the security camera footage (as it is said to be) is shooting a single colour image every second). That means that this camera is shooting in full colour at a minimum rate of sixty frames per minute (sixty seconds in a minute, at one frame every second).

Cameras of this calibre are usually very expensive and produce very good quality images yet this one didn`t, in fact a pole that creates the shadow between between the first two cones isn`t registered by the camera.

end snip

FOOTAGE suggests video (in this case as you see 60 fpm) so the DoD, who we assume gave the PR guy the series of photos, COULD HAVE INSTEAD just given him a clip of the relevant footage. AGAIN MY QUESTION IS THE SAME. why a series of photos? why not a clip of footage?

why go to the trouble of rendering separate photos? It is easy to double check who FOOTAGE from a security camera such as this can be outputted as MEDIA.

POINT: I still find it strange that the DoD would have given the PR guy a "series of photos" RATHER THAN "footage"

ACCORDING TO DIGITALSWORD THIS IS THE KIND OF SECURITY CAMERA USED BY THE DOD

http://www.cctvusa.com/dvr.htm (scroll down to view page).

[RH]

154. Problematic.

The 'dark stroke lines' that I see are reminiscent of the usual effects of heavy .jpg file compression. Fringing is the term usually used to describe the white border thus likely to appear along the edges of objects. It may also apply to the corresdonding darker lines along the other side of such an edge. This is not because of the numbers of colors used, but rather because of the way the .jpg algorithms work. Jpg images render colors with less definition than the grey scale information.

Similar fringes and similar color wash effects are to be seen in the demonstrated images for instance on this page:
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/leopold/mark/compression/html_graphics.html

To my mind, from what I have yet seen, it is impossible to identify a craft, never mind what it actually is. The tree to be seen in the distance next to Interstate 395 seems to me to stand in front of the alleged tail fin, not behind it!

The frame numbers (with two shots both in second 19 but none in second 20) if they do indicate the timing of the shots, would seem to betray an irregular sequence, not an automatically timed constant frequency,
i.e.

frame "plane": 17:37:19
frame "#1 impact": 17:37:19
frame "#2 impact": 17:37:21
frame "#3 impact": 17:37:22
frame "#4 impact": 17:37:23



I supsect that better quality version did exist but without actually knowing the original format, nor anything as a matter of fact about the the calibre of the camera, how would anybody know that it did or did not produce very good quality images?

:shrug:



What is this about "DoD would have given the PR guy"?

The Washington Post was quite specific about the provenance:

"Officials from the Pentagon said the photos were not released officially by the Department of Defense. A Pentagon spokeswoman could not verify that they came from surveillance cameras."
from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A56670-2002Mar7¬Found=true

[QuietStorm]

17. this is fun isn't it?

okay I am going to have to read this stuff. Not that I'm an engineer, but I just can't help it I have to see what all this window and 30g stuff is all about here. because as far as I can see on the horse I road in on. the boeing did not hit the pentagon. I am not sure the investigation moved very much more forward from when I last peaked in at it. Instead what i seems is the troops have regrouped and now are coming in on respin. but of course I speak prematurely so let me read through this stuff. See how long it takes me.

[Bolo Boffin]

9. The Mother of All Vague Topics

:shrug:

:loveya:

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

B-)

[Bushknew]

10. Hey Dulce!!! DonÕt stop asking questions!!!

We still have no video of the Pentagon crash and still have not held any kind of investigation of what went wrong on 911, what a joke.

Do they think were just going to forget? HELL NO!

DonÕt stop asking questions!!! BUSHKNEW

[DulceDecorum]

19. We noticed when they switched Darrins on us

way back in 1969.
And don't think we didn't pick up on the two Louise Tates, two Gladys Kravitz, two Frank Stephens (Darrin’s father), several secretaries named Betty, and a number of twins as the Stephens' children, Tabitha and Adam.

This is the same crowd that gave up on Dallas when Bobby came back from the dead.

We know who David Copperfield is. And we know damn well that that whole plane thing was just a sophisticated illusion.

Almost every good TV show has an absentee character.
Cheers had Vera. Frasier has Maris. Rhoda had Carlton the Doorman.
Sandford had Elizabeth.
And the Pentagon has the plane.

[Bolo Boffin]

20. We noticed the continuity error in Network too...

...when Faye's first telling the crowd about her terrorism series, and the door's closed, and we think, "Who closed the door?" And later in the scene, Faye walks over to the now open door, and closes it!

Ah, Continuity...

A plane with passengers goes up. Witnesses watch said plane fly into the Pentagon. Investigators pick pieces of said plane and passengers off the Pentagon lawn and from inside the Pentagon. The remains of the passengers are then returned to their families, who bury them.

Continuity.

Of course, having just learned that Hillary Clinton masterminded the entire four-plane switcheroo to get back at Barbara Olson, with the help of the mighty Mossad...allowing the passengers to crash along with all the other passengers in PA after herding them all into one plane...while the buildings are carefully demolished with secretly-placed charges after the planes are emptied and flown by remote control into the buildings...leaving the incredible sort-and-transport of the passengers' remains to the cities of their supposed demise...

What a busy day Hillary must have had. Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman must have been a cakewalk in comparison. When did she get fitted for the Bruno Magli shoes?

[DulceDecorum]

27. The remains

of their loved ones were returned to the families of the people whose relatives were sent to the TriState Crematory.
The families buried them.

And now those self-same families are not happy campers.
Where did all those bodies go?
They only recovered about 300 or so and this was going for ten+ years.

Who would need a lot of body parts to stage a tragedy?
Who has been staging such tragedies for ten+ years?

Ahh. Continuity.....

[Bolo Boffin]

29. Continuity and paper trails

The TriState Crematory had complete control of the paper trail. This control was shared between two or three family members at the most. Thus they could easily perpetrate their heinous acts.

TriState Crematory = hidden, unaccountable.

The forensic investigation into the crash at the Pentagon was "the most comprehensive...in U.S. history."

A multidisciplinary team of more than 50 forensic specialists, scientists, and support personnel from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, with headquarters at Walter Reed, played a major role in Operation Noble Eagle investigations, officials said.

http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/stripe/6_48/national_news/12279-1.html

Forensic investigation at Pentagon = open, accountable.

Your fantasies, dear Dulce, are sad and sick. I'm beginning to wonder if responding to you is enabling this mania that possesses you.

[RH]

37. "The remains"

Incoherent as usual.

Try a different medication.

B-)

[Bolo Boffin]

38. Not so incoherent...

I don't know how or why, but I've been granted a measure of understanding where Dulce is coming from. Many times her incoherence to others is understandable to me.

Dulce seeks to imply that the families of "Pentagon crash victims" could have been given any ashes or body parts to bury, just like the crematory in Georgia supplied countless urns of dirt to grieving families while actually stacking the remains of their loved ones out back somewhere. There is actually a substantive scandal involving Bush cronies in the funeral business, which was obliterated in the news when word of the Georgia crematory broke.

Dulce fails to understand that simply because a link between events is conceivable, it doesn't make the link actual. Yes, it's conceivable that random body parts were simply branded "Pentagon crash victims" and passed out to the families in a particularly hideous phase of the dark 9/11 conspiracy. But it's more probable that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, and the families received the remains of their loved ones. Eyewitness accounts, forensic evidence - they all add up to Flight 77, not phantom missiles and/or small planes, with the requisite kidnapping and/or murder of passengers elsewhere.

As I stated above, the paper trail is conclusive of one hypothesis: Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. The remains of the passengers were recovered from the crash site, they were identified by DNA and other methods, they were delivered to the families, and buried.

When you ship a package via Federal Express or UPS, you can track the package through its journey. The paper trail in a forensic investigation allows the same view of the evidence during its journey through the investigative process. From recovery at the crime scene to final delivery to the families, the remains were painstakingly cataloged. Without actual evidence that shows this process was forged or tampered with, we must conclude that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11/2001.

PS: it was pretty cool how John Dean PROVED that Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks, wasn't it, BushKnew?

[RH]

39. Thanks, Boloboffin.

That does help.

:toast:

My sense of frustration with Dulce Decorum and others is not contrived.

Being of a rational disposition naturally (some German blood) I do tend to be uncomfortably perplexed by methods which would at best be described as intuitive.

My view of Dubya is that he probably did know something of what was was going on but yet more likley he did not know so much about all of it. How much would you have trusted him to know? Or do you seriously believe him to be meaningfully in charge? That's just not what government in the 21st century is like.

The line of enquiry that I would hope to see pursued would be with respect to another exercise known to be arranged for the same day, 9/11. Dubya's notorious first reaction would seem to me to fit with him understanding that a security exercise that he'd already known about had gone terribly wrong, hence his "bad pilot" remark etc.

[DulceDecorum]

58. So what,

if anything, do you surmise that Bush knew?
And if he knew nothing, then what use is he to the US?

http://www.justin.theshoppe.com/shoppe/scbs.html

[RH]

59. Knew what?

would be the better question.

Secret affairs usually proceed on a need to know basis.

The sensible question would then be 'how much would he have to be told?'

You'd then of course need to speculate to a different effect. Who was telling?

Or would you seriously suppose that Dubya himself was the mastermind?

That I would tend not to surmise! :thumbsdown:

[Dancing_Dave]

11. Some helpful links

It seems like this kind of technical research does not make much progress at DU. DU discussions about the political and economic background of WHY 9/11 happened seem to be more enlightening, and such discussions seem to go best when they come up in more general forums here.

But awareness of the the ongoing technical research and it's progress should be part of what we are doing. It's worth having something going here just to keep the questions alive.

Here's some helpful background like that:

This is an automatic translation of an important French technical study of the Pentagon disaster by Jean-Pierre Desmoulins: http://www.thepowerhour.com/postings-four/french-911.htm It has lots of interesting pictures. But automatic translations are not quite so accurate as human ones. Still, this is a good general introduction to the deep problems with the official theory.

The awesomely informed authentic and honest PeterJohnston made the essence of that problem dramatically clear at: http://911pi.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=5396090821&f=3676046741&m=7236054742 Peter is one engineering expert who knows how to speak plain English in a way which is never misleading. And he won't put up with any pseudo-technical B.S. from anyone else. :toast:

At http://911pi.com there has a been a lot of good discussion of Pentagon issues, with the research now moving towards figuring out where Flight 77 really went. It could have ended up on runway 13 of Reagan National Airport where there was an interesting under-reported crash incident. On the other hand, Flight 77 may not have ever made it back to Washington. It went hundreds of miles west beyond it's supposed target, and then disappeared from radar. Radar operators in Washington DC thought what they saw approaching the Pentagon must be a small maneuverable military plane. The 911pi Pentagon Forum is at http://911pi.com/6/ubb.x?s=5396090821&a=frm&f=6506002841 The Flight 77 Forum is at http://911pi.com/6/ubb.x?s=5396090821&a=frm&f=3676046741

Gerard Holmgren has done a lot of work sorting out eyewitness testimony and trying to put it in an accurate understandable POLITICAL CONTEXT: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/investigation77.htm

I think a key a concept for understanding what happened on 9/11 is DISSIMULATION. The Bush Regime depends on it constantly, and uses some hi-tech techniques of illusion. It's one big misleading SPECTACLE. Unravelling it can become a complex problem of psychology, physics and history all at once...it's hard because no one person could be knowlegable about all the fields needed to figure out what really happened on 9/11 and why. But if there is one guy with expertise in almost all the needed fields, it is probably GERMAN MINISTER ANDREAS VON BUELOW: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/VonBuelow.html :think:

[RH]

12. See for yourself.

Desmoulins estimates the general height of the lettering on a B757 to be 1.5 m
(more recently 1.4)

The height of the fuselage is 4.01m (13.2 feet)
specs:
http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/aircompat/acaps/753sec2.pdf

He would thus have it that the height of the letters would be a bit more than one more third of the height of the fuselage.

Now you tell me, from your own visual judgement, or by exact measurement, are they anything of the sort?





:shrug:

How does that sort of delirious delusion ever get to be taken seriously?

[QuietStorm]

13. omg still with the letters

which off crash site did they get scrap metal from this is old news. I can not even believe it is still being discussed.

[QuietStorm]

15. it is the same photo

see those four photos you have with the lines pointed to the c and a and n. all four photos are the same photo. right side up. upside down. to the right. to the left. I am not sure what you are trying to point out. That this one piece of scrap metal sits across the top with the piece there coming down to make the A.

or are you pointing out that there is no way possible this one piece of metal has much of anything to do with the C A or N?

or is it that it is a random piece that just because it looks to be the fill and the stroke of the lettering on a boeing that THIS IS THE PIECE that fits and makes up those areas you have circled on the C and the A and the N.

I can not make comment until I understand what this ONE piece you have pictured here with the photo turned round on all four sides, is indicating.

[RH]

22. QuietStorm

The point would be what the debris does not indictate, hence the Desmoulins estimate of the lettering and the B737 nonsense.

1.4m?

You can surely see at a glance that the lettering is not one third of the height of the fuselage.

Perhaps you did not study the moot page

http://www.thepowerhour.com/postings-four/french-911.htm

[QuietStorm]

26. okay thanks I will look at this moot page

no I hadn't looked at it. I will however.

[reorg]

30. calculation

the height of the plane is 4m, the width is almost 4m (3.76 or something). The circumference of the fuselage (almost a perfect circle) is thus a little less than 4m x 3.14, let's say 12 meters. Half of that makes one side of the fuselage about six meters long. Correct?

So let's look at the lettering again. If you see it from a ninety degree angle, like in this picture:



the lower case letters take up about two ninths of the visible half of the fuselage (4m high, 6m long). I cut and pasted the letters in Photoshop, they fit exactly 4.5 times.

That makes the size of the lower case letters about 1.3 meters. Not accounting for the error in perspective when looking at a ninety degree angle, which would make them appear somewhat shorter than they really are in comparison with the part in the middle. Anything wrong with this calculation?

I hope you can point out some error, otherwise I'll soon become arrogant and act superior for lack of adequate opponents ...

[RH]

32. Ridiculous

You cannot simply translate 4m high to 6m long!

It depends where upon the circle your object is. Above the fuselage it would be greatly foreshortened. To the side of the fuselage there would be no foreshortening. At about a quarter of the way around the foreshortening would be by a factor of about .7 (sin 45 degrees)

By my reckoning the letters on your picture (the scale of which is less than satisfactory) are 9 pixels high with white borders included, 7 pixels high without the white borders.

The cabin door on your picture is 17 or 18 pixels high.

According to Boeing the cabin door is 1.84 m. high (external measurement not internal opening)

With the top of the cabin door being at the same level, the letters would be similarly foreshortened. Allowing for some extra foreshortening the letters would be about 1 meter high.

[reorg]

34. LOL!!!

Did I "simply translate 4m into 6m"? I thought I laid it out pretty clear and simple. It was about as much math as I remembered from high school, but it was, obviously, enough to point out what you failed to see!

Where's the error, RH?

>It depends where upon the circle your object is. Above the fuselage it would be greatly foreshortened.<

Exactly, you are correct! That's what I pointed out to you, actually. The letters, on top of the fuselage, if viewed from the side at a ninety degree angle, appear shorter than they really are.

Try it. Cut and paste as I did with Photoshop or whatever image editor you may have. You will find the lower case letters fit 4.5 times into the height of the fuselage. And this is without taking into account this error of perspective.

The image resolution is really not of much concern here. Ever heard of the zoom feature?

The cabin door? Isn't it also warped? It is 1,84 m *high*, but this is not taking into account the actual length of the surface. The estimate of the source you try to discredit was about 2m. Are you saying he is wrong? On what basis, please explain?

Yes, to the naive observer the *height* of the lettering appears to fit two times into the *height* of the door. Take into account the warped surface and you get exactly the estimate of the source you tried to discredit.

You tried, but you failed, pathetically, I might add. Try again! LOL! Or admit, for once, that you may be wrong ...

[RH]

36. pathetic?

The height of the door is given by Boeing in the .pdf I previously cited.

As I pointed out, the top of the door is at the same level as the letters. The foreshortening of that would therefore be similar.

A zoom feature does not possibly compensate for a poor resolution to begin with.

There are much better images available. I have previoulsy measured the letters on several different images of much better resolutions and viewed form various angles.

I have also discussed this with Desmoulins who took no notice.

His estimate of the 'C' debris piece is also mistaken because of foreshortening; the item was not lined up square to the side of the heliport building, neither laterally nor vertically.

He did take notice when I pointed out a previous faux pas. He had supposed that the diameter of a B737 fuselage was smaller than that of a B757. That had been the original basis of his theory.

When shown the error he then changed his tune to "somebody painted the letters too small".

That's what I call pathetic!

:nopity:

[reorg]

40. perfect non-response

While I am greatly impressed with who you correspond with and whatever you may have discussed with them ...

Where is the error in my calculation?

How is the estimate of ca. 2m actual surface length of the door wrong when the *height* is 1.83m (height in your pdf file specifically being shown as direct distance from bottom to top WITHOUT taking into account the warped surface)?

How is it not possible to measure the *height* of the letters in the picture I provided? I've done it! It's easy! Try it! The resolution is good enough.

How did you reach a different conclusion? What images did you use?


You are not seriously discussing this, are you?

I am beginning to understand the frustration of many here. In a previous exchange I thought you may just be acting a little dense. But maybe the twit filter is the only solution to this problem.

Ah, and by the way, I am not even convinced that a B757 did NOT hit the Pentagon. Just trying to sort out the various arguments. Your contributions are not helpful in this endeavor.

[FannySS]

41. The debris fits quite well...

OK, I checked the site of Jean-Pierre Desmoulins. At first, I think he did not estimate the size of the debris well. If you compare it with the diameter of the pick-up-wheel, you should come to a height of the letter "c" (or whatever it is) of something between 80 cm and 100 cm. I commit, that this is not easy to estimate. The piece of debris might be twisted, so it could be more or less.

If you check the letter "c" now on the plane, obviosly RH is right. The circumference of the fuselage isn´t importend, because you see the letters almost vertical. So it is about 2/9 of the height, that means about 88 cm. Due to the fact, that you do not see it EXACTLY vertikal, it might be around 100 cm.

Of course there are some imponderabilities, but all in all, it is about 100 cm, and that is simple mathematics.

Fanny

[FannySS]

42. double-checking

Well, I doublechecked all the things once again. Look at the Boeing-site http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/aircompat/acaps/753sec2.pdf. Go to page 18. So you will see, that the door we see is only a service door, called "service door RH", (RH only means right hand here ...) This door only is 1,65 Meters high, not 1,84. So the small letters very clearly are arround 90 - 95 cm, but in no way 1,4 or 1,5 Meters!

So it is not RH, who has to admit, that he was wrong.

Fanny

[reorg]

46. RH in this case :-)

Thanks for pointing this out, hadn't noticed that.

[reorg]

44. not quite ...

I agree that the weak point in Desmoulins' argument is how he estimates the size of the scrap metal on the ground. Not only is it twisted, we do not exactly know the size of the point of reference - the tire of a small pick-up truck. Desmoulins assumes a radius of 20-30 cm.

He further assumes that the radius of the white edges on the a, the e and the n is about 60 centimeters (would make the total height of the letters probably a little larger than 1.20, maybe 1.30 m instead of 1.50). It is not clear to me, however, what part of what letter would correspond with the scrap metal.

Now, if we look at the picture with the tire and the scrap metal, it appears to me that what remains of the white outline may correspond in width with the width of the tire, maybe 60 cm, maybe a little less.

So all we can conclude is that some twisted, remaining outline of a letter may be about 40-60 cm wide, which doesn't get us anywhere.

My point of contention with RH is that he does not argue his case. He is playing little games of distraction, crowing about e. g. how obvious it is that Desmoulins is WAY off the mark with the size of the lettering, which he is not.

Yes, of course the circumference of the fuselage is important to measure that. You are wrong, the letters are not seen "almost vertical". I would think they are tilted at about 35-40 degrees, when looked upon from the side of the plane at a ninety degree angle.

If you look at the PDF you will find on page 15 a cross section where you can see that.

[QuietStorm]

49. why is this piece of scrap metal (I am just curious)

being compared to a Boeing 757. Are we under the impressiong that that piece of scrap metal all are arguing about was from flight 77?

BTW RH I have seen all the info on powerhouse months ago. This was argued on another forum. that piece of scrap metal could have been taken from anywhere. We really do not know where it came from.

Again this seems to be old news. I thought it was already established within the 9/11 circles that the boeing did not hit the Pentagon. So why is all this time being dispensed comparing this scrap to a boeing?

that is what I am having a problem understanding.

[reorg]

51. scrap

I think you are correct, the presence of these two pieces on the lawn is not really meaningful, they could have been planted, or painted on whatever crashed there, in original AA letter size or smaller.

Then, again, in an "anti-conspiracy" propaganda feature in German tv aired a few days ago, these alleged remains of the plane were brought up as important proof that the "conspiracy theorists" would never take into account findings that seem to contradict the claims of some of them, such as "no airplane parts were found". The reporter even took the trouble to make a trip to Washington. He interviewed the photographer of these images, who said he was there about half an hour after the crash and there was no possibility of them being planted, with all those people watching and so on.

So, yes, if it could be established that the parts do not fit, I think it could be used as an argument. Not sure if it is particularly relevant, though.

[QuietStorm]

64. yes but the photographer was interviewed then as well

It was presumed as far as I could see then that he was considered credible but is he? Has it been established whether or not he is working for anyone? Has germany actually checked him out thoroughly? was that feature don this TV show?

I did read dancing daves post regarding the upcoming trial and perhaps the defense raising the various conspiracy theories at trial to debunk the US claims so you points are well taken. However, I find I am also wondering

1- was this tv show RW propaganda you know the whole world seems to be leaning to the right an a might fascistic way these days, or

2- was this tv show put together by the defense team themselves. I just don't trust anything anymore.

But again if it is indeed true this guy did find these pieces on the lawn before the FBI cordoned it off as you know they pretty much took completely Jurisdiction of it and if you read the AAAR on after action there were some very obvious violations and strange inconsistencies within that document.

So much could have been jimmied is what I am saying the credibility of this photographer rather than his outward appearance and just his word is very important. Did the documentary or TV show convince you of this photographer credibility? Is another question that comes to mind.

[Abe Linkman]

94. please use punctuation. can't figure out what you're saying...

when you run phrases or sentences together. Also, please keep in mind that some of us don't know your idea of shorthand.

"Did the documentary or TV show convince you of this photographer credibility? Is another question that comes to mind."

I think I know what you're trying to say, but why do you want to make it so time-consuming to try and decipher your meaning?

[QuietStorm]

107. YOU know what

I want to make it time consuming? I find that interesting since most of what is being discussed here is REHASH. And rehash that is greatly impeded by so called investigators loaded up on tactic to railroad the discussion. And these so called investigators are actually being given credence.Talk about wasting time. So that would tell me. Many here enjoy wasting much time and most precisely, the time of others.

Now you can't decipher my meaning. And instead felt the need to point out punctuation (like those who seem to believe themselves so above others that point out spelling error, especially when in disagreement); it is not worth my time to restate my question. RH seemed to have grasped my question though he seems to think it is a cheap shot to question the credibility of the photographer.

Such is the investigation on DU's 9/11.

[RH]

54. within the 9/11 circles?

:eyes:

Your circles are obviously small.

Read the links.

The author of the website in question is convinced that an airliner hit the Pentagon but prefers to believe that the object was B737, not a B757.

[QuietStorm]

65. it's a small world after all

I have read many of the links ad nauseum I have read them. what is important is not necessarily what boeing but if it was flight 77. And based on most everything I have foddered through including most of the eyewitness accounts and audio accounts and eastman's theory which I should probably reread (as it always struck me as the most viable) and eric bart and on and on, and PT's timeline which probably has been updated since I read it, as well as fighting tooth and nail on 9/11 forums. ...

please to this day nothing and no one has convinced me when I consider everything I have gone through including the AAAR that a boeing 757 or 737 or a commercial liner carrying Flight 77 passengers hit the building AND the biggest sham of all the Pentagon stands behind which is there crappy security video WHICH basically proves that a boeing did not hit that building once you actually could finally make out the freaking aircraft and then to add insult to injury somewhere in the UK they out it as a fake that was doctored and they out it very convincingly.

SOOOOOOO

IF THE PENTAGON stands behind THAT video well in my book that PROVES TO ME they are lying through their teeth.

[RH]

75. PENTAGON stands behind THAT video?

When was that?

:freak:

When did the Pentagon ever stand behind it? (whoever 'the Pentagon' may be of the 30,000 or so who work there)

I have never yet even seen anything to authenticate the notion that it was a "video".

Original news items referred only to security acamera images, which may just as well mean single shots.

Furthermore I would have thought that a small number of people would be in any position to authenticate the material anyway. How would anybody possibly know if they did not actually handle the material at the outset?

It is very sad that people should hope to pass off such a lot of sloppy nonsense as critical thought.

:hurts:


A much more sensible line of enqury would be to wonder who exactly passed the images to the mass media, and according to what terms or motivation they did so.

[QuietStorm]

86. much has been written on this and you know it

because I know you know it. so best you back off.

[Abe Linkman]

95. Pentagon stands behind disinfo agents?

When did the Pentagon ever seek to deny the alleged authenticity of those forged images?

I have never yet even seen anything (from the Pentagon or the disinfo agents) to authenticate the notion it was not a work of forgery.

A much more sensible line of inquiry would be to wonder who exactly claims the images are authentic, besides PR/disinfo agents.

Does Ron Harvey, ballofboffin, and Sarah And a Blep think the images are cheap forgeries?

[QuietStorm]

98. That was my question

"I have never yet even seen anything (from the Pentagon or the disinfo agents) to authenticate the notion it was not a work of forgery."

neither have I. Hah it is Ron Harvey?

[RH]

113. cheap forgeries?

Without knowing the price, how would one form the opinion?

[Abe Linkman]

121. That's easy.

Your opinion would be shaped by your employer or sponsor if you accept the Official Story.

[RH]

133. Oh dear.

And everybody of course whose opinion may be any different must of course have an official sponsor.

:boring:

What an insight!

:eyes:

Not as if we'd heard anything like that ever before, is it?

:boring:

What astounding depth of reason!

:eyes:

What staggering originality!

:boring:

What an irrestably engaging argument.

:eyes:

Just can't wait to see what he does for an encore.

:boring:

[Abe Linkman]

56. THINK: who gains from diversionary tactics?

It sure isn't people who want to know what happened on 9/11 and who is responsible. Haven't you ever heard of disinformation? It has to get spread somehow. If I wanted to divert your time and energy away from crtically THINKING about what happened on 9/11, one way to do that would be to start a "discussion" about how the weather could have influenced the perceptions of witnesses that day. Get you wound up about the weather, so you don't spend time figuring out the important things.

[QuietStorm]

66. Please

I have gone down this path before I am not easily diverted by the PR crowd on this beat I have argued my fair share on forums in threads dedicated to the pentagon and flight 77. I was instrumental as in helped disprove the credibility of this sham amidst disinformation and idiocy of the highest order. Finally I burnt and haven't looked back in until now and COULD NOT BELIEVE we were back to that same piece of scrap metal and dissecting the measurements as to whether or not they fit that plane. I was under the impression the internet investigation had moved on since then. Is all.

I was not aware of this new German TV show regarding the photographer and I would like the questions that posed in the above link answered so I can ascertain. If you all insist this piece of scrap metal must be dissected once more.

perhaps you are right about it, because at one point I had to take a break from the pentagon and flight 77 forums as I got burnt out. It seems to me discrediting the photograher might also be another avenue here. unless we are all sure he is credible and not on the feds payroll.

[RH]

74. Ad hominem, the last refuge of a lost argument:

discrediting the photograher?

That's pathetic.

:eyes:

The same fragments of wreckage are to be seen in several other photos and in contemporaneous newsreel footage.

Can anybody name but one person there to see for themselves but nevertheless willing to waste any time on the possibility that any of the wreckage was planted?

[QuietStorm]

87. HA HA

you haven't move an inch from your game have you. the same old same old. I see. you get chased out of one place you find yourself in another and among much company just like yourself. HA HA how funny is this.

[RH]

43. seriously discussing this?

:eyes:

I was thinking the same.

If seriously concerned with the facts of the matter, why not look to better resources?

If you prefer to use your circumference method the question is then what part of the circumference the letters occupy. To reach a height of 1.5m they would have to cover 12.5 per cent of the full circumference, a 45 degree portion.

Agreed?

Now please look for instance at this picture and tell us if you still think this to be the case:



The portion is nowhere near to spanning a 45 degree angle.

Or to minimise the foreshortening issue please examine this:



The letters clearly cover about one qarter of the diameter, one sixth of the circumference, i.e. one meter.

[reorg]

45. nice little toy plane

- and how is this a better picture? Similar size, same resolution, awkward angle, misleading marks on top (slightly off centre). And how exactly did you determine that they "clearly" cover one sixth of the diameter? On a toy plane, that is?

[RH]

47. Look again.

A picture from above would presumably be better because the foreshortening of the lettering, being face on, is negligible. I would be curious to know what about that should be so imposible to appreciate.

I did not determine that they "clearly" cover one sixth of the diameter. :eyes: That is simply not what I wrote. "qater" should of course have read "quarter". Sorry about that.

Counting pixels vertically (in the second picture) the height of the 'C' letter is no more that 14 pixels and the fuselage diameter is at least 56 pixels, more like 58 pixels. One quater of the diameter (one sixth of the circumference) would therefore be a generous estimate and from that angle the fuselage diameter would be less than 4 meters across.

If the first picture failed to load, open it separately by pasting the link with brackets removed
{}

[FannySS]

48. letters

RH is almoust generous, 1 Meter is maximum. At all the others: Look again at the pictures postet in postings No. 12, 30, 43 and 47. Then note please, that the right hand door is only 1,65 meters in height.

WHAT DO YOU THINK NOW: HOW HIGH ARE THE SMALL LETTERS?

[reorg]

50. circumference

Sorry, I misstated, meant to say "circumference":

>The letters clearly cover about one qarter of the diameter, one sixth of the circumference, i.e. one meter.<

How did you determine that?

With my little cut-and-paste exercises I find they "clearly" fit about 2.5 times, not 3 times in one quarter of the diameter/circumference - even when using the image of your little toy plane with sprayed-on windows and so forth.

[RH]

52. Read again.

Counting pixels vertically (in the second picture) the height of the 'C' letter is no more that 14 pixels and the fuselage diameter is at least 56 pixels, more like 58 pixels. One quater of the diameter (one sixth of the circumference) would therefore be a generous estimate and from that angle the fuselage diameter would be less than 4 meters across.

Would there be any clearer way to state the same?

Or perhaps you would prefer to write to Boeing. This is tedious.


:boring:

[reorg]

53. no image

X

"Sorry, the page you requested was not found."

[RH]

55. image

remove the x from the end of the link.

here is another, high resolution photo:
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/400459/L/

[reorg]

62. calculation 2

In this picture:

fuselage height (two-dimensional): 126 pixel
height of "c" (two-dimensional): 29 pixel

actual height (two-dimensional): 4 m
makes the "c" (two-dimensional): 4 : 126 x 29 = 0.92 m

This by and large concurs with my earlier observation that the letters fit about 4.5 times in the height of the fuselage if viewed from a ninety degree angle.

Now adjusting for the warped surface of the almost perfect circle of the fuselage (see earlier calculation, 2 x 2 m x 3.14 ~ 12 m):

Viewing the side of the fuselage from a ninety degree angle, there would be no distortion of painted-on images at all (0% reduction of height) only right in the middle of the height of the fuselage, where the image would not be tilted at all (this point is about 10cm below the windows (see earlier quoted PDF for that).

The distortion of a painted-on image on the very top of the fuselage OTOH would appear to be 100%: you could actually see nothing at all.

Now, right in the middle between these two points, the distortion would be 50%, I guess. As I said earlier, I'm no mathematical genius but this seems to be a proper assumption. Anything wrong with that? This point is 3m above the bottom, 1m above the middle of the height of the fuselage.

The letters stretch from a point about 50 cm above the point of 0% distortion (10cm + ~40cm window height -- 25% of height of the upper half) to a point well above the middle between point of 0% distortion 100% distortion (50 cm + two-dimensional letter height of 92 cm = 1.42 m -- 71% of height of upper half).

I would guess the average distortion of the letters is the average of these two values 71% + 25% : 2 = 48%.

So we can adjust now to the actual surface length of the letters:

92cm + 0.92x48 = 136.16 cm


Just about what your French correspondent got with his rough (adjusted) estimate of 1.4 m or whatever it was.

[RH]

77. Math lesson.

"Now, right in the middle between these two points, the distortion would be 50%, I guess. As I said earlier, I'm no mathematical genius but this seems to be a proper assumption. Anything wrong with that?"

:eyes:

Yes. It is horribly wrong.

If, as would seem to be the case, "right in the middle" means a point that appears to be one quarter of the way across the vertical diameter (perspective disregarded) that equates in terms of the cross section of the fuselage to a segmental location 30 degrees above horizontal. {sin(30)=.5}

Applying the math {arcsin(.5)-arctan(.5)} the circumference up to that point, across that 30 degree arc, is therefore tilted at an average of 3.435 degrees away from vertical.

Applying the math again {cos(3.435)} the average forshortening foreshortening at that angle of tilt would be by a factor of .998, or in simpler terms, negligible.

At the actual point, with the slant at 30 degrees, the foreshortening would be cos(30)=.866

The estimate of .92 divided by that factor, strangely enough, then works out to be 1.062

As I suggested before, even at a higher point, one half of the way around the top quarter of the circumference, the tilt away from vertical is then 45 degrees and the foreshortening factor is therefore cos(45) which when rounded down equates to .7

The simpler method anyway is simply to estimate the arc of the moot cross section to be 30 degrees. Is that not fairly obvious without the more advanced mathematics?

[Abe Linkman]

97. Something else that is obvious to some of us here.

"Is that not fairly obvious without the more advanced mathematics?"

Does the above also apply to the question of whether or not the Government uses disinformation agents to cast doubt on legitimate investigations of what actually happened on 9/11?

[RH]

101. fairly obvious?

So it ought to be obvious that Abe Linkman is a disinfo agent, is that the point?

When was the last time the heckler came up with anything of any use or interest?

[Abe Linkman]

108. enough of the ad hominens, Ron

It's painful enough that your sole purpose appears to be one of providing cover and diversions. Are you seriously interested in knowing how the governments of bush and your Poodle operate, or not?

[RH]

115. how the governments operate.

:eyes:

When I want to know how a government operates I would usually ask a Chief Executive, a department director or whatever other relevant employee.

What is your position?

[Abe Linkman]

122. I would consult with someone who knows. Someone like...

yourself.

[RH]

126. from what I know

the pantomime laughingly known nowadays as "government" proceeds mainly by force of habit. No grand conspiracy. Nobody meaningfully in charge. It is only possible to control what one may have some hope to comprehend, which is usually f-all.

Corruption occurs not so much because of any force of ingenuity but rather because there was nobody around to take a blind bit of notice anyway.

Conspiracies of one sort or another operate everywhere but not so much because of any conscious effort, more because the sum total of incidental pressures push naturally in a certain direction.

Le plus ça change, etc.

[Abe Linkman]

129. What a powerful mind you have. Have you thought of PR work?

You might be good at it. You never can tell. You have managed to avoid the consequences of "incidental pressures pushing naturally in a certain direction" (OFFICIAL STORY), haven't you?

[crispy]

60. Trail of smoke in Pentagon crash pictures

First of all hello everyone, I'm new to these forums. I'm looking forward to exchanging ideas with you all about the Pentagon crash.

Now down to business:

I read through most of the Pentagon crash threads on the old DU forums and didn't see that the trail of smoke in the Pentagon crash photos was discussed much at all. I think it's a pretty important piece in the puzzle.

Here are the crash photos:

1) 2)
3) 4)
5)


Some have said that the white blur to the right of the rightmost pylon in photo 1 was the airplane itself. The ASCE's building performance study (BPS) team in The Pentagon Building Performance Report labels this white blur as the plane. I disagree.

In photo 2, a light gray trail of what seems to be smoke running to the base of the explosion is easily discernible. In photos 3, 4, and 5 the trail dissipates, rising slightly, and takes on a slightly darker hue. If we know that as time progresses, the smoke trail rises (due to its dissipation) and gets darker in hue; and if we assume that because in photo 2 the explosion has already begun, the smoke cloud in the same photo has already begun to dissipate, then we can apply this logic in reverse to what we would expect to see in photo 1 - a trail of smoke which was slightly lower than the trail in photo 2, and which was lighter in hue than light gray - i.e., white. This is exactly what we see when looking at the white blur to the right of the pylon in photo 1. Further confirmation is visible behind that pylon - what looks to be a tailfin and is thus most likely the plane.

What we can gather from all this is that the white blur in photo 1 is not the plane, but a trail of what is most likely smoke, which started out as white.

The question that follows from such a conclusion is: Under what circumstances does a Boeing 757 create a single white trail of smoke? Or is that not smoke?

I am looking forward to your replies.

[dick_eastman]

63. "Trail of smoke in Pentagon crash pictures" Reply: yes, critical evidence

"Crispy" introduces the five pictures released by the Pentagon in March of 2002.

I agree with Crispy's conclusion that the white that appears to the right of the yellow rectangular parking-ticket dispenser is a trail of white smoke. An enlargement shows that it is white material that has local convexities consistent with smoke and with nothing else. When Dave Bosankoe enlarged that area of the photo and aligned them serially for an animated effect, it becomes immediately obvious that the trail is smoke, that the smoke proceeds to the left in the second frame (although fainter, because for some reason the entire picute has less contrast.)

Clearly the smoke is being pulled into the explosion as the super heated air rises being replaced by the air around the crash site west of the wall. Crispy, please take a look at the Bosankoe animation and enlargement (not modifying any of the content of any picture) enlargment one at this page:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pentagon911/message/4

Pretty amazing! And the implication:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/3

I suspect your are going to find, with the advantage of aligned serial presentation of enlargement of the critical portion of these pictures that you will want to revise this statement: "In photos 3, 4, and 5 the trail dissipates, rising slightly, and takes on a slightly darker hue." The smoke is completely pulled into the explosion (by the vaccum created by the heated-air updraft) and is completely gone by frame 5 and perhaps by frame 4 (if "frame" is the proper word, I simply call them pictures.)

Notice the growing black shadow of the fire and smoke in frames 3,4 and 5 visible to the right of and behind the parking-pass machine in the forground.

This smoke trail is only consistent with a missile being fired from the wing of a jet fighter.

You have, I think, drawn the right conclusion about the amorphous creamy white not being the plane -- and from there you ask the appropriate next question:

" What we can gather from all this is that
the white blur in photo 1 is not the plane,
but a trail of what is most likely smoke,
which started out as white. The question
that follows from such a conclusion is:
Under what circumstances does a Boeing 757
create a single white trail of smoke? Or is
that not smoke?"

I show (in a photo in the first URL, above) what turbulence off the wing of a Boeing 757 looks like. And I show two photos of an air-to-ground missile being fired by an F-16. Did you not see at once the perfect match with the killer jet -- the comparative dimensions of the tail fine and the size and form of the missile trail?

And of course -- proceeding to the answer to your question -- is not the white-hot explosion that lights up the southwest wall like a gigantic flash bulb, only consistent with high-explosives delivered in missile warheads -- and not at all possible from an aluminum airliner hitting a concret, glass and walling with just jet fuel (kerosene that always burns red-orange -- as seen in pictures 3,4 and 5, but not in #2. It was this missile that knocked down a long section of first-floor wall centered on pillar #14.

And finally, for openers, there are pictures of debris that is merely confettii, rather than large discrete airplane parts -- tiny shards that is consistent with the blasted caseing of a missile after the warhead has detonated -- the casing blown to smitherines. This too is not what is found in airliner crashes.

There are many other items that need to be taken into account -- but your have isolated one of the most important.

The ot
I would like your comments on this and then, if you are willing crispy, for the benefit of DU discussants for whom all this is new, let us examin the tail fin visible above and behind the parking-pass dispenser pillar. I will show you why, if that tail fin had belonged to a Boeing 757, why a shiny aluminum AA fusleage would have to be seen prjecting out from the left and behind the yellow foreground (because a Boeing 757 is long enough for almost seven of its tail fins to be lined along its back, Stegosaurus-style, while this pillar only conceals about five tail fins of length. (But I get ahead too soon.)

I look forward to hearing from you again Crispy, and everyone else -- and I mean everyone!

Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington







On the ASCE Report please look at these summary of implications:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/33

[QuietStorm]

67. I really do feel as if I am in some nightmarish deja vu

was not the security video frames convincingly debunked as doctored and therefore frauds. Why are they still being used? I took a break on this and had not been on it as long as some that were on it long before I got into the act. but be the time I burnt I was under the impression that these security vids were FAKE.

SIGH... I GUESS i have to re read everything now... are you eastman of the eastman theory I keep insisting is the most viable theory in terms of those two planes one potentially a decoy to set up a boeing was in the sky that day, with the variance of the eyewit acounts correlating to their location. that made a hell of alot of sense and it certain does help explain that there seemed to be two approaches mapped out by some of the mainstream mags at the time.

are you that eastman?

[acerbic]

69. Dickhead Yeastman of this most freepy theory:

"I have long been convinced that Hillary Clinton was behind the Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman murders that created the distraction the night before the very day Hillary became the first First Lady to testify in a criminal investigation. I also know that she was involved in serious economic crime when she received criminal payment for corrupt services in the form of a million-to-one (i.e. impossible to come by honestly) illegally manipulated first-timer bonanza killing in the commodities futures speculation. Also, that she had one of the Secret Service men she detested, a man who might have heard too much, transferred to Okalahoma city -- to perish in the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building there, even as the drug-trade-dealing BATF chose to be away from the office that day. And there is the Vince Foster murder. If Mrs. Olsen is in the hands of Hillary Clinton and her associates now, I am sure she would much rather be in the Atlantic trench."
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/not_crashed.htm

Why don't you get a real love fest on by going and stuffing your "most viable theories" in each other's...

[QuietStorm]

71. I had stumbled across the Hillary theory

I did not pay it much attention and at the time did not notice the author, however at present it does not concern me because the two plane theory is viable. and we still do not know if anything did actually crash on runway 1-19 at ronald reagan airport. At least I have yet to encounter any investigation or explanation regarding the claim that there WAS an earlier report of a crash on runway 1-19 at RRNA, that pleases me.

Werdygo has never yet been hypothesized in a way that I have been convinced of where the plane went or even been prompted to offer hypothesis of my own. That remains a mystery to me. I do know that it's tracking back from ohio was very sketchy in comparison to the graphs of the route drawn on the other planes that day. Radar in the DC area was extraordinarily scrambled it seems to me.

Sorry Acerbic Flight 77 did not hit the pentagon not as far as I can see. But what has always stuck in my mind was the initial report of crash on runway 1-19 and it was reported in two places the AAAR as well as an article which also stated that the Tower was concerned about a missing boeing.

As to your revilement of the hillary theory I do agree it is in the Xfiles zone.

but that still does not discredit the worthiness of eastman's two plane theory. It does explain the variance in the eyewits. I am also not sure if you recognize the power of the CFR and perhaps you are not one for entertaining speculation in regards to elitist organizations the likes of the Bilderbergs, few are.

As for lovefests, I find lately that I encounter so many people that haven't a clue what they are talking about these days that rarely do I find myself easily turned on for any fests along those lines. Most I encounter do not even know about the PNAC yet they offer their opinions based on fox news entertainment and whatever newspaper they happen to enjoy reading and refuse to even read anything else.

Do they allow the type of rudeness you just displayed on this forum? Would be my most pressing question to you.

[crispy]

80. Re: "I really do feel as if I am in some nightmarish deja vu"

> was not the security video frames convincingly debunked as doctored and
> therefore frauds. Why are they still being used? I took a break on this and had
> not been on it as long as some that were on it long before I got into the act.
> but be the time I burnt I was under the impression that these security vids were FAKE.

I am not aware of such a conclusion being drawn. Can you provide some details, or at least some arguments as to why people would conclude that the images were fake?

One reason I think the images are authentic is that parts of the pictures are corroborated by witness testimony. With regard to the trail of smoke, Lt. Col. Victor Correa noticed that the fireball had "a wind-cloud of smoke trailing it." Other witnesses probably saw the trail of smoke and confused it with dust kicked up by a supposed collision with the ground. Other witnesses noted a silvery flash right before the ball of fire, and this also corroborates the authenticity of the images.

[QuietStorm]

85. edit below.

[QuietStorm]

90. MEDIA RELEASES FAKED PHOTOGRAPHS OF FLIGHT 77

first came the photo sequences released to MSNBC then

A british sight dissected the vid frame by frame :

this was an explanation that helped us actually see the plane which as you can see even blown up looks nothing like a boeing

http://digitalsword.co.uk/impactvideo.htm

MOre time passed and then came this.

then came
http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1188

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_539043.html?menu=news.latestheadlines

[crispy]

93. Re: "MEDIA RELEASES FAKED PHOTOGRAPHS OF FLIGHT 77"

Those first two articles contain some pretty bad logical errors.

Both articles talk about how the outline of the shadow on the ground isn't natural and therefore is evidence that the photos were fabricated or touched up. But you can't really make such a judgment about photos that have obviously been compressed so much. Maybe the JPEG compression messed it up. Maybe the photos were touched up, but only to use the "sharpen" tool in Photoshop to make the photos look better for display in the media. That would explain the shadow and how odd the plane in photo 1 looks.

The first article talks about how the camera should have taken higher quality pictures. Are the cameras really supposed to be recording what goes on hundreds of feet away, or are they there to keep track of who goes in and out of the Pentagon grounds?

The second article says:
> Notice that, both of these pictures (which quite clearly did not occur at the same time) have the same (wrong) time stamp.

So?


> Notice that, in the "impact" picture, the intense light source of the explosion does not cast any shadows of its own.
> In particular, the parking control structure does not have a (fainter) second shadow.

Who says it's an intense light source? The white flash is a "mass of water vapor" due to the "vaporization of the water contained in the ambient air at the beginning of the deployment in the atmosphere of a supersonic shockwave of detonating material" according to French military expert Pierre-Henri Bunel. (Pentagate p. 73-74)


> Notice also that in the "impact" picture, the Pentagon wall is much brighter than in the other photos. The forger
> seems to have realized that the explosion would light up the entire Pentagon wall (but overlooked the fact that
> it would cast shadows of its own). He has tried to imitate the flash of the blast by increasing the brightness of
> the entire picture, unfortunately for him, this also increased the brightness of the areas that should still be in shadow
> (and thus darker). For example, the sides of the parking control structures facing the camera have also increased in brightness.

Or maybe it's because of the video camera's contrast adjustment in reaction to the huge white flash.


> In the photo labeled "plane" we are meant to be able to see the tail of the Boeing 757 just above the larger of the
> parking control structures. As has been pointed out by many, this is either the tail of a much smaller plane, or a complete
> fabrication (the second being my belief).

Maybe it's the tail of a smaller plane. Or not a tail at all.


> Notice that, the "impact" picture has clearly been touched up. Notice that, the green tinge on the left has been
> partly (and amateurishly) erased and that the top left corner has probably been erased. These areas have been outlined in
> blue. It is possible that the effect in the top left corner is due to over exposure, caused by the sun, but then, why is
> this effect not visible in the photos taken just before and just after this one.

Maybe it's not visible in the first and visible in the rest because only AFTER the explosion did the camera adjust its contrast.


> Notice that, in the remaining photos the fireball has increased in size, but somehow it has managed to shrink back behind
> the heliport control tower, and leave it in shadow.

This guy isn't too bright. The fireball increased in size at the TOP but decreased at the bottom. Hasn't the guy ever seen a mushroom cloud?

And then the guy goes through and tries to show how the explosion shouldn't have been visible behind the heliport control tower because *he didn't think* the explosion would reach that far. Well as our French military expert Bunel tells us, the explosion likely propagated down the corridors, which could explain the fireball being "far away" from the impact point.

I am not saying definitively the images are *not* fraudulent, but those two articles certainly did not prove that they are.

[QuietStorm]

96. It is really simple

I am a graphic designer I work with compression eps, tiffs, picts, pdf, jpegs, ping, no shadow will be outlined to that degree. and if you really look closely at the sky and how it edges to the building toward the horizon it does seem to be painted in. Why too solid a blue and why to consistent a color of blue as it goes from the foregroundto the photo an into the horizon.

look at the photo closely the one with rummy and powell and compare it to anyone of the frames from the MSNBC photos. It does begin to look like quite a digital mockery. complete fraud I can not say but a too many questions are raised.

If you look at the link from dragonsword - even if you take the video at face value in the british link where the blow up where the plane is so one can finally actually see it, it looks NOTHING like a boeing. It looks to have TOO MANY ANGLES OR CURVES in the hull rather than it being sleek like the passenger hull of the boeing.

nothing personal but so far what I have seen within these discussions is devolutions. The aim of most here seems to be unraveling investigation. I do not grasp that there are is what I would call 911 investigating going on. What I see here is more are interested in defending the official story.

For the most part what is being discussed here so far that I can see is REHASH - old news.

[crispy]

100. Re: "It is really simple"

> look at the photo closely the one with rummy and powell and compare it to anyone of the frames from the MSNBC photos.
> It does begin to look like quite a digital mockery. complete fraud I can not say but a too many questions are raised.

The camera is meant to take close-up pictures to monitor who enters and leaves the Pentagon area. Look behind Rumsfeld to far away - pretty blurry, eh? If you added JPEG compression to that photo, I bet it'd look just like the Pentagon crash photos. Matter of fact I'm going to go do that now.

Edit: Actually, first I'd like to know how you know that picture came from the Pentagon security camera.

> and if you really look closely at the sky and how it edges to the building toward the horizon it does seem to be painted in.
> Why too solid a blue and why to consistent a color of blue as it goes from the foregroundto the photo an into the horizon.

The same kind of sky is visible in one of Riskus' photos.
http://criticalthrash.com/terror/P1010011.JP(G)


> It looks to have TOO MANY ANGLES OR CURVES in the hull rather than it being sleek like the passenger hull of the boeing.

You're assuming it was a Boeing.

[crispy]

103. Correction

Woops, after rereading the second article it says the picture was taken from a 35mm camera, not the security camera. My mistake.

[QuietStorm]

114. crispy

please understand the observations I am making in my post to you below are not personal to you. Instead, they are the impression this particular forum has given me. I will say this: DU should be very grateful the 9/11 forum is not at all representative of the quality of debate one can find here at DU. If it was DU would have serious credibility problems regarding those that participate regularly, as the impression I have thus far, is not the best as first impressions go.

[QuietStorm]

112. No I not assuming it was a boeing

and I am not interested in arguing whether the series of photos that were alleged to have come from the Pentagon security camera (which the Pentagon never disputed as having come from the DoD security camera. Not that I know of), are fake or real.

I don't need mathematical equations regarding explosion heights and widths to ascertain that the 4 or 5 frames named the "series of photos", which we were led to believe came from the DoD security video , which were discussed in this misleading manner by MSNBC, are highly questionable.

As to the craft that becomes evident on one of the questionable frames or pictures that dragonsword has blow up for us so that we can ACTUALLY see a craft. If you notice it is has all these rounded edges. It even at that poor quality in no way resembles a boeing or a commercial liner.

I have already participated on another forum wherein these photos were discussed ad nauseum. What I am responding to is that they and other issues have already been discussed ad nauseum. So I wonder WHY IS IT they are still being discussed and still being refuted with the same ineffectual objections that did not seem to succeed back months ago. In other words all genunine investigative queries seems to have come to stand still here on DU 9/11, so far as I can tell.

In order to spend so much time discussing anything in regards to any photo, the credibility of the photo must be verified. If not verified any discussion regarding the photos could be a waste of time. That is my opinion. Once any avenue has been hammered to death, it behooves investigators to than move on to other quanderies that have not been given as much attention.

Like the strange report of a crash on runway 1-19 and all the strange discrepancies that are evident in the AAAR to name one. And who was that anonymous relay team that drove 30 hours straight from texas. And what was that other fire in rosyln all about? That is just to name some off the top of my head.

These and countless other avenues have generally been left by the wayside (or ignored outright - like it seems is Eastman's viable two plane theory) by so called investigators who go from forum to forum only to argue what they finally could no longer GET AWAY WITH ARGUING on the site from which they last came. They only move on to another forum just to rehash what didn't fly before and by way of discrediting the genuine considerations and thoughts of other investigators with whom they do not agree. That is what I observe going on here. Not really an investation at all.

Me thinks investigators is a word thrown around loosely. The link you placed does not work {NOT FOUND}.

[Abe Linkman]

99. Pretty good. You're hired.

Those witnesses are very handy, aren't they? Seems there was enough of them to use to corroborate any theory and debunk any pesky ideas that might conflict with the official version.

Have you found any to support the Olson phone calls fairy tale?

[crispy]

102. Re: "Pretty good. You're hired."

Huh? I didn't really get your point. If you are trying to say that I am defending the official story by saying there is no good reason to doubt the authenticity of the photos, you're a bit off. The photos BLATANTLY contradict the official story, which is why their authenticity is paramount.

[QuietStorm]

116. parts of the picture are corroborated by witness testimony

there are hundreds of witnesses that have given testamony, and many conflict with one another.

also the security video pictures do give an overall impression of athenticity. So witness corroboration with parts of the video is somewhat moot. It doesn't necessarily have any baring on authencity.

On Edit: Abe Linkman also raises a viable rebuttal: to say it simple-witness can come at a dime a dozen. They can be lead or prompted to say whatever is needed. Again, just a handpicked group of eyewits does not establish authencity.

[crispy]

117. Re: "parts of the picture are corroborated by witness testimony"

> also the security video pictures do give an overall impression of athenticity so witness corroboration with parts of the video
> is somewhat moot as indication that the series of videos are authentic.
> On Edit: Abe Linkman also raises a viable rebuttal: to say it simple-witness can come at a dime a dozen. They can
> be lead or prompted to say whatever is needed. Again, just a handpicked group of eyewits does not establish authencity.

I am not saying that the photos are authentic because of the witnesses. I agree with you that witness accounts can be tailored to many situations. But we are talking about the trail of smoke in the photos. If people suggest that the photos are fabrications in order to discredit the idea of a trail of smoke then my observations as to what witnesses saw in regard to the trail of smoke are quite relevant.

[QuietStorm]

119. but that is the point.

It seems there is question as to the authenticity of the series of photos. My question would be (even though I was impressed by Eastman's explanation regarding the missile stream). IF these series of photos have been completely doctored or even somewhat doctored one could argue that this stream you focus on was manipulated even incidentally when the doctoring of the video pics took place. If that is so all this time is being spent on a missile stream that while it might have been present, it might have repixelated during doctoring, which would than have altered it from it's original state.

Do you see what I mean? And again I do remember reading through back several months go arguments on missile streams that never seemed to pan one way or the other. This too is rehash to some extent. There has to be a more productive way to proceed with investigations. I don't mind review and rehash if there is a reason to review the matter.

In this case where the full authencity of the photo is questioned, and it seems it has yet not been established whether the photos ARE INDEED authentic, it would seem to me that time would be best spent on another aspect of the Pentagon investigation that poses questions or suspicions.

Like the points I have now raised several times to which only one person has responded (and that was via PM).

[crispy]

125. Re: "but that is the point."

> In this case where the full authencity of the photo is questioned, and it seems it has yet not been established whether
> the photos ARE INDEED authentic, it would seem to me that time would be best spent on another aspect of the Pentagon
> investigation that poses questions or suspicions.

I agree. However, I think we can still gain something from talking about the trail of smoke, at least by talking about it in a certain way. For instance we could, for the sake of argument, assume that the photos are authentic. If we can rule out the possibility that a Boeing 757 caused that white trail of smoke, then the 757 camp has no choice but to say the photos are fabricated. I think that would be a pretty significant conclusion.

My question still hasn't been answered satisfactorily. Under what circumstances could a Boeing 757 create a single trail of white smoke?

[Abe Linkman]

130. "They" are not yet authorized to accept FL 77 didn't cause smoke.

So, expect them to claim it was anything but smoke. Or, that if it was smoke, it wasn't from the Boeing (someone smoking a cigarette out there?).

Your logic won't be answered with logic, because you are right on the money, and "they" know it.

I admire your ability to think critically.

[QuietStorm]

138. I do not have a problem with that

whether or not a boeing could cause that white trail of smoke is a reasonable question to rule out a boeing skated across that lawn.

Please if you would look at the enlargement of the CRAFT again.

http://digitalsword.co.uk/impactvideo.htm

does that look like a boeing to you. Couldn't you even discribe it as a cumulus cloudy like stream as well. That is suppose to be the boeing. What do you think?

[QuietStorm]

141. Also you are in disagreement with Eastman's

account of it being a missile tread. I am not clear on that.

I can not speak on missile trials. When it comes to all the mathematical wind velocity trajectory lampost angle stuff. I am not your man.

However, from a common sense standpoint, I can not imagine that a boeing would leave ONE smoke tread. How many engines does it have? 2. 4? One would assume unless all but one engine is out it would leave more than one smoke tread (I speak just of the top of my head).

I am not sure a F-16 would only trail one smoke tread either. NOW a missile THAT WOULD TREAD ONE SMOKE TRAIL.

But the stuff about the heat sucking in the trail and like that: I am useless for discussion of that nature.

[crispy]

151. Re: "Also you are in disagreement with Eastman's"

> Also you are in disagreement with Eastman's account of it being a missile tread.

Missile tread? What's that?


Some have talked about how the white trail could be the turbulence coming off the wings caused by pressure differentials. This is not true. If it were, there would be two trails 125 feet apart. Then one might say that because we are looking from the side, there might be two trails there and we only see one. BUT we know from witness accounts and the ASCE's BPS team that the plane's wings were at an angle, left wing down, right wing up. Therefore we would have seen two distinct trails, one higher, one lower.

The only explanation I can think of is that the trail of smoke came from a missile.





I am thinking we should start a new Pentagon thread sometime soon, this is getting to be a bit long. :shrug:

[RH]

127. Provenance.

To consider authenticity you have to consider provenance.

Who put the material into the hands of the mass media last year, upon what terms was that done (pro bono or for whatever consideration) and where exactly therefore did the stuff come from to begin with? Whose hands did it pass through, especially at origin?

Better quality, higher resolution versions presumably exist. Even a poor quality digital camera stores images of far better quality than the heavily compressed versions so far banded about on the internet.

It is pathetic to have made so much of a fuss over it all but with so little effort to get back to the source. OK perhaps for play school but not for a serious criminal investigation.

[Abe Linkman]

131. Yes, RH - a real, serious investigation IS in order

Speaking of provenance and such, what have you done to demand proof that those images are legitimate? Who have you contacted to demand release of the images from the service station? What did they give you as a reason for why that video is unsuitable for the public to see?

[RH]

134. Done.

Before putting the energy into the issue that some others have seen fit to, I most certainly would have wanted better material. In the mean time I have had greater priorities to pursue.

I did discuss the issue with Dave Bosankoe more than a year ago. He eventually agreed with me, deciding that it was pointless to put any more work into it for want of better material.

I also discussed the issue with Steve Myers who had also invested some considerable effort, further to the speculation. He wrote to the Pentagon but to no useful avail.

To pursue the matter further I would suggest to contact somebody such as Wanda Ramey who used to work with the camera at the Pentagon.
While residing in another part of the World, I am not best placed to make such arrangements, nor to pursue the FBI. Nor was Dave Bosankoe.

Service station cameras are set up to examine events in the same vicinity, not in the sky beyond. But that I have other things to do there would be no shortage of rainbows to chase.

And you, sir?

What have you done to demand proof?

[Abe Linkman]

135. I'm busy too, RH. Besides you have...

obviously got connections that I don't have. It must be very personally disappointing and embarassing that not one of your efforts came to any frutition. Inexplicable.

That's too bad. I was really counting on you.

[QuietStorm]

139. did anyone get the make on the security camera at the DoD

in this link

http://digitalsword.co.uk/impactvideo.htm

I beleive the make is speculated. based on the assessment that it shot at 60 fpm

You are so so so professional RH - did you happen to ask anyone what the make of the DoD security video is. We have been down this road before. Yes you are the best of the best you have made that clear. Acuity and deductive reasoning however seem aimed at debunking and distracting in an effort to argue the governments case. Of course this could be your style of investigation. However, it seemed to me what it is you tend to like to prove is how much better an investigator you are than everyone else around you.

funny how it is you are still arguing some of the same points. There are so many other questions to answer. How is it I come and find you arguing about that same piece of scrap metal that you were arguing about 4 months ago?

If you intend to dish out insult with regularity you must expect to be insulted back. I never stated I was a journalist, an investigator, or anyone wholier than thou. I had concerns. I still have concerns. the concerns I have would require field work. You know going out into the field. question Defina, skipper, wallace (whose Identification of that friggin craft has never been consistent from one account to the other)

reading over and over the witnesses statements. What was up with that fire in rosyln. Any one find out the address. Ask anyone in that building if there was a fire as stated in the AAAR. Or if a unit showed up that day. Or even for that matter was there a highrise or was it just fiction.

No instead it seemed and seems to me you take everything at face value with no sense of investigation at all. Collecting information is only part of the game, deciphering and interpreting it with acuity is another aspect.

but instead you choice to spend your time insulting the posters around you and remain feeling so proud of yourself still arguing over that scrap metal we still do not even know was found on that lawn or brought to that lawn.

do you know the area was immediately cordoned off even rescue was kept out till 1 or 2 but for the fire crew's ems. Where in the world did riskus come from. How did he manage to take pictures from the lawn? who is he? Do we know anything about him. A yes or no will do RH.

[RH]

156. the make on the security camera

would hardly be the issue.

Any reasonably quality machine ought to be able to be set up to take shots according to all sorts of requirements, frequent, infrequent, or possibly trigged by an external sensor.

The need would rather be to consult with those who set it up.

Did I ever say that anybody in particular was a journalist, an investigator, or anyone else?

Your ad homimens, as usual, are of no use or interest to me.

[QuietStorm]

140. Speaking of Alan Wallace (another inconsistency in the AAAR)

Which you placed on forum way back. Never listed any of the bizarre inconsistency then. No you were most concerned with the gov's damage assessments at that point. Probably didn't read anything else. Of course I infer.

Alan Wallace, we all know about him correct? several newspaper accounts of what he saw right there no ground zero, interesting his account varied from one to the other. The work is on another forum. This has already been noted and sited. This didn't interest you at the time.

However, I just ran across another account a year later September 2002. At this time he states boeing 757 or an airbus. Intererstingly though. He also states he was the one that called the explosion in. I found that interesting because in the AAAR it is stated that it was his Captain who made the call not Alan Wallace. The AAAR states Captain Gilroy called the explosion in.

Why a year later would Alan Wallace state in a news story that it was HE that made the call? Have any idea?

[RH]

158. "the one that called the explosion in"?

What do you mean, "the one that called the explosion in"?

Was it not the case that Gilroy and Wallace called in to different respondents?

Not inconsistent; consistent with their own particular positions and responsibilities.

Several people in several vicinities called in to several different contacts.

Sime reports had it that people were already on the phone at the time, reporting the details as it happened.

[QuietStorm]

137. who said I was a criminal investigator

I can not say your work has proven paydirt especially the way you've been snuggling up to the official story all this time.

[RH]

155. official story

:eyes:

:boring:

[QuietStorm]

68. well that missile smoke that you can see I believe

it is in the foreground of the doctored pentagon security vid, is pretty amazing in fact you can see that a hellavot easier than that strange craft they probably digitally drew in there.

hmmmmm.... very amazing that faint line of missile smoke eh?

at least I hope that is what you were pointing out because I must say seeing it has given me a sense of relief.

Now I must read on because that is as far as I got in your post. as of my earlier rant I posted to you I hadn't seen your post. So it seems the Pentagon security video though outted as doctored might actually show us something.... what accounts for the wrong date stamp though the pentagon is so disorganized they can not even set the date on their security video correctly.

[crispy]

81. Re: ""Trail of smoke in Pentagon crash pictures" Reply: yes, critical evid

> I show (in a photo in the first URL, above) what turbulence off the wing of a Boeing 757 looks like.

The image you linked to was broken, unfortunately.


> I suspect your are going to find, with the advantage of aligned serial presentation of
> enlargement of the critical portion of these pictures that you will want to revise this
> statement: "In photos 3, 4, and 5 the trail dissipates, rising slightly, and takes on a
> slightly darker hue." The smoke is completely pulled into the explosion (by the vaccum
> created by the heated-air updraft) and is completely gone by frame 5 and perhaps by frame 4
> (if "frame" is the proper word, I simply call them pictures.)

Can you explain why I would want to revise my statement? When I said the trail of smoke took on a darker hue, I simply meant that it appeared that way because of its dissipation. And can you back up your statement about why the smoke is pulled into the explosion with some sort of scientific evidence? Maybe a link explaining such a thing?


> And I show two photos of an air-to-ground missile being fired by an F-16. Did you
> not see at once the perfect match with the killer jet -- the comparative dimensions
> of the tail fine and the size and form of the missile trail?

While at this point I do think that a military jet fired a missile, I am quite sure it could not have been an F-16, which has a wingspan of ~35 feet. As Ron Harvey's light pole analysis shows, the plane had to have a minimum of (by my calculation) 95 foot wingspan. Think: if you were a government conspirator, you would want to paint up a fighter that looked more like a Boeing than an F-16. I don't see how any moron could confuse the F-16 with a Boeing, even if it were painted in the AA colors.


> I will show you why, if that tail fin had belonged to a Boeing 757, why a shiny aluminum
> AA fusleage would have to be seen prjecting out from the left and behind the yellow foreground
> (because a Boeing 757 is long enough for almost seven of its tail fins to be lined along its
> back, Stegosaurus-style, while this pillar only conceals about five tail fins of length.

Well, do you take into account the fact that the plane was at a ~42 degree angle? I don't see how lining tails up stegosaurus-style would prove anything, even if you could account for such things as spatial distortion due to the camera lens, etc.

[RH]

72. Collision.

The question that follows from such a conclusion is: Under what circumstances does a Boeing 757 create a single white trail of smoke? Or is that not smoke?


The plane hit five lamp poles.
http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/poles_.htm

The second lamp pole would have been close to one engine, probably hit by the outside of the engine nacelle.

What then do you think would happen when parts of a lamp get into an engine?

[crispy]

78. Re: "Collision."

> What then do you think would happen when parts of a lamp
> get into an engine?

Please tell me, what does happen when parts of a lamp get into an engine? I've never heard of that happening.


> The second lamp pole would have been close to one engine,
> probably hit by the outside of the engine nacelle.

The second pole was pretty far away from the facade.



If the engine had begun smoking after colliding with the second pole, I think more witnesses would have noticed the trail of smoke. As it stands, I have found only one witness who mentioned the trail of smoke and called it for what it was. Lt. Col. Victor Correa said that the fireball had "a wind-cloud of smoke trailing it." Now many witnesses thought the plane hit the ground first (I have an explanation for that which I can share later) so they probably thought the trail of smoke was dirt kicked up by the impact with the ground. Now if the engine had begun smoking as a result of collision with the second pole, I doubt people would have confused it with dirt, because the plane wouldn't have impacted the ground until much closer to the facade than the second pole.

It would be helpful if we had a detailed picture of the second pole damage so we could definitively rule it out, but we don't. On your website, you don't include any image of the damaged second pole, just a picture of the replaced pole. On Eric Bart's site, there are two pictures but they are both from quite a distance away.


I'd really need to see some evidence or hear a more plausible explanation if I'm to believe that the trail of smoke was caused by collision with the second light pole.

[RH]

104. what does happen when parts of a lamp get into an engine?

I don't know.

The supposed 'smoke' was perhaps uncombusted fuel vapour or it could be something else completely different. I have never yet seen an image with a good enough resolution to tell.

In photos taken soon after the event the only traces of smoke in the vicinity are those drifting about further to the north, around the heliport. In that respect the blast from the impact would also have to be taken into consideration.

There were other things that the witnesses failed to mention. No report I have seen said anything about a tree that had stood in front of the building, demolished by the impact.

Some witnesses said that one wing appeared to hit the ground or scraped the ground. That may have been the impression gained by the plane beginning tto go into a flat spin after hitting the poles. Whichever was the case, it must have levelled off to some extent after hitting the poles. The trajectory taking it to the poles would have taken it on towards the lawn in front of the building rather than straight into the building.

Questions thus arise as to how the plane was flown, and with what purpose.

[Abe Linkman]

105. questions aren't the answer.

Does anyone here except other members of your choir believe the government would release evidence in its possession (video from the gas station, e.g.) if it didn't substantiate the official story?

[RH]

118. if it didn't substantiate the official story?

:eyes:

Photographs alleged to demonstrate that the hole in the Pentagon was too small were released by the government.

[QuietStorm]

145. now you say the hole is too small?

or are you saying that the hole is alleged to be too small. Yes they did release those photos that is true, but the hole is too small and from what I understand one or two passenger seats were recovered from the "wreckage" with lime green seat covering? What commercial liner do you know has lime green seat covering? more disinformation I picked up off another site. So interesting on the reverb how the stuff gets respun. Isn't it?

They released the AAAR too. and that mentions an INITIAL CRASH on runway 1-19 which was quickly amended to designate the crash site as the pentagon. Gee! why in the world would a call come in regarding a crash on runway 1-19 to even have to be amended? It is the only explanation I can come up with why it was included in the report. An initial call must have come across the wires regarding a crash on that runway. If not it would not have been mentioned at all. Why do you suppose a call like that went out which was than quickly amended. Interestingly the AAAR does not mention where the call came from.

[acerbic]

147. Disinformation indeed...

...but WHO is spreading it? :think:

from what I understand one or two passenger seats were recovered from the "wreckage" with lime green seat covering? What commercial liner do you know has lime green seat covering? more disinformation I picked up off another site.

By all means show where you got that "lime green seat covering" that you go on and on about: what site? Who's making up stuff about "lime green seat covering"? Is it some (other) hired guvmint disinformation agent or just you...?

[QuietStorm]

148. aren't you helpful

I pose a number of questions and you jump in on lime - green seats??

which I have not been going on and on about. I have been going on and on about the AAAR.

do your homework!

[RH]

157. why would a call be amended?

:eyes:

Because it was wrong.



Re. passenger seats ask American Airlines, or anybody around who usually flew in N644AA.

[QuietStorm]

144. once again we covered this

this HAS been covered. The gas station video was confiscated. FTR: No I do not believe the government would release evidence in its possession if it didn't substantiate the official story.

In fact what the government seems to have proven in action is that they will FALSIFY evidence if need be and than INVADE another country based on that FALSIFICATION. Then of course they will DENY that anyone knew of the falisfication. Someone commits suicide over this and somehow the story gets lost in the shuffle and the DEMOCRATS have nothing really insight to offer on the matter.

That said, in regard to the governments official story I would than ask WHAT EVIDENCE?

[RH]

159. would than ask WHAT EVIDENCE?

This HAS been covered ..... :eyes:

:boring;

[RH]

73. missile smoke?

Then tell us why there is not the slightest trace of the supposed missile smoke in any of the photos thst Steve Riskus took very soon after the event.

What sort of missile smoke immediately vanishes?

[crispy]

79. Re: "missile smoke?"

> Then tell us why there is not the slightest trace of the
> supposed missile smoke in any of the photos thst Steve
> Riskus took very soon after the event.

I would assume because it dissipated.


> What sort of missile smoke immediately vanishes?

What sort of missile smoke doesn't? I don't know anything about the characteristics of smoke from a propulsion unit of a missile, do you? If you do, please post any information you have.

[dick_eastman]

84. "Re: "missile smoke?"" Riskus camera came out of car much too late

Hello Crispy,

The smoke trail left by the missile did not dissipate at the location where you first see it. Again, look at the second picture in the serial sequence and the thrid and you will see that, as I said above, the plume was pulled quickly toward the crash by the vaccuum created by the rapid rising of super-heated air. See how from frame one to frame two the smoke is pulled from the right to the left of the image of the parking-pass tower in the foreground -- and some of tfaintness is due to the fact that there is much less contrast in the second picture, presumably due to the camera's reaction to the sudden brightness of the flash.

Also there is less contrast in the second, third and fourth pictues than in the first.

Please, as I above recommended, look at the Bosankoe enlargement and super-imposed serial aligned presentation of these pictures -- to see where the smoke goes. And please not the very big enlargement of the smoke that is also shown on this page.

And for those who disagree with Crispy -- what do you say is the cause of the white visible to the right of the parking-pass tower in the first picture -- that is behind the tail fin -- that is exactly in line with the smoke that is seen to the left of the pillar in picture #3?

There again is the URL of the page I want you to see:


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/3

Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington

=================

At first I was surprised to hear that opinion on the "newly free" media in Iraq is rampant with conspriacy theories of every stripe. Then I caught on. And then I saw the same game at work in the US.

When a conqueror takes over, public opinion in the conquered country becomes an important issue for many reasons (gaining support and cooperation from the subject population, international agreements governing the treatment of nations under occupation, world opinion, and giving the impression to taxpayers and soldier-providing families back home that their soldiers have faught and died to bring freedom to foreign lands and greater security to their own land.

If a truly benevolent US had taken over Iraq, they would indeed which for the Iraqi people to receive accurate news and to engage in free discussion and debate of events as a necessary first step to either democracy or representative democracy under freedom of thought and expression.

If truly malevolent, the conquering power would want to prevent all expression of an accurate description of the true state of the oppression, brutality, and tragic human cost of the conquest. Normally, that is, in former times, this meant destroying printing presses, locking up editors, forbiding the airwaves to all but certified mouthpieces of the occupation etc.

But that would not go over well with the taxpayers and the families of those who have given their sons and daughters to the service of the conquest, would it?

So instead, modern applied social psychology is brought to bear. There will be free expression of opinion, but the environment of opinion will also be heavily peppered with absurd opinion, with false rumor and with a gaggle of hecklers and intimidators who will berate and slander the most responsible spokesmen who attempt to educate the people and organize them.

A hundred rumors circulate about what Saddam has done (run off, gone to Russia, gone to Syria, working with Bush all along. And more and more -- a bewildering miazma of possibilities that soon overwhelms the information seeker and leaves him numb and inert.

I know this because that is exactly the tactic that has been used against 9-11 investigators in the US who have examined the hard well-established evidence of the attack on the Pentagon. The truth leaps out from just simple direct inspection of the photographic evicence, the security camera pictures, the witness accounts, the record and timeline of events.

How does a government guilty of a discovered balck-op false-flag mass-murder operation defend itself. By closing down the presses, broadcast facilities, websites and e-mailing services of those who know the truth?

Of course not.

Rather they put out an army of agents in each form of media who pour out a niagara of trivia, rumor, false-leads, and endless conspiracy theory. Some, like Mike Rivero, Joe Vialls, Mike Ruppert, Jeff Rense give a lot of good information, but when it comes to the critical piece of information concerning Administration guilt that would topple both the corrupt government and the deviant ruling elite behind it, these opinion leaders lead the whole herd of people they have gotten to follow them off the cliff. They pooh-pooh the small-plane-and-missile evidence and defend, in its place, the official (and impossible) story tof the Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon. Others, lie Webfairy, never exactly oppose the truth, but always change the subject and flood the forums with extraneous info about the ancient illuminatti, about the family line of Hitler, about the famous "whatzit" that hit the North Tower (which is really the blur caused by a video camera over three miles away that was focused close-up on a fireman at the time of the crash -- but a vast alternative conspiracy theory was developed to absorb everyone's attention -- disputing a blurr -- with every technique to steal the show from those with the real evidence (the Pentagon crash site photos, the security video recording of the attack that shows the too-short plane, the white plume of trailing missile smoke, the super-white-hot exposion that could only have been caused by a high-explosive missile warhead (and not burning kerosene or the rapid conversion of kinetic energy into heat energy), the damage holes that do not accomodate a starboard wing engine etc. etc. (this is not time to tell you about if you have not heard of it here -- write me for more ifull evidnece package or evidence URLS [e-mail]


Clearly the goal in Iraq, as with the US public itself, is not to develop an informed and responsbile population for democracy and/or and representative government. Nor is it to cut out all views except the "official line" of the dictatorship -- which is what everyone expects a dictatorship to do -- infact that is most of us define dictatorship, isn't it? No, the real goal in Iraq is to paralize public opinion with information overload, with cognitive dissonance, with confusion, with the very weakness of democracy, i.e., with interjected viewpoints which do not originate from conscientious citizens of intelligence and good will using and seeking the facts, but rather with people whose whole goal is to prevent coalescence around facts and reason, to drown the sincere servant of the people with false-servants who provide "near truth," who provide all of the car except an engine.

And so the good man investigates, sifts and analyzes what has really happened and then goes to the public to share it and develop a reasonable response with them -- only to find that the Jeff Renses (UFOs mixed with all but the most critical facts of 9-11), or Mike Rivero or Mike Ruppert (who give a lot of good information to gain your trust, and then use that trust to crush those with the proof that would convince any grand jury of Administration and British and Israeli guilt in the Pentaton attack (and therefore in all of the bloody tragedy around the world since Sept. 11, 2001.)

I don't know what to do about it -- except to not quit trhying to get the truth to you anyway -- but perhaps knowing what is being done to you will be a start.

Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington

DICK EASTMAN IS CURRENTLY DEBATING THE PENTAGON "SMALL-PLANE" EVIDENCE AT "DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND" -- PLEASE FOLLOW ALONG (OR JOIN IN):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=708&mesg_id=979&page=



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pentagon911/messages

==============

22 August 2003

BAGHDAD: US forces did not win the war, Saddam Hussein is a CIA agent and Ariel Sharon just bought a house on the banks of the Tigris – so say the pages of Baghdad's newspapers, where conspiracy and rumour reign supreme.


The scores of papers that have sprung up in the capital since the war ended print a breathless mix of dubious opinion and urban myth to feed the insatiable appetite of Baghdadis for fresh gossip, however unreliable.

That reflects, in part, the quality of journalism in a country that went virtually overnight from having no independent news media to having almost too much.

It is also a measure of the chaos and ignorance the Iraqi population is living in. No one is sure what's really going on and so rumour and conspiracy theory surge in to fill the void.

"I don't know if it's definitely true," says security guard Gaithe Mnahi, referring to a story he'd read in Haqiqa, The Truth, about how Saddam's eldest son Uday had escaped Iraq before the war after meeting a new bride on the Internet.

"But it's an interesting possibility," he adds.

If a newspaper comes up with an impressive theory one day, another will to try to top it the next.

Qanadeal, The Lights, recently ran a report that Israeli Jews were flocking to Baghdad in droves to buy property – ignoring, among other things, the fact that foreigners are still banned from owning real estate in Iraq.

Perhaps hoping to top that "scoop", a competing paper ran a headline saying "Ariel Sharon buys house by Tigris" and repeated widespread talk that a gang of agents from Mossad, the Israeli secret service, is living in a Baghdad hotel.

The gossip and rumour-mongering extend to outlandish explanations of real events.

After the truck bomb blast at the Jordanian embassy two weeks ago, local reports were full of talk that US helicopters were hovering moments before the blast. Witnesses swore they saw missiles fired at the embassy compound.

Similar rumours quickly circulated after the bombing of the United Nations headquarters this week. Some eyewitnesses claimed to have seen a missile hit the building even though investigators say the explosion was caused by a truck bomb.

Now theories are already doing the rounds that US forces might have attacked the UN headquarters because they don't share the UN's vision for post-war Iraq.

Given the hunger of Iraqis keen for anything to read, the myth-making could continue for some time.

Hafud Al-Shimary, a photographer in downtown Baghdad, says it is a natural development in a country where for three decades everyone was told what to think and most struggled to separate truth from fiction.

"Intellectuals and well-educated people don't believe any of this nonsense, but they are a minority," said Shimary, gesturing towards newspapers on his desk.

"For 30 years everyone has been brainwashed and now most don't know what to believe. The only good thing is that someone has the imagination to think it all up."


http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2634911a12,00.html

[crispy]

88. Re: "Riskus camera came out of car much too late"

> See how from frame one to frame two the smoke is pulled from the right to the left of the image of the parking-pass tower in the
> foreground -- and some of tfaintness is due to the fact that there is much less contrast in the second picture, presumably due to the
> camera's reaction to the sudden brightness of the flash.

I see what you are saying about the contrast, but I don't think the longer line of smoke in the second photo is caused by the explosion sucking the smoke toward itself. For that explanation to be necessary the missile would have had to abruptly stop pouring out white smoke. But the trail of smoke is longer in the second because that's the path the missile took, pouring smoke out the whole time until it made contact with the facade. Even disregarding color and contrast, you can tell the trail of smoke in the second photo has already begun to dissipate because it doesn't have the same fluffy texture the one in the first photo has.

[Dancing_Dave]

143. Right on, man!

It took a while for me to realize that what you are saying here is true. It probably helped that I'm a musician inspired by art rockers like Brian Eno and Robert Fripp who have been expressing some scepticism at similar points. We must defend our freedom on the Web, which is really humanity's last hope. So much has been monopolized in very misleading ways...but we always can create a movevement towards something more authentic. I try to record some of that quest at my popular station http://stations.mp3s.com/stations/339/how_does_it_feel_to_be_one_of_.html

Love and Peace,
Dancing Dave

[QuietStorm]

146. This is good

it is missile smoke. that was worth all the bad weather in here to have established that. Riskus. Boy did he get in the way of things-eh?

[QuietStorm]

142. never mind crispy I see here you disagree.

<<Some have said that the white blur to the right of the rightmost pylon in photo 1 was the airplane itself. The ASCE's building performance study (BPS) team in The Pentagon Building Performance Report labels this white blur as the plane. I disagree.>>

Yes I agree that is is impossible to make out that white blurb as a plane myself. To me it could as easily be described as a cumulous billowy cloud which might indicate it is a missile, because then in the second frame you can clearly see the larger quite obvious billowing of smoke that trails after the missile hits the building following behind the missile. By the way I have always thought a missile was involved even before I foddered through all this stuff. I have yet to be persuaded otherwise.

As to does a boeing 757 create a single trail: Based on no real substantive info I would say no. It has more than one engine so one would think it would create more than one trail unless all but one engine is out.

my apologies some of the BS one encounters on these forums does tend to fowl on ones mood and ALL BECOME SUSPECT. The shennigans from the other night left be a bit bitchy.

You are aware that there were accounts of the smell of cordite, right?

[crispy]

152. Re: "never mind crispy I see here you disagree."

> You are aware that there were accounts of the smell of cordite, right?

I am aware, but I'm not really sure what cordite is (I think it's used in bombs, correct me if I'm wrong) or if it is used in missiles.

[DulceDecorum]

153. NEW THREAD

Please continue the discussion here.
The dial up folks thank you.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=1167