A Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon (by Michael Meyer, Mechanical Engineer)
zookumar yelubandi
Illuminating article by Michael Meyer that explains why a Boeing
757 could not have crashed into the Pentagon.
Of course, when Jamie McIntyre of CNN News reported on the
morning of September 11, 2001, that there was no evidence of an
airplane having crashed anywhere *near* the Pentagon:
"http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/27_1-mcintyre.swf"
... perhaps he was just reporting on the obvious? No large tail
sections, wing sections, fuselage - and we can safely assume that he was
also referring to the lack of damage to the lawn in front of the
Pentagon.
------------------beginJamieMcIntyre'sComments--------------------
The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in. And
as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that
you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing
sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would
indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and
then caused the side to collapse.
------------------------------------------------------------------
"... no large pieces THAT WOULD INDICATE that the entire plane
crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to
collapse."
[ahh ... the things we say when we speak freely and without
self-censorship, wot?]
-zookumar-
uptimod
the Twin Towers? An immortal straw man treads fearlessly upon this
warning question.
-uptimod
'adamant
there;consider only the prose. Some good points!
"This discussion came to us by email we didn't write it, but is sure
is interesting..
Stick with this one -- it starts boring, but it warms up.
'Two things of note --
1) Webfairy has found the clincher proving the whatzit is a day
stealth cruise missile used to murder so many New Yorkers in the
frame-up attack on the WTC North Tower on Sept. 11, 2001. This
strongest possible evidence reinforces the other incontrovertible
clincher evidence of the security cam video of the small-jet and
missile attack on the Pentagon -- double "smoking-guns" fully
sufficient to convict the Frame-up Junta now in control of our
Government of the most horrible single act of murder in our history.
All that is wanting for justice to begin moving is that the American
public learn about this evidence, understand the implications, and do
the preliminary work of throwing out the whore bipartisan CFR Congress
who lap dance for Big Business who created a climate in America where
super rich Americans believe they can murder other Americans, whom
they feel to be lower class and thus inferior) to provide false
pretext for attacking two totally innocent even scrupulously moral
Moslem nations for the sake of oil monopoly, and of continuing
opium/heroin laundered revenues into Establishment investment banks for
investment in China's proletarian slave factories, strengthening the
most ruthless and powerful dictatorship by organized crime in the
world. (e.g., remember the magnificently heroic, moral and correct
stand of Mullah Omar when confronted by the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz
"shoot first talk later" criminality.) So now we have two smoking
guns, each ample to convict, and no investigation worthy of the name.
And that explains why the other noteworthy item has suddenly appeared.
Understand Brian Downing Quig is doing, and you will certainly no
longer be a babe in the woods when it comes to psy-op discrediting of
critical convicting evidence.
Now for the BIG EVENT.
2) Brian Downing Quig, in his "Abstract of 9/11 evidence," has given
a well-stated summary of -- now get this! -- of only the inconclusive
and equivocal circumstantial evidence that points to a 9/11 frame-up --
the supporting evidence that by itself is not "smoking gun" evidence,
that is merely evidence of the kind that a Philadelphia lawyer can
easily cast sufficient doubt and uncertainty over to keep any grand
jury from handing down an indictment. The key to any defense of the
Frame-up Junta is to see to it that the Security Cam evidence and the
whatzit evidence are never presented.
The reader will recall that I asked Quig, why he so scrupulously
avoided even mentioning the existence of the Defense Department
Security Camera video that shows the actual attacking small jet, the
missile it fired, the characteristic missile explosion? Why did he
write such an effective "abstract of 9/11 evidence," and distribute it
so widely in channels where the Pentagon evidence is well known, while
not even mentioning this "smoking fun" that by itself can carry the
day in any case against the Junta?
With his response (below) to my inquiry, I am forced to conclude that
Quig's purpose in writing his "9-11 Abstract" has been to defeat the
best Pentagon evidence by establishing himself as a "911 expert" and
then, on the basis of credibility her gains for himself in defending
all the weak and inconclusive evidence, using his thus acquired
credibility capital to brush aside and pooh-pooh the only totally
sufficient and conclusive evidence that could win the case.
Quig must have anticipated that we would all welcome his added
articulate and intelligent voice, that we would be grateful to him, a
man with courage who spoke up at a time when our calls for an
investigation based on the real evidence were being universally ignored
in all but our own circle of the awake and the informed. He must also
have anticipated that we would follow the lead of this clear-thinking
clear-writing champion and wander away from video frames that show
both the attack on the WTC by the watzit stealth cruise missile and the
small-jet-with-missile attack on the Pentagon.
I am convinced that Brian Downing Quig began his writing project, his
spin operation, having already identified the two smoking guns that
can bring conviction of the 9-11 Junta, that he knew this evidence
could hang the traitor killers now riding high. And I am convinced
that knowing all that, he deliberately undertook, with psy-op
ingratiation and spin wearing good-guy-stripe camouflage -- to trick
us into abandoning our only sure case.
Now let's look at Quig's reply:
Brian Downing Quig wrote:
> If there was a second small plane then it is still not
> worth mentioning. I have seen more professional
> disinformation regarding these "other planes" then for
> any other cover up effort of the crime.
> That is because what I have said about the planes being > the conclusive proof is so conclusive that the spin doctors > are concentrating on it.
> I suggest you try to study this issue and fully understand it
> before you come back with some defense of some insignificant
> detail.
> Brian
> And please webfairy hold your comment for me by phone
> which is better.
>
> Dick Eastman wrote:
>> Dear Mr. Quig, Your essay summarizing reasons for
> >concluding that Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz etc. are complicit
> > in the September 11 killings is very persuasive, but please tell
> > me why you chose not to include the Pentagon security video
> > evidence of a small plane attack? Are you aware of this evidence?
> > What is your attitude towards this information? Are you aware that
> > by writing such an otherwise complete case for the complicity of the
> > administration in this monstrous crime you are, through your omission
> > of it, as much as saying that you to not recognize what is the most
> > conclusive evidence of all? Please explain this omission.
> > Dick Eastman
> >Yakima, Washington.
Analysis: Quig (in black) says
> If there was a second small plane then it is still not
> worth mentioning.
DE (red): A "second" small plane? This is totally disingenuous. Quig
knows full well the one small plane was the only plane that hit the
Pentagon. He knows this has always been our claim. He knows that
what I asked him about was THE ONE AND ONLY PLANE IN THE DoD SECURITY
CAM VIDEO THAT IS SHOWN ATTACKING THE PENTAGON -- yet weasel Brian
Quig spins and deflects and misrepresents, hoping that readers are
asleep or have just walked in on the conversation -- BRIAN, CERTAINLY
THE PLANE CAUGHT IN THE ACT ATTACKING THE PENTAGON -- THE ONLY PLANE I
HAVE REFERRED TO IN THIS DISCUSSION -- IS VERY MUCH WORTH MENTIONING
-- but equally certain is it that you have just let slip your goal of
attempting to see to it that this powerful evidence not be mentioned.
> I have seen more professional
> disinformation regarding these "other planes" then for
> any other cover up effort of the crime.
So we must accept that Brian Quig knows "professional disinformation"
when he sees it, and that he has seen it in regard to "other planes"
(again acting as if I am not talking about the one world-famous plane
in the video that is caught in the act of firing a missile into the
Pentagon and then following that missile into the target.)
Let's get this straight. Brian Quig says he saw "professional
disinformation" regarding "these other planes" and therefore we should
therefore ignore the Pentagon's own video camera which captures the
actual attack plane in the act of firing the missile and crash bombing
the building?
Is this rat gutsy or what? And where do they breed lying rats like
this, Harvard Business School?)
> That is because what I have said about the planes being
> the conclusive proof is so conclusive that the spin doctors
> are concentrating on it.
Wait a minute! You say that YOU said the planes are "conclusive proof"?
and that it is against YOUR assertion that the planes are "conclusive
proof" that "spin doctors" are concentrating on it?
Duh! I thought I was making the point about the "conclusive proof" of
the Pentagon video and that YOU were the spin doctor attempting to
sweep it under the carpet. How bold of you to point out to everyone
that Brian Downing Quig is really the man with the plane proof and that
Dick Eastman is the spin doctor. Very fancy footwork, that, Quig. Too
bad for you I saw it coming. (I've tangled with dirty fighters
before.)
> I suggest you try to study this issue and fully understand it
> before you come back with some defense of some insignificant
> detail.
Gee, fella, thanks for the advice. I've always wanted to look into the
Pentagon stuff, but I do have this problem about concentrating on
details, like this spot on my desk that looks like a camel? Why do you
suppose it looks like a camel? Could it be that its some secret Arab
signal telling me that my cover as a "spin doctor" has been discovered
and that I should hightail it back to the base in Iraq? -- Hey,
Webfairly, this is Achmed "the Dagger" Eastman -- we've been found
out!!! Grab your veil and meet me at the submarine at 22:20 hours,
tonight.
Quig is not just a freeper, trying to get my goat -- rather he is
doing two things: 1) discrediting me while establishing himself,
without true basis, as a big scientific investigator, and 2) calling
the Pentagon video of the actual attack, the only known direct evidence
of this kind -- as "some insignificant detail" -- when in fact it is a
fabric of many critical details, all different yet mutually reinforcing
(e.g., the nature of the explosion, the smoke plume behind the jet, the
small size of the jet -- which ties in with and corroborates other
findings of, for example, the too small a hole in the Pentagon, the
lack of airliner debris, the witnesses who saw a small plane, the
discrediting (by Gerard Holmgen) of the witnesses who claimed to have
seen a Boeing hit the building, the stand down of the air force, the
stand down of intelligence, the long leisurely and roundabout flight
taken by the hijacked airliner after radio communication was cut and
after the transponder was shut off; and the presence of Israelis at
both Dulles (where flight 77 took off) and Reagan National (two miles
from the Pentagon, where Flight 77 landed) who had illegal top security
passes enabling them to gain access to the tower, baggage, and the
hanger where Flight 77 taxied after landing, and the loading docks and
busses or trucks used in taking the passengers and crew from the
airport.
>And please webfairy hold your comment for me by phone which is better.
And let us not ignore this little side message to Webfairy. Quig is
asking Webfairy not to post her questions and objections to Quig's
replies, to this forum, asking instead that discussion be conducted
privately over the telephone -- just as Ron Harvey and "Isopodia" got
Dave Bosankoe writing and phoning out of the public eye and unknown to
me, engaging in flattery of his "math page" and so forth, and telling
him (which was true) how much more reasonable and fair minded he is
than his loose cannon collaborator in Yakima. So that after I returned
from a two week vacation at Lake Huron, Bosankoe had removed his
website and all of the Pentagon graphics and links that all of my
posts refer to for visual and graphic support in my newsgroup postings
(so that all of those posts of mine discuss the evidence of pictures
that now cannot be seen. BUT ASIDE FROM FLATTERY AND A CHANCE TO WOO
THE OLD GAL INTO BACKING OFF FROM BUSH'S JUGULAR -- QUIG DOES NOT WANT
TO BE PUT ON THE SPOT -- HE KNOWS THE PENTAGON EVIDENCE IS "SMOKING
GUN" DEADLY TO THE JUNTA AND HE KNOWS THAT HE MUST SOMEHOW SPIN IT
INTO A DITCH (HIS TWO LETTERS TELL US THAT) BUT HE ALSO KNOWS THAT
EVEN THE BEST LIARS CANNOT COME UP WITH SPIN WHEN THE OPPONENT CAN ASK
POINTED QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS STATEMENTS AND EVIDENCE. BEFORE THE PUBLIC
(why do you think the Establishment spends hundreds of billions to
maintain its clamp on true open discussion in the mass media) -- THAT
IS WHY SO FEW TAKE ME ON IN THIS WILD AND WOOLY MEDIUM (ALL THAT
"INSIGNIFICANT DETAIL" QUIG LOATHES COMES BACK TO ROOST -- YOU BETTER
BELIEVE IT DOES) SO QUIG WANTS TO TALK TO WEBFAIRY ON THE PHONE
RATHER THAN OUT FRONT WHERE HIS SLIPS CAN BE CAUGHT AND RUBBED IN HIS
FACE. Finally, a man interested in the truth, wants to communicate on
the lists and newsgroups -- here there is a permanent record, here
there is a chance to see what was said and look at it critically and
refer back to it and to compare it with new information that presents
itself. When you talk on the phone and get caught in a lie or in a
contradiction, you can merely recover by saying -- "that is not what I
said," or "that is not what I meant," or "you heard me wrong" --
this is what I suspect Quig dreads, this also is what I love about this
medium -- and because I am confident that I am a friend of the truth
working for the truth -- I can write as carelessly as I do, never
proofreading, etc.
Do you take offense at this, Brian Quig?. If so, then let me give you
a fighting chance to prove me wrong:
Before the very big jury of public opinion that this letter is
reaching,
ANSWER THIS:
WHY DID YOU IGNORE AND THEN DISMISS AS INSIGNIFICANT THE OVERWHELMINGLY
IMPORTANT EVIDENCE OF THE ONLY VIDEO PICTURE OF THE ATTACK TAKING PLACE
-- THE EVIDENCE OF WHAT THE FRAMES OF THE ATTACK SHOW --AS OUTLINED
(ONCE AGAIN) BELOW. Read it carefully -- your own reputation and your
family name are on trial here. Here is exactly what I sent you before.
--------
"Two world wars, shame on them. A third world war, shame on us."
THIS PENTAGON SECURITY CAM VIDEO SEQUENCE IS "SMOKING-GUN" EVIDENCE,
ESTABLISHING THE SEPTEMBER 11 MASS-MURDER AS AN "INSIDE-JOB"
FRAME-UP CONSPIRACY TO INVOLVE THE U.S. IN A FOR-PROFIT WAR.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/720851.asp?cp1=1
Notes:
1) the size of tail fin image in frame #1 requires that for the plane
to be a Boeing 757 the front end of fuselage would have to be visible
extending out to the left of the stone driveway pillar in the picture.
Check:
a) the 757 is over seven times the length of its own tail fin, i.e.,
it would take seven and a quarter tail fins to cover the back of a
Boeing 757, Stegosaurus style, from the tailfin in the rear to the
nose, but the width of the image of the driveway pillar that conceals
the attacking plane's entire fuselage is only five times as wide as
the tail fin that appears sticking up above and behind the pillar (so
that regardless of angle of approach to the Pentagon wall or of
distance of the aircraft from the camera, the plane simply cannot be
aircraft of the length and form of a Boeing 757;
b) a 757 is 155 feet long and the Pentagon is only 71 feet high, but
by direct inspection, if the aircraft behind that pillar was stood on
end against the wall, say half way to the far end of the wall from
the impact point, it would only stand about 70 percent as high as the
wall -- the method is rough, but the margin of error is certainly
not 218 percent.
2) the presence of the unmistakable white horizontal missile plume
being launched by the plane to weaken the wall in the vicinity of
impact so that the jet can easily invade the Pentagon interior without
give-away aircraft parts bouncing back on the grass and giving away the
frame-up;
3) in frame #2 the tell-tale white-hot initial explosion of the
missile warhead is definitely neither a jet fuel kerosene fire, nor the
result of aluminum, plastic and flesh crashing into brick, concrete and
glass;
4) the blossom of white-hot explosion of the missile warhead spreads
laterally, more so than the subsequent jet fuel flames that in frame #3
come from inside the Pentagon, suggesting that the warhead was designed
to trigger at the split second of impact rather than after entry
through the wall.
All existing cover-up scenarios seeking to explain away this
smoking-gun evidence have just been answered.
Yours truly,
Dick Eastman' "
<snip>
--
.foolsrushin.'
zookumar yelubandi
> >From <http://www.thepower hour.com>. The passion is neither here nor
> there;consider only the prose. Some good points!
Excellent post, John!
At first, I, too, thought it distracting for truthseekers to
focus on anything other than what is incontrovertible, namely, the
collapse of the twin towers and WTC7, and the shocking implications
therein. And I still believe this to be the case. However, after the
release of the "Pentagon video" on May 16, 2006, the prospect of adding
the Pentagon attack to the rest of the incontrovertible evidence is no
longer burdened with potential pitfalls.
Dick Eastman's analysis above is unimpeachable. Specifically,
the part wrt the relative sizes of the tail fin, the obstructing pillar,
and the expected longitudinal size of the fuselage of a Boeing 757.
Also, there is a neat argument of turbofans (Boeing 757s), rocket
engines (which propel missiles), and vapor trails at low altitudes.
Visit the following URL:
"http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/vaportrail.html"
-zookumar-
tersono
<zook...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
<another load of by-the-yard 9/11 conspiracy theories>
Do you realise that repeated cross-posting of off-topic material
decreases any credibility you may have?
--
Per ardua ad nauseam
'adamant
relevance of the alleged Pentagon debris in a
<hhtp://www.thepowerhour.com> interview, saying that it hurt him to
have to do so after 30 years of honest investigation of aerial mishaps!
--
'foolsrushin.'
zookumar yelubandi
You just lost any credibility that you may have had. Google
archives will be unforgiving to those standing on the wrong side of the
truth, when it finally overwhelms the cowards and scoundrels that are
attempting its suppression, today.
I'm glad I dropped in on cam.misc today; else I would have
missed your mischief (eg. when you snipped out ROM from the newsgroup
headers).
The topic is relevant because Blair is one of the coordinators
of the 9-11 lie/hoax/conspiracy/massacre ... on your side of the pond.
-zookumar-
M Dunne
news:gmqe72l4hvn7020in...@4ax.com...
More to the point, it helps to put people off *the whole issue*. You're
guilty of a major crime, a shocking conspiracy that you don't want to see
seriously investigated? Then get a few paid operatives to *make a nuisance
of themselves* in *every inappropriate forum* with *the kookiest of the
available theories* expressed in *hysterically vehement terms*. Result:
everyone turns away whenever the topic -- even in the form of a much more
credible theory -- is even mentioned.
Such tactics are a vital part of the Establishment's control over discussion
and opinion -- an essential tool for making certain thoughts 'unthinkable'
for ordinary people. You ever noticed how a demonstration about a major
issue that threatens Established Power is always presented on the news as
having been "marred by violence"? With the result that we hear all about the
violence, and nothing of significance about the real issue? Well, I've been
there when it happens -- and have never even known who the people are who
suddenly turn up and get violent right in front of the cameras. I've been in
a group of people that was charged by mounted police while we were sitting
down eating sandwiches -- and then seen the news media show only the melee
that happened afterwards. I also remember being at Greenham Common one day,
back in the 1980s. At the end of a massive weekend protest, I and about 20
other people went round the entire area, cleaning up all the paper cups,
crisp packets and other litter that the thousands of demonstrators had left
behind. I was one of the few people still there when around 30 bin bags of
rubbish were driven away in someone's VW camper van, and I can vouch for the
tidiness of the area. And yet, when the TV news people did their reports
from the site just a few hours later, they were all standing ankle-deep in
filth -- including, as one 'reporter' said, "used sanitary napkins". Well,
where the hell did all that stuff come from? A man of your intelligence
shouldn't find the real answer difficult.
M.
zookumar yelubandi
> "tersono" <ethel....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:gmqe72l4hvn7020in...@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 26 May 2006 17:46:13 GMT, zookumar yelubandi
> > <zook...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > <another load of by-the-yard 9/11 conspiracy theories>
> > Do you realise that repeated cross-posting of off-topic material
> > decreases any credibility you may have?
> More to the point, it helps to put people off *the whole issue*. You're
> guilty of a major crime, a shocking conspiracy that you don't want to see
> seriously investigated? Then get a few paid operatives to *make a nuisance
> everyone turns away whenever the topic -- even in the form of a much more
> credible theory -- is even mentioned.
This is the second time, Marcus, that a post of yours,
intentionally or unintentionally, paints a post of mine in the dubious
light of an obfuscator. The other time being my admonition of Noam
Chomsky and your admonition of me for daring to admonish Chomsky.
FTR, I know I am genuine. FWIW, I'll accept that you're
genuine (at least for the time being). So how can we show the readers
that we can _both_ be trusted in our 911 research even tho' we seem to
bump heads from time to time? I have a simple suggestion, nay, one
question. Do you or do you not believe that a Boeing 757 was the plane
that hit the Pentagon?
I'll stake my entire credibility in stating unequivocally (based
on the officially released Pentagon video of May 16, 2006) that whatever
hit the Pentagon was _NOT_ a Boeing 757. Furthermore, I am so confident
of this fact that I will offer the following additional speculation
cultivated from various resources and websites. IMRO, a missile was
fired from a smaller plane (to breach the Pentagon facade ahead of the
smaller plane) so that both missile and smaller plane would enter the
Pentagon, with the calculated result that not much identifying wreckage
would be left outside to incriminate the conspirators (who, of course,
need Boeings and hijacking Arabs to convincingly market their "New Pearl
Harbour" strategy). So ... what is your take of the Pentagon attack?
As for the topic's relevancy on ROM or cam.misc, if the
conspiracy is real, then this topic should be the primary focus of every
adult sitting behind every computer keyboard in every country, province,
municipality, of this world.
-zookumar-
Phil Holman
"zookumar yelubandi" <zook...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:Cc_dg.28492$zn1.5220@clgrps13...
What happened to the 757? I lost several fellow employees on that day.
Do you think Boeing, the Airlines and the families of the people onboard
share your opinion? Your speculation is far less credible than the
account you try to dispute.
Phil H
zookumar yelubandi
> "zookumar yelubandi" <zook...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:Cc_dg.28492$zn1.5220@clgrps13...
> >M Dunne wrote:
> >> "tersono" <ethel....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> >> news:gmqe72l4hvn7020in...@4ax.com...
> > This is the second time, Marcus, that a post of yours,
> > intentionally or unintentionally, paints a post of mine in the dubious
> > light of an obfuscator. The other time being my admonition of Noam
> > Chomsky and your admonition of me for daring to admonish Chomsky.
> >
> > FTR, I know I am genuine. FWIW, I'll accept that you're
> > genuine (at least for the time being). So how can we show the
> > readers
> > that we can _both_ be trusted in our 911 research even tho' we seem to
> > bump heads from time to time? I have a simple suggestion, nay, one
> > question. Do you or do you not believe that a Boeing 757 was the
> > plane
> > that hit the Pentagon?
> >
> > I'll stake my entire credibility in stating unequivocally
> > (based
> > on the officially released Pentagon video of May 16, 2006) that
> > whatever
> > hit the Pentagon was _NOT_ a Boeing 757.
>
> What happened to the 757? I lost several fellow employees on that day.
> Do you think Boeing, the Airlines and the families of the people onboard
> share your opinion? Your speculation is far less credible than the
> account you try to dispute.
> Phil H
Given the officially released Pentagon video of May 16, 2006,
your objection to my reasons (which you snipped from my comments above
and we can only wonder why) ... is not credible at all. If you care to
debate the specifics, I'll be glad to. If I'm proven wrong, I'll gladly
accede to that outcome. But for a counterargument, I'll need something
more substantive than fallacious appeals to sentiment.
["I lost several fellow employees on that day. Do you think Boeing, the
Airlines and the families of the people onboard share your opinion?"]
FWIW, 3000+ innocent persons were murdered by those who carried
out the attacks on that day. If Arabs did carry out the attack on the
Pentagon, then they also carried out the attacks on the twin towers and
WTC7. So, do we have you on record, then, as believing that Arabs
brought down those three buildings?
-zookumar-
Phil Holman
If it wasn't a 757, what happened to the 757 in question. As a Boeing
employee, one can't ignore the internal reports the disappearance of
employees and four airplanes will generate.
>FWIW, 3000+ innocent persons were murdered by those who carried
>out the attacks on that day. If Arabs did carry out the attack on the
>Pentagon, then they also carried out the attacks on the twin towers and
>WTC7. So, do we have you on record, then, as believing that Arabs
>brought down those three buildings?
The preponderance of evidence is overwhelming that they did.
Phil H
zookumar yelubandi
> "zookumar yelubandi" <zook...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:w81eg.35761$Qq.19830@clgrps12...
> > Phil Holman wrote:
> >> "zookumar yelubandi" <zook...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> >> news:Cc_dg.28492$zn1.5220@clgrps13...
> >> What happened to the 757? I lost several fellow employees on that
> >> day.
> >> Do you think Boeing, the Airlines and the families of the people
> >> onboard
> >> share your opinion? Your speculation is far less credible than the
> >> account you try to dispute.
> >> Phil H
> > Given the officially released Pentagon video of May 16, 2006,
> > your objection to my reasons (which you snipped from my comments above
> > and we can only wonder why) ... is not credible at all. If you care
> > to
> > debate the specifics, I'll be glad to. If I'm proven wrong, I'll
> > gladly
> > accede to that outcome. But for a counterargument, I'll need
> > something
> > more substantive than fallacious appeals to sentiment.
> > ["I lost several fellow employees on that day. Do you think Boeing,
> > the
> > Airlines and the families of the people onboard share your opinion?"]
> Sentiment my ass, this is a debate about whether a 757 hit the pentagon.
> If it wasn't a 757, what happened to the 757 in question. As a Boeing
> employee, one can't ignore the internal reports the disappearance of
> employees and four airplanes will generate.
Are you seriously suggesting that in order for me to discredit
the Pentagon video (and the attending notion that Flight 77 crashed into
the Pentagon) ... that I need to also produce Flight 77 (Boeing 757 and
its occupants)??? What flimsy logic school did you graduate from?
FYIandEdification, one can only credit/discredit that which one
has studied. I have no idea what happened to Flight 77; all I can say
with certainty is that it did not crash into the Pentagon; something
else did (if the official video is all that I'm basing my argument on).
If I conclude anything _more_ than that based on the official video,
then I'd be doing what you are doing now: speculating (or worse,
obfuscating).
I hope Google archives our convo for posterity. When the truth
final overwhelms the unbelievers and/or the obfuscators, I'd like to
take this conversation up with you again.
> >FWIW, 3000+ innocent persons were murdered by those who carried
> >out the attacks on that day. If Arabs did carry out the attack on the
> >Pentagon, then they also carried out the attacks on the twin towers and
> >WTC7. So, do we have you on record, then, as believing that Arabs
> >brought down those three buildings?
> The preponderance of evidence is overwhelming that they did.
> Phil H
Then the verdict is in, isn't it ... regarding your level of
intelligence and your kind of morality. I mean, what more do you want
me to say, if you seriously maintain that the WTC7 and twin tower
collapses was the work of Arabs? Larry Silverstein is an Arab, huh?
-zookumar-
The Natural Philosopher
In fact, its a pretty rare thing with 757's..there having been only one
recorded instance.
Phil Holman
The school that would propose focusing on finding out what really did
happen to the 757 and its passengers and crew. The subject line is "one
missing 757" short of a good theory.
>
> FYIandEdification, one can only credit/discredit that which one
> has studied. I have no idea what happened to Flight 77; all I can
> say
> with certainty is that it did not crash into the Pentagon;
Yet you and the conspiracy theorists have no idea of the whereabouts of
the 757. Amazing!
>something
> else did (if the official video is all that I'm basing my argument
> on).
> If I conclude anything _more_ than that based on the official video,
> then I'd be doing what you are doing now: speculating (or worse,
> obfuscating).
>
> I hope Google archives our convo for posterity. When the
> truth
> final overwhelms the unbelievers and/or the obfuscators, I'd like to
> take this conversation up with you again.
>
Please do; this isn't a faith based supposition at work. In light of any
"serious" new evidence, how do the French put it.....Il n'ya que les
imbeciles qui ne changent pas d'avis.
>
>> >FWIW, 3000+ innocent persons were murdered by those who carried
>> >out the attacks on that day. If Arabs did carry out the attack on
>> >the
>> >Pentagon, then they also carried out the attacks on the twin towers
>> >and
>> >WTC7. So, do we have you on record, then, as believing that Arabs
>> >brought down those three buildings?
>> The preponderance of evidence is overwhelming that they did.
>
> Then the verdict is in, isn't it ... regarding your level of
> intelligence and your kind of morality.
Seriously, what corner do you paint me into with those words? What level
of intelligence requires a rational explanation for the disappearance of
a commercial airplane and its passengers and crew? I can't comment on
the morality aspect but if you can assess my morality by the meager
amount of exchanges we've had, well, that says a lot more about you than
me.
>I mean, what more do you want
> me to say, if you seriously maintain that the WTC7 and twin tower
> collapses was the work of Arabs? Larry Silverstein is an Arab, huh?
Like I said, a preponderance of evidence. The things I take more
seriously are the physics behind the collapse and the disappearance of a
757.
Phil H
*us*
>... less credible than the
>account you try to dispute.
>
>Phil H
You mean the one where Bush lied about his
foreknowledge of 9/11?
Those who care about the victims want to see
justice done for those crimes.
Instead, the perpetrators are making money
hand over fist with their terrorisms now.
zookumar yelubandi
> "zookumar yelubandi" <zook...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:YS3eg.35782$Qq.19751@clgrps12...
> > Phil Holman wrote:
> >> "zookumar yelubandi" <zook...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> >> news:w81eg.35761$Qq.19830@clgrps12...
> >> Sentiment my ass, this is a debate about whether a 757 hit the
> >> pentagon.
> >> If it wasn't a 757, what happened to the 757 in question. As a Boeing
> >> employee, one can't ignore the internal reports the disappearance of
> >> employees and four airplanes will generate.
> > Are you seriously suggesting that in order for me to discredit
> > the Pentagon video (and the attending notion that Flight 77 crashed
> > into the Pentagon) ... that I need to also produce Flight 77 (Boeing 757
> > and its occupants)??? What flimsy logic school did you graduate from?
> The school that would propose focusing on finding out what really did
> happen to the 757 and its passengers and crew. The subject line is "one
> missing 757" short of a good theory.
ONE, there are many possibilities of what might have happened to
Flight 77 and its occupants. TWO, there is _zero_ possibility that
Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, at least, by the official evidence presented
by the Pentagon on May 16, 2006. I'm here to demonstrate TWO; not to
conjecture about ONE.
Understanding that, I'm not proposing a new theory as a means of
refuting the existing theory. I'm refuting the existing theory on its
own merits. The pursuit of the location and/or existence of the Boeing
757 would require a new investigation, a new theory. As expressed by
the thread title, the mandate for this thread is quite limited.
Specifically, is the hypothesis that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon
supported by the facts? The Pentagon offered up a proof in support of
this hypothesis by releasing the only official videos of the attack on
May 16, 2006. The mainstream media quickly and _without_ analysis
offered up their conclusions in the form of a rubberstamp supporting the
hypothesis. Alas, the video evidence fails the hypothesis on analysis.
Moreover, it rejects the hypothesis outright based on dimensional
metrics.
But let's analyze the video:
"http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/36342/?comments"
In the second video shown on the page, freeze frame at 00:24
seconds. Look at the size of the tail fin which is clearly visible
over the boom gate. A Boeing 757 (lengthwise) is over seven times the
base length of its own tail fin. If you line up seven tail fin base
lengths next to each other (e.g. six imaginary base lengths directly in
front of the base length of the tail fin seen on the video) ...
[here, the angle of the building facade shows that the camera
view is approximately at right angles to the motion of the object; so
what we are seeing is essentially the full length of the moving object.
But you can verify this for yourself from aerial photos showing the
trajectory of impact, the angle of the facade and the placement of the
CCTV camera:
"http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/motive.html" ]
... then the front of a Boeing 757 would be expected to protrude
from the other side of the boom gate by almost three tail fin base
lengths. Yet NO PLANE SECTION IS VISIBLE IN FRONT OF THE BOOM GATE.
Ergo, this official Pentagon video _precludes_ the possibility of a
Boeing 757 as the object streaking across the viewing field and ejecting
a vapor trail.
Point two: the vapor trail. We know it's not dust or debris
created from impact with the ground, because such an impact would have
scorched up the Pentagon lawn - which remained relatively untouched in
the aftermath (here, ignore the arguments and focus on the pictures of
the lawn in the vicinity of impact zone:
"http://www.physics911.net/omholt.htm"
So what about the white vapor trail seen in the official Pentagon video?
Boeing 757 jets, which are propelled by turbofans, don't emit vapor
trails at low altitudes. By contrast, missiles, which are propelled by
rocket engines, do:
"http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/vaportrail.html"
So again the object could not have been a Boeing 757. Ergo,
the hypothesis can be REJECTED outright.
> > FYIandEdification, one can only credit/discredit that which one
> > has studied. I have no idea what happened to Flight 77; all I can
> > say with certainty is that it did not crash into the Pentagon;
> Yet you and the conspiracy theorists have no idea of the whereabouts of
> the 757. Amazing!
See above. I have a limited mandate. You, as an uncritical
peon of the establishment, appear to have a broad agenda. For you
insist on having more theories when it is sufficient to disprove the
existing theory (put out by the Pentagon) on its own merits.
> > something else did (if the official video is all that I'm basing my
> > argument on).
> > If I conclude anything _more_ than that based on the official video,
> > then I'd be doing what you are doing now: speculating (or worse,
> > obfuscating).
> > I hope Google archives our convo for posterity. When the truth
> > final overwhelms the unbelievers and/or the obfuscators, I'd like to
> > take this conversation up with you again.
> Please do; this isn't a faith based supposition at work. In light of any
> "serious" new evidence, how do the French put it.....Il n'ya que les
> imbeciles qui ne changent pas d'avis.
It's good that you have French as a fall back language. Logic
presented in English appears to make no impact on you.
> >> >FWIW, 3000+ innocent persons were murdered by those who carried
> >> >out the attacks on that day. If Arabs did carry out the attack on
> >> >the
> >> >Pentagon, then they also carried out the attacks on the twin towers
> >> >and
> >> >WTC7. So, do we have you on record, then, as believing that Arabs
> >> >brought down those three buildings?
> >> The preponderance of evidence is overwhelming that they did.
That is false. The preponderance of the evidence, for anyone
who has actually looked at it with a critical mind, establishes the
conspiracy BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF DOUBT. Moreover, it separates the
intellectuals from the pesudointellectuals; the honest from the
dishonest; the people from the sheeple; the courageous from the cowards.
Google archives will bear this out in the future, for presently, the
many channels of discourse are being mobbed by the noise and flatulence
of double didjut idjuts promoting the official account of the events of
September 11, 2001.
> > Then the verdict is in, isn't it ... regarding your level of
> > intelligence and your kind of morality.
> Seriously, what corner do you paint me into with those words?
The corner that suits all scoundrels who lie when confronted
with incontrovertible evidence. WTC7 collapse and your insistence that
it was not an inside job, for example.
>What level
> of intelligence requires a rational explanation for the disappearance of
> a commercial airplane and its passengers and crew?
We all want rational explanations. Some of us even want
rational context. Your request for a rational explanation denuded of
rational context speaks volumes about your level of intelligence.
>I can't comment on
> the morality aspect but if you can assess my morality by the meager
> amount of exchanges we've had, well, that says a lot more about you than
> me.
Indeed it does. I am highly perceptive where it is warranted.
> >I mean, what more do you want
> > me to say, if you seriously maintain that the WTC7 and twin tower
> > collapses was the work of Arabs? Larry Silverstein is an Arab, huh?
> Like I said, a preponderance of evidence. The things I take more
> seriously are the physics behind the collapse and the disappearance of a
> 757.
> Phil H
The physics are incompatible with the government's account. For
the twin towers' collapse physics, visit:
"http://www.911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml"
For WTC7, visit:
"http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html"
You still haven't explained to us why you think Larry
Silverstein is an Arab. After all, the Arabs planned and executed the
attacks according to the fantastic tale told by the government, a tale
that you support, right? So, if Larry Silverstein confesses to the fact
that he arranged to have WTC7 brought down (ignore for now the fact of
preplanted explosives), then, surely, the government's account - your
adopted account - must mean that Larry Silverstein is an Arab?
You still need wonder why I think you're either an idiot or a
scoundrel, and perhaps both?
-zookumar-
*us*
>The school that would propose focusing on finding out what really did
>happen to the 757
Normally the pieces are put back together and
many diagnostics are done.
Had that happened?
>... conspiracy theorists have no idea ...
How do you suppose the guy in the cave in
Afghanistan stood down the US air defense
system on 9/11, even after warnings of his
specific involvement in imminent attacks
had been reported to Bush himself?
>Please do; this isn't a faith based supposition at work.
Do you suppose God really speaks through
Bush, as Bush has claimed?
> In light of any
>"serious" new evidence
The evidence was destroyed rapidly, and in
defiance of the experts who wanted it to be
investigated properly.
>...how do the French put it...
Oooh la la: don't invade Iraq.
You should have heeded.
*us*
Phil Holman
Please analyze the aerial photo and interpret "approximately right
angles" into an actual angle. The reachings of the spatially challenged
do nothing for your credibility. Likewise your analysis of a blurry
white image on the edge of a frame distorted by spherical apparition.
Your diatribe reads like a top ten listing of logical argument
fallacies. Straw man, either or, ad hominem, non sequitor; yep, they're
all in there. Having you think I'm an idiot probably raises my status
several notches in this newsgroup.
Phil H
'adamant
fraught with evidential problems. Address the arguments, the prose
rather than the passion! Almost all the IQ and expertise we've got at
least casts doubt on the official story! Think about that!
--
'foolsrushin.'
zookumar yelubandi
> > Phil Holman wrote:
[...]
> > But let's analyze the video:
> > "http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/36342/?comments"
> >
> > In the second video shown on the page, freeze frame at 00:24
> > seconds. Look at the size of the tail fin which is clearly visible
> > over the boom gate. A Boeing 757 (lengthwise) is over seven times
> > the
> > base length of its own tail fin. If you line up seven tail fin base
> > lengths next to each other (e.g. six imaginary base lengths directly
> > in
> > front of the base length of the tail fin seen on the video) ...
> >
> > [here, the angle of the building facade shows that the camera
> > view is approximately at right angles to the motion of the object; so
> > what we are seeing is essentially the full length of the moving
> > object.
> > But you can verify this for yourself from aerial photos showing the
> > trajectory of impact, the angle of the facade and the placement of the
> > CCTV camera:
> > "http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/motive.html" ]
>
> Please analyze the aerial photo and interpret "approximately right
> angles" into an actual angle. The reachings of the spatially challenged
> do nothing for your credibility.
"Approximately at right angle[s]" means just what it states
"approximately at 90 degrees". IOW, neither at a right angle nor
significantly removed from 90 degrees. In any event, it really does
not matter in the final analysis, for if the plane in the video still is
coming at an angle towards us (eg. off the image planar), that means the
observed tail fin is also coming at an angle towards us. Id est, we
would be observing the reduced apparent length of the tail fin (as
projected onto the image planar) to begin with, anyways.
The Boeing 757 is a little over seven times the length of its
tail fin ... THIS RATIO IS CONSTANT whether we are viewing actual
lengths (eg. object is fully constrained to the image planar and its
motion is at right angles to the camera) or whether we are viewing
reduced lengths (eg. object is coming out of the image planar towards
us, wherein its motion is not at right angles to the camera).
You're the one who is spatially challenged if you need this
explained to you at length. Still, I concede that I was careless in
drawing attention to this unimportant fact. My argument however,
remains sound. The front section of a Boeing 757 (if, indeed, the
object in question as alleged by the Pentagon and the mainstream media)
would have protruded from the Pentagon side of the boom gate by at least
three tail fin base lengths (whether we are talking actual lengths or
reduced lengths does not change this fact).
> Likewise your analysis of a blurry
> white image on the edge of a frame distorted by spherical apparition.
Are all blurry white images, Boeing 757s?
For that must be the case in order for the conspirators to point
to the released video as evidence, and assert boldly that Flight 77
crashed into the Pentagon.
[...]
> > The physics are incompatible with the government's account.
> > For
> > the twin towers' collapse physics, visit:
> > "http://www.911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml"
> >
> > For WTC7, visit:
> > "http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html"
> >
> > You still haven't explained to us why you think Larry
> > Silverstein is an Arab. After all, the Arabs planned and executed the
> > attacks according to the fantastic tale told by the government, a tale
> > that you support, right? So, if Larry Silverstein confesses to the
> > fact
> > that he arranged to have WTC7 brought down (ignore for now the fact of
> > preplanted explosives), then, surely, the government's account - your
> > adopted account - must mean that Larry Silverstein is an Arab?
> > You still need wonder why I think you're either an idiot or a
> > scoundrel, and perhaps both?
> Your diatribe reads like a top ten listing of logical argument
> fallacies. Straw man, either or, ad hominem, non sequitor; yep, they're
> all in there. Having you think I'm an idiot probably raises my status
> several notches in this newsgroup.
> Phil H
If you really think that, then your delusional state is a
permanent one, I fear. Again, is Larry Silverstein an Arab?
(FWIW, he must be if you believe the government's account of things
which, of course, limits the set of perpetrators to Arabs).
-zookumar-
foolsrushin
Petagon and poof! was gone.
* wrote:
> Rumsfeld referred to it as a missile. {Thanks for this!. Ed.]
Which it undoubtedly was - though perhaps a drone bearing a missile!
Col. George Nelson thought the bits found were concomitant only with
missile parts.
'foolsrushin.'
uptimod
[Combined excerpts]
http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2002/09/few-random-thoughts-about-pentagon.html
http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/Missile-Not-Flight-77.html
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=37833
Controversy Swirling Over September 11 Pentagon Mystery
Industry Experts Can't Explain Photo Evidence
By Christopher Bollyn
Exclusive to American Free Press
Since AFP first published a photograph from the 9-11 Pentagon crash
site, there has been a great outpouring of interest and disinfo.
When American Free Press published a hard-to-find photo from the
Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) archive showing a small
turbine disc from the Pentagon crash site, it was hoped that readers
could help identify the object (Sept. 15 & 22). Since the photo and
article were published there has been an outpouring of interest and
disinformation bout the unidentified jet engine part.
The photograph reveals a crucial piece of evidence, which if positively
identified could help prove what kind of aircraft hit the Pentagon on
Sept. 11, 2001.
Is this the 9-11 smoking gun? Fintan Dunne, editor of WagKingdom.com
asks on a web page dedicated to the FEMA photographs. These photos
could be the keys to unlock the cover-up, Dunne wrote on Oct. 7.
Among all the arguments about 9-11: tower fires, WTC 7 collapse, etc.,
none seems as straightforward as that posed by the jet engine part,
Dunne said. If the Pentagon photos are authentic, he said, then either
the turbine is from a Boeing 757, or it is not. The web site appeals to
aero engineers for help in identifying the disc seen in the FEMA
photos.
The photograph is one of many taken by Jocelyn Augustino, a FEMA
photographer, at the Pentagon crash site on Sept. 13, 2001. In the FEMA
on-line photo library, the best photos of the unidentified disc are
numbered 4414 and 4415, archived at: www.photolibrary.fema.gov/
photolibrary/advancedsearch.do.
Several readers wrote to AFP suggesting that the unidentified disc was
a piece from the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) mounted in the tail section
of a Boeing 757. Honeywell makes the GTCP331-200 APU used on the 757
aircraft. No one suggested, however, that the small disc was a piece
from one of the main engines of a 757-200.
AFP contacted Honeywell's Aerospace division in Phoenix, Ariz., and
sent high-resolution photos for their examination. There's no way
that's an APU wheel, an expert at Honeywell told AFP. The expert, who
cannot be named, added: That turbine disc there's no way in the world
that came out of an APU.
American Free Press contacted Pratt & Whitney and Rolls Royce,
manufacturers of the 757's turbofan jet engines to try and identify the
piece.
If the aircraft that struck the Pentagon was a Boeing 757-200 owned by
American Airlines, then it would have to be a Rolls Royce engine, Mark
Sullivan, spokesman for Pratt & Whitney, told AFP.
John W. Brown, spokesman for Rolls Royce (Indianapolis), had previously
told AFP: It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I'm
familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy.
The AE 3007 engines are used in small commuter jets such as the Cessna
Citation; the AE 3007H is also used in the military's unmanned
aircraft, the Global Hawk. The Global Hawk is manufactured by Northrop
Grumman's subsidiary Ryan Aeronautical, which it acquired from
Teledyne, Inc. in July 1999.
A detailed photo of the front fan of a Global Hawk is online at:
http://www.rolls-royce.com/media/gallery/defence/lrg_ae3007_6.htm
If the government version that an American Airlines 757-200 hit the
Pentagon is accurate, then the object in the photo would have to be
from a Rolls Royce RB211-535 turbofan engine.
When AFP told Brown that it must be a piece of a Rolls Royce engine,
Brown balked and asked who at Pratt & Whitney had provided the
information.
Asked again if the disc in the photo is a piece of a Rolls Royce
RB211-535, or from the AE 3007 series, Brown said he could not answer.
AFP then asked Brown if he was actually familiar with the parts of an
AE 3007H, which is made at the Indiana plant: No, 'Cown said. I don't
build the engines. I am a spokesman for the company. I speak for the
company.
Rolls Royce produces the RB211-535 engines for American Airlines
757-200 aircraft at a plant in Derby, England. Martin Johnson, head of
communications at Rolls Royce in Derby, said he had followed the story
closely in American Free Press and had also been notified in advance by
Rolls Royce offices in Seattle and Indianapolis.
However, rather than address the question of the unidentified disc,
Johnson launched a verbal attack on this reporter for questioning the
government version of events at the Pentagon on 9-11. You are the only
person in the world who does not believe that a 757 hit the Pentagon,
Johnson said. The idea that we can have a reasonable conversation is
beyond your wildest dreams, Johnson said and hung up the phone.
Flug Revue, a German magazine about aviation equipment was more willing
to discuss the disc. Karl Schwarz, a technical editor at the Bonn-based
publication, examined the photo and technical drawings of the RB211-535
for AFP. I think only an engineer who is involved in the design of the
engine could identify the part, Schwarz said.
While the front fan of the RB211-535 has a 74.5-inch diameter,
compression discs inside the engine are much smaller. Schwarz said the
inner discs are between 29 and 41 inches in diameter. It could well be
an inner compression disc, Schwarz said. The discs from the inner
stages are made of titanium, he added.
AFP asked Schwarz if this could be a disc from a smaller engine, such
as the Global Hawk's AE 3007H. It could come from any jet engine,
Schwarz said.
If the disc in the photo can be matched with a Rolls Royce AE 3007H
engine, some speculate that it would prove something like a Global Hawk
hit the Pentagon.
The Global Hawk engine is hand built at the Rolls Royce plant in
Indianapolis and has an opening diameter of 43.5 inches. Schwarz said
he did not have a technical diagram of an AE 3007 engine to consult.
Because the disc in the photo appears very similar in size and shape to
the front fan of a Global Hawk engine, AFP asked Schwarz in what
position is the solid disc found behind the front fan of a turbofan
engine. Immediately, Schwarz said.
An unnamed former cruise missile engineer for the engine manufacturer
Teledyne Continental Motors-Turbine Engines added his opinion to the
debate:
Clearly, the part in the picture is larger than 24 inches in diameter.
It also appears to have a nosepiece-like device on its front. This
probably houses bearings, front oil sump and perhaps an alternator or
starter.
This engineer concluded with the intriguing comment, This fan did not
come from a cruise missile engine.
A Missile, Not Flight 77
Please note the article by Joe Vialls at Fly a Jumbo Jet in Ten Easy
Lessons and the report of a Portuguese investigation that did not get
reported in the US media at US Government accused of 9-11:
A group of military and civilian US pilots, under the chairmanship of
Colonel Donn de Grand, after deliberating non-stop for 72 hours, has
concluded that the flight crews of the four passenger airliners,
involved in the September 11th tragedy, had no control over their
aircraft.
In a detailed press communiqué the inquiry stated: "The so-called
terrorist attack was in fact a superbly executed military operation
carried out against the USA, requiring the utmost professional military
skill in command, communications and control. It was flawless in
timing, in the choice of selected aircraft to be used as guided
missiles and in the coordinated delivery of those missiles to their
pre-selected targets."
The report seriously questions whether or not the suspect hijackers,
supposedly trained on Cessna light aircraft, could have located a
target dead-on 200 miles from take off point. It further throws into
doubt their ability to master the intricacies of the instrument flight
rules (IFR) in the 45 minutes from take off to the point of impact.
Colonel de Grand said that it would be impossible for novices to have
taken control of the four aircraft and orchestrated such a terrible act
requiring military precision of the highest order.
A member of the inquiry team, a US Air Force officer who flew over 100
sorties during the Vietnam war, told the press conference: "Those
birds (commercial airliners) either had a crack fighter pilot in the
left seat, or they were being manoeuvred by remote control."
In evidence given to the enquiry, Captain Kent Hill (retd.) of the US
Air Force, and friend of Chic Burlingame, the pilot of the plane that
crashed into the Pentagon, stated that the US had on several occasions
flown an unmanned aircraft, similar in size to a Boeing 737, across the
Pacific from Edwards Air Force base in California to South Australia.
According to Hill it had flown on a pre programmed flight path under
the control of a pilot in an outside station.
Hill also quoted Bob Ayling, former British Airways boss, in an
interview given to the London Economist on September 20th, 2001. Ayling
admitted that it was now possible to control an aircraft in flight from
either the ground or in the air. This was confirmed by expert witnesses
at the inquiry who testified that airliners could be controlled by
electro-magnetic pulse or radio frequency instrumentation from command
and control platforms based either in the air or at ground level.
Finally, although it is only circumstantial evidence, the behavior of
the US Government in swooping in quickly to took all surveillance
videos and not ever releasing this information seems highly suspicious.
The only reasonable explanation is that these silent witnesses to the
attack on the Pentagon might have shown what really happened and that
would not coincide with the Official Conspiracy Theory.
It's not yet a slam dunk. Except for a few anomalies such as a landing
strut and a gear from a rotary actuator of a wing slat, much of the
evidence points toward other types of aircraft other than the Boeing
757. Both of these artifacts could have been planted, may not have been
photographed in the debris, or the person who identified the Boeing 757
piece could have been a disinformationist. It's so hard to be sure.
One can only look at the evidence available and draw provisional
interpretations. Some of the evidence for a missile, specifically a
cruise missile, cannot be easily refuted or questioned. You must
decide if the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, lied about the
missile, or lied that an American Airlines Boeing 757 slammed into the
Pentagon on September 11, 2001. I think he slipped and admitted it was
a missile. When telling lies, it is so easy to forget which is the
fact and which is the lie. The truth will out nevertheless and we, the
People, must often read between the lines, or, more accurately, read
between the lies.
We're supposed to believe that the plane completely disappeared,
vaporized, in the heat of the fire, including the engines, but that
sufficient DNA was found at the site to identify all but one of the
passengers. All but one. Identifying 184 out of 189 Pentagon victims
is a 97% success rate in a case where we are to believe that heat was
sufficient to vaporize the fuselage and engines of the plane, a
vaporization needed to explain the almost complete absence of wreckage
left behind of the plane, but not degrade the DNA of the passengers
inside the plane. How do we reconcile a 50% rate of identification in
New York, or 65% if they achieve their goals, with a 97% identification
rate in Washington, especially where much of the DNA obtained in
Washington had to be obtained from the area where the fuselage
surrounding the passengers was before it was vaporized by the heat? DNA
is an organic molecule that is very fragile, easily destroyed by high
temperatures. Not finding the large metallic pieces that would
indicate a Boeing 757, the government explained that they were burned
up in the intense blaze that consumed the aircraft. Then how does
human tissue survive when 600 lb metal engines cannot?
Don't forget the bizarre assertion that, in the absence of any other
plane, the C-130 was sent after Flight 77. An unarmed, slow C-130
transport plane would be useless if the intent was to stop Flight 77.
The eyewitnesses are all over the map, all of them were effectively
coached by their knowledge of the Official Theory, and it would have
been relatively easy to produce some sort of missile that resembled
Flight 77, particularly given the size of a Boeing 757 relative to the
odd proportions of the Pentagon. The only reason we hear so much about
the eyewitness evidence is that a few of the eyewitnesses are the only
evidence which supports the Official Story, and in fact all the other
evidence makes it clear that the Official Story is not even close to
being possible.
There were a few bits of debris on the lawn that looked like they might
be part of the skin of an American Airlines plane. One piece was quite
near to a pickup truck which can be used for a comparison of
dimensions. The letters on the debris would correspond with those on
an American airliner except for one little detail. It is 1/2 to 1/3
the size. No match.
Some observers noted a high pitched scream from the "something" that
hit the Pentagon. The sound of a large Boeing 757 in flight is a lower
pitch, easily distinguishable from a jumbo jet. Here's an engine part
that was photographed. It's the type of rotor that may be used in
smaller jet engines, not in a Boeing 757 engine. However, it could be
from the auxiliary power unit that drives the generators for a Boeing
757 while on the ground. [However, engineers from the company that
supplies Boeing with these units said the remains did not match-up.
The company that made the main engines for the 757 said the remains
were from a smaller jet engine not used on the 757.
Physical evidence always trumps eyewitness evidence. There are so many
cases of people being convicted and punished, even executed, on the
basis of the certainty of eyewitnesses, that I don't know why so much
emphasis is placed on such evidence. Every study of the reliability of
eyewitnesses comes up with almost laughable conclusions about how mixed
up they are. The eyewitnesses are all over the map, all of them were
effectively coached by their knowledge of the Official Theory, and it
would have been relatively easy to produce some sort of missile that
resembled Flight 77, particularly given the size of a Boeing 757
relative to the odd proportions of the Pentagon. The only reason we
hear so much about the eyewitness evidence is that a few of the
eyewitnesses are the only evidence which supports the Official Story,
and in fact all the other evidence makes it clear that the Official
Story is not even close to being possible. It is also extremely easy,
and a normal part of the trade of deception, for conspirators to plant
a few 'ringers', i. e., paid 'eyewitnesses' who completely support the
Official Story.
The apologists for the Official Story seem to be vacillating between
asserting with absolute certainty that: 1) the plane crashed on the
lawn first, and then went into the Pentagon, and; 2) the plane went
directly into the Pentagon without hitting the ground first. There are
eyewitnesses which support both theories (which should tell you
something about eyewitnesses). The first assertion gets around the
problem that the hole that the plane is supposed to have gone through
is too small, as presumably the plane lost much of its size when it hit
the ground. Unfortunately, if the plane hit the ground in front of the
Pentagon, pieces of it, large pieces, should be all over the lawn (and
pretending to see the remnants of the plane in the tiny amount of
debris on the lawn is just silly). As such large pieces obviously
aren't on the lawn, the theory that the plane crashed into the lawn
first must be wrong. It is also difficult to see how a Boeing 757 could
have crashed on the Pentagon lawn, leaving it looking like the 18th
green at Augusta National Golf Club. If we go back to the second
theory, we hit insurmountable problems with the hole in the Pentagon.
It is not just too small, it is approximately one third to one half the
size it ought to have been, and there is no evidence of marks on the
wall where the wings and tail would have hit and, presumably, been
sheared off (not to mention no evidence of wings or tail!). That leaves
us with the fact that David Copperfield must have been involved to get
that large a plane through that small a hole. There is simply no way to
get around the physical evidence that exists in the wall of the
Pentagon and in the lawn in front of it.
Rumsfeld: "It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any
place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at
every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here
we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines
flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this
building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center.
The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the
terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them." "Missile"? What
missile would that be? Did he let something slip? Or was this just a
gaffe? A bad choice of words? A transcription error? Until we know for
sure, it deserves scrutiny.
The "something" that hit the Pentagon slammed through six walls before
it left an exit hole approximately twelve feet across. Can you imagine
something in an aluminum aircraft that could remain intact through six
walls, multiple pillars and leave an exit wound so small. It can't be
one of the engines because there is only one hole and the exit hole is
consistent with the trajectory of the fuselage, not an outboard
turbine. Besides, this is too near the opening and an engine would not
have burned up in a fire in the open courtyard. The nose cone of the
757 is made of a very hard carbon compound that could not be expected
to survive crashing through all that structure and still have enough
momentum to blast a twelve foot hole in the heavy wall in the Pentagon.
It's starting to seem as though Secretary Rumsfeld might be right!
"BROACH technology is innovative in that rather than simply using mass
and speed to penetrate targets, as with conventional warheads,
approximately 1/3 of the mass of the warhead is used for a large shaped
charge. This "Augmenting Charge" detonates first, cleaving the target
with a high speed plasma jet. A "Follow Through Bomb" then penetrates
and detonates inside the target structure." See
http://defence-data.com/paris99/pagep31.htm
When we go inside the Pentagon things get even weirder. We're supposed
to believe that the plane completely disappeared, vaporized, in the
heat of the fire, including the engines, but that sufficient DNA was
found at the site to identify all but one of the passengers. All but
one. The people who make these lies must laugh and laugh when they
write them. They could have said that the fire destroyed all DNA
evidence except for that of three passengers. That would be hard to
believe, but at least wouldn't be an insult to our intelligence. They
know that the members of the public will accept unquestioningly any
crap they are fed, so they tell us that they were unable to identify
one passenger. We not only have to eat the excrement of the liars, but
we have to tell them how delicious it is.
Since they had the hijacked Flight 77 available, why didn't they just
use it to crash into the Pentagon? Why would they have to use another
form of missile? The answer to this is that we are not sure that Flight
77 was available. The supposed pilot, Hani Hanjour, was so incompetent
a pilot that a few weeks before he was unable to land a small plane
without assistance. It's impossible to believe that Hani Hanjour could
have performed this perfect landing into the Pentagon. Even more
impossible to believe is that the planners of this attack, if it was an
inside job, would have entrusted Hanjour to hit the right part of the
Pentagon. Rumsfeld and a lot of generals were in the building at the
time of the crash. What if Hanjour had overshot the mark and hit the
other side of the building? No one could have taken the chance that an
incompetent like Hanjour wouldn't have killed someone truly important.
A missile provides the kind of control required to safely destroy part
of the Pentagon with a picturesque explosion, while leaving the better
class of people safe and sound.
If the planners of the Pentagon attack had foreknowledge of the WTC
attacks, why would they need the Pentagon attack? The answer to this is
that no one could know how successful the WTC attacks would be. At
best, they could have counted on the planes hitting the towers and the
towers not collapsing, leaving perhaps 500 people dead. This would not
have been enough to justify the war on Afghanistan, the war on Iraq,
the world-wide war on terror, the destruction of the U. S.
Constitution, the massive increase in military spending, the
resurrection of Bush's political carreer, and the new extra-strength
Bush doctrine of American dictatorial rule over all the assets of the
world. There were also supposed attacks on the White House (with smoke
pouring out of it), and at the State Department (a bomb), both of which
have been officially forgotten. There were probably other 'attacks'
ready if they were required. Enough of the attacks would be used to
create sufficient excuse for the many plans of the Bush junta. The
Pentagon attack occurred after both WTC towers had been hit, but before
either had fallen. If one or both of the WTC towers had fallen earlier,
we may not have seen the Pentagon attack. Similarly, the attacks on the
White House and State Department were no longer necessary once the WTC
towers fell, and thus were forgotten.
What happened to Flight 77? I don't know, but it was almost certainly
shot down in an area where the wreckage wouldn't be seen. The timing
becomes crucial here again. No planes were allowed to take off from U.
S air space after 9:26 a. m. Since a plane was needed to take the blame
for the Pentagon damage, it would be necessary to shoot down a plane
already in the air at that time, which had not yet landed, and which
was over a deserted area where the wreckage could be covered up. I
remember television reports on the morning of September 11 that a plane
had been shot down over Colorado, and that might very well have been
Flight 77. It may have been originally planned to use Flight 93 as the
patsy plane, but the fact that the shooting down of Flight 93 was
noticed meant that another plane had to be selected, one of the few
that was still in the air that late in the morning.
It is even possible, though unlikely, that Flight 77 wasn't hijacked at
all. Remember that Hani Hanjour's name wasn't on the passenger manifest
of Flight 77. I assume that the FBI included him as the pilot as he was
known to associate with the other members of the hijacking group, and
he was the only even remotely qualified pilot available on that flight.
What if Hanjour's handlers told him not to get on the flight, or he
chickened out? The other hijackers would then be left without a pilot,
and would simply have had to abort the hijacking and fly to the west
coast. It would be very ironic if they then ended up being shot down as
Flight 77 was chosen as the Pentagon patsy plane.
Don't forget about the complete implausibility of the Pentagon
assertion that it was not defended against air attacks, and the
unbelievable absence of any video of that side of the building except
for one video which strangely doesn't show Flight 77 (if you squint you
can see something, but nothing the size of Flight 77). Also don't
forget the bizarre assertion that, in the absence of any other plane,
the C-130 was sent after Flight 77. An unarmed, slow C-130 transport
plane would be useless if the intent was to stop Flight 77, but would
make an excellent platform from which to shoot 'home movies' of a very
successful operation (these people like to film their exploits).
Failure to accept the obvious is not without costs. Ever since the
assassination of JFK we have seen a constant escalation of the boldness
of the attacks on the United States by parts of the U. S. government.
The failure to ever call to task those responsible for so many outrages
just leaves the same people more confident of their ability to continue
to fool the American people. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration may
need a new dramatic excuse to begin its war on Iraq, and I fear that
more people are going to die who might not have needed to die if proper
attention was paid to the faked crash of Flight 77.
.............................
Many choose to be/remain intellectually comatose in neverthink land.
Beware the danger of collective apathy -- attention deficit global
disgrace. Broadmind input:
"Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime"
http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=92
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6757267008400743688
-uptimod
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> On Sat, 27 May 2006 20:43:49 -0700, "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote:
>
> >The school that would propose focusing on finding out what really did
> >happen to the 757
>
> Normally the pieces are put back together and
> many diagnostics are done.
>
> Had that happened?
Not if there's a good fire. There won't be many recognizable pieces to
reassemble.
> >... conspiracy theorists have no idea ...
>
> How do you suppose the guy in the cave in
> Afghanistan stood down the US air defense
> system on 9/11, even after warnings of his
> specific involvement in imminent attacks
> had been reported to Bush himself?
The most probable explaination: The reports provided were way over the
head of someone who was reading "My Pet Goat" when it all went down.
The conspiracy theory: Bush, or at least people in his administration
knew something was going to happen and stood aside figuring that they
could use the resulting public outrage to their advantage. However, the
attacks happened pretty much as the majority of the press has reported
them.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
If life was fair, Elvis would be alive and all the impersonators
would be dead. -- Johnny Carson
uptimod
Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True:
Aircraft Parts as a Clue to their Identity
by George Nelson
Colonel, USAF (ret.)
http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson.htm
[brief excerpt]
American Airlines Flight 77
This was reported to be a Boeing 757, registration number N644AA,
carrying 64 people, including the flight crew and five hijackers. This
aircraft, with a 125-foot wingspan, was reported to have crashed into
the Pentagon, leaving an entry hole no more than 65 feet wide.
Following cool-down of the resulting fire, this crash site would have
been very easy to collect enough time-change equipment within 15
minutes to positively identify the aircraft registry. There was
apparently some aerospace type of equipment found at the site but no
attempt was made to produce serial numbers or to identify the specific
parts found. Some of the equipment removed from the building was
actually hidden from public view.
'adamant
Thank you for featuring Col. George Nelson. Why bother with experts, I
had almost come to conclude!
--
'foolsrushin.'
'adamant
opaque as the Da Vinci Code. Read the stuff: Zook has found the
majority of it, but I have chipped in from time to time!
As regards the Elvis impersonators, who could disagree. I attended a
congess of them: they were absolutely awful, and the only one who was
getting there did not look like Elvis and was resented by some of them
them - because he could sing!
--
'foolsrushin.'
zookumar yelubandi
> *, US, * wrote:
> > On Sat, 27 May 2006 20:43:49 -0700, "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote:
> > >The school that would propose focusing on finding out what really did
> > >happen to the 757
> > Normally the pieces are put back together and
> > many diagnostics are done.
> > Had that happened?
> Not if there's a good fire. There won't be many recognizable pieces to
> reassemble.
Of course, the mandate of apologists is to focus on the possible
rather than on the probable. Wayward wolverines boring through
reams of factual data to find the wiggle rooms hidden deep within.
Yes, I'm sure that it's possible that no identifiable pieces
remained. Probable? No. Indeed, as part of the diagnostics, one
would hope resources would have been exhausted in trying to understand
how a Boeing 757 nose cone would blast a hole clear through the C-ring
of the Pentagon structure, a journey which would require the puncturing
of no less than six steel-reinforced concrete walls at a total of nine
feet of thickness.
"http://www.pentagonresearch.com/104.html"
-------------beginExcerpt--------------------------------------------
EXIT HOLE IN PENTAGON RING-C
American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, is alleged to have punched
through 6 blast-resistant concrete walls a total of nine feet of
reinforced concrete before exiting through this hole.
It is physically impossible for the wall to have failed in a neat clean
cut circle, period. When I first saw this hole, a chill went down my
spine because I knew it was not possible to have a reinforced concrete
wall fail in this manner, it should have caved in, in some fashion.
How do you create a nice clean hole in a reinforced concrete wall? with
an explosive shaped charge. An explosive shaped charge, or cutting
charge is used in various military warhead devices. You design the
geometry of the explosive charge so that you create a focused line of
energy. You essentially focus nearly all of the explosive energy in what
is referred to as a jet. You use this jet to cut and penetrate armor on
a tank, or the walls of a bunker. The signature is clear and
unmistakable. In a missile, the explosive charge is circular to allow
the payload behind the initial shaped charge to enter whatever has been
penetrated.
I do not know what happened on 9/11, I do not know how politics works in
this country, I can not explain why the mainstream media does not report
on the problems with the 9/11 Commission. But I am an engineer, and I
know what happens in high speed impacts, and how shaped charges are used
to "cut" through materials.
---------------------------end-------------------------------------
For a graphic of the object's trajectory through these walls,
visit the following URL:
"http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm"
> > >... conspiracy theorists have no idea ...
> > How do you suppose the guy in the cave in
> > Afghanistan stood down the US air defense
> > system on 9/11, even after warnings of his
> > specific involvement in imminent attacks
> > had been reported to Bush himself?
> The most probable explaination: The reports provided were way over the
> head of someone who was reading "My Pet Goat" when it all went down.
> The conspiracy theory: Bush, or at least people in his administration
> knew something was going to happen and stood aside figuring that they
> could use the resulting public outrage to their advantage. However, the
> attacks happened pretty much as the majority of the press has reported
> them.
Another shill steps up and prostrates himself before the empire.
If P.E. stands for Professional Engineer, I suggest that you drop that
title from the rest of your name, Paul.
-zookumar-
Phil Holman
Several accounts had the plane coming in at 45 degrees to the side of
the Pentagon after clipping light poles. If you draw two parallel lines
100 feet apart, one of the lines will touch the nose and the right wing
tip; the other the left wing tip and the left tip of the horizontal
stabilizer. Due to the angle of the plane relative to the camera, the
155 ft long 757 could appear as an object 100 ft long.
>
> You're the one who is spatially challenged if you need this
> explained to you at length. Still, I concede that I was careless in
> drawing attention to this unimportant fact.
You make significant conclusions based on the alleged length of a blurry
image and then downplay it.
>My argument however,
> remains sound. The front section of a Boeing 757 (if, indeed, the
> object in question as alleged by the Pentagon and the mainstream
> media)
> would have protruded from the Pentagon side of the boom gate by at
> least
> three tail fin base lengths (whether we are talking actual lengths or
> reduced lengths does not change this fact).
It's hard to come up with a length of the blurry white image because it
disappears off the edge of the frame. There is no image of a vertical
stabilizer in the video frame which one can reasonably suppose is off
the edge of the frame.
>
>
>> Likewise your analysis of a blurry
>> white image on the edge of a frame distorted by spherical apparition.
>
> Are all blurry white images, Boeing 757s?
No, it's almost impossible to say what it is, but that doesn't a
government conspiracy make.
Nothing is ever permanent, not even you lack of humor.
>Again, is Larry Silverstein an Arab?
Hardly, but then given his remark and his name, it fits nicely with a
juicy fat conspiracy.
Phil H
'adamant
at last 130+ is on the case, even if sometimes reminds me of our dear
Inspector Clueso. And I certainly do take YOUR point seriously, DK:
there is an obvious and important 'apriori' content! Even early fission
explosions left more or less identifiable debris!
DK wrote:
> In article <1148848167.2...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "uptimod" <laffi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >For review and discovery - outside the cage.
>
> Personally, I find it puzzling, inexplicable and unbelievable that
> no single expert was able to positively identify a piece of hardware
> given the extent of detail presented here:
>
> http://www.the7thfire.com/images/photorotor.jpg
>
> Conspiracy theories or not, a plane or a missile, the piece's got to be
> readily identifiable. A simple "this piece belongs to this engine" would
> be much more convincing than all of the conspiracy theories combined.
--
'foolsrushin.'
zookumar yelubandi
[...]
> >> > "http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/motive.html" ]
> >>
> >> Please analyze the aerial photo and interpret "approximately right
> >> angles" into an actual angle. The reachings of the spatially
> >> challenged do nothing for your credibility.
> > "Approximately at right angle[s]" means just what it states
> > "approximately at 90 degrees". IOW, neither at a right angle nor
> > significantly removed from 90 degrees. In any event, it really does
> > not matter in the final analysis, for if the plane in the video still
> > is coming at an angle towards us (eg. off the image planar), that means
> > the observed tail fin is also coming at an angle towards us. Id est,
> > we would be observing the reduced apparent length of the tail fin (as
> > projected onto the image planar) to begin with, anyways.
> > The Boeing 757 is a little over seven times the length of its
> > tail fin ... THIS RATIO IS CONSTANT whether we are viewing actual
> > lengths (eg. object is fully constrained to the image planar and its
> > motion is at right angles to the camera) or whether we are viewing
> > reduced lengths (eg. object is coming out of the image planar towards
> > us, wherein its motion is not at right angles to the camera).
> Several accounts had the plane coming in at 45 degrees to the side of
> the Pentagon after clipping light poles. If you draw two parallel lines
> 100 feet apart, one of the lines will touch the nose and the right wing
> tip; the other the left wing tip and the left tip of the horizontal
> stabilizer. Due to the angle of the plane relative to the camera, the
> 155 ft long 757 could appear as an object 100 ft long.
Two points. If you go back to the aerial photo, the trajectory
of the object is, indeed, about 45 degrees to the facade. But if you
look at the video stills, the camera's central point of focus falls on
the NEAR SIDE OF THE IMPACT ZONE, not on the impact zone itself, not on
the far side, not on the moving object. Getting back to the aerial
view, if we drop a perpendicular from the camera onto the near side of
the Pentagon impact zone, and extend it through the building, it
intersects the 45-degree incidental trajectory of the moving object
somewhere on the outer wall of the C-ring (eg. the fifth concrete wall
that is punctured by the object before it exits on the other side of the
C-ring). The ANGLE OF INTERSECTION is very close to 90 degrees.
So, in fact, what is show on the video stills is very much the full
length of the object as it moves across the viewing field. If the
object is indeed a Boeing 757, then we are seeing approximately its full
length of 155 feet.
Point two. It does not matter what APPARENT length the object
is. The ratio of tail fin base length to the length of the fuselage
is CONSTANT. Indeed, the object could be coming steeply towards the
camera; then, even if only a sliver of the tail fin base length is
visible, the fuselage's length can be calculated by positioning six
"sliver" lengths side by side next to the visible sliver length of the
tail fin. The position of the nose can then be pinpointed.
So your argument about "155ft appearing as 100ft" betrays a lack
of spatial understanding on your part.
> > You're the one who is spatially challenged if you need this
> > explained to you at length. Still, I concede that I was careless in
> > drawing attention to this unimportant fact.
> You make significant conclusions based on the alleged length of a blurry
> image and then downplay it.
Not at all. See explanation above. I'm only playing it up
again since you want to pursue it; moreover, I'm stating that the
CONSTANT RATIO of tail fin base length to fuselage length makes the
angle of incidence irrelevant. Also, the tail fin is not blurry.
The following website takes a closer look at the video stills:
"http://www.bedoper.com/eastman/small_plane/index.html"
In about the fourth photograph down, the tail fin is clearly
visible (along with a white trail of smoke that the monolithic
mainstream media has falsely tried to promote as the nosecone of
ill-fated Flight 77 dragging on the ground before impact).
> > My argument however, remains sound. The front section of a Boeing
> > 757 (if, indeed, the object in question as alleged by the Pentagon
> > and the mainstream media) would have protruded from the Pentagon
> > side of the boom gate by at least three tail fin base lengths
> > (whether we are talking actual lengths or reduced lengths does not
> > change this fact).
> It's hard to come up with a length of the blurry white image because it
> disappears off the edge of the frame. There is no image of a vertical
> stabilizer in the video frame which one can reasonably suppose is off
> the edge of the frame.
In your understanding (genuine or contrived), the "blurry white
image" is supposed to be a placemarker for a silver-grey Boeing 757. In
my understanding, the blurry white image is a placemarker for a white
vapor trail. Go back to the URL I just presented and take a long hard
look. Also, if you really believe what you say, how come a "sharp
triangular black image" is clearly visible immediately in front of the
"blurry white image". This sharp black image appears above the boom
gate in the first frame of the video displayed, but is absent from the
remaining four frames in which the explosion is captured. Here's the
URL again:
"http://www.bedoper.com/eastman/small_plane/index.html"
> >> Likewise your analysis of a blurry
> >> white image on the edge of a frame distorted by spherical apparition.
> > Are all blurry white images, Boeing 757s?
> No, it's almost impossible to say what it is, but that doesn't a
> government conspiracy make.
But the preponderance of the evidence (twin tower collapses,
WTC7 collapse, air defense stand-down, airline put options, hijackers
seen alive after that day, PNAC, Pax Americana, etc.) ... including a
critical analysis of the official Pentagon video released on May 16,
2006 (as others have endeavored and as I explain their results above)
.. does, indeed, a government conspiracy make.
It also does government shills make.
Yes. When all else fails, invoke the "antiSemitism" angle.
Sorry, I will not be drawn into your ploy. Of course, if you call me
"antiZionist" (given Israel's track record of indiscriminate violence
against the Palestinian Arabs, e.g. in the duty of expansion back into
the lands once vacated by the Biblical Israelites) ... I will gladly
wear that badge of honor. AntiZionism and antiSemitism are entirely
different things. The former is honorable; the latter is despicable.
Indeed, I'm confident that the bulk of Jews all over the world (e.g.
decent, humanistic Jews) are also equally wary of Israel's policies and
actions.
Of course, it hasn't bothered you much that Arabs have been
scapegoated by this conspiracy and have been slaughtered in Iraq because
of it, has it?
-zookumar-
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
[snip]
>
> Yes, I'm sure that it's possible that no identifiable pieces
> remained. Probable? No. Indeed, as part of the diagnostics, one
> would hope resources would have been exhausted in trying to understand
> how a Boeing 757 nose cone would blast a hole clear through the C-ring
> of the Pentagon structure, a journey which would require the puncturing
> of no less than six steel-reinforced concrete walls at a total of nine
> feet of thickness.
That's nowhere near an accurate description of the Pentagon's
construction.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nondeterminism means never having to say you are wrong.
zookumar yelubandi
> zookumar yelubandi wrote:
> [snip]
> > Yes, I'm sure that it's possible that no identifiable pieces
> > remained. Probable? No. Indeed, as part of the diagnostics, one
> > would hope resources would have been exhausted in trying to understand
> > how a Boeing 757 nose cone would blast a hole clear through the C-ring
> > of the Pentagon structure, a journey which would require the puncturing
> > of no less than six steel-reinforced concrete walls at a total of nine
> > feet of thickness.
> That's nowhere near an accurate description of the Pentagon's
> construction.
I provided a link that details the Pentagon's construction less
generically than I had stated above. You snipped that link out in order
to pretend that my generic statement about the total thickness of
steel-reinforce concrete (that the projectile had to penetrate) meant
something more substantial than was offered.
For honest researchers, here's the snipped portion that our
resident P.E. (Peon of Empire) snipped to engage his obfuscation:
===============beginDeSnip============================================
"http://www.pentagonresearch.com/104.html"
======================================================end=============
-zookumar-
The Natural Philosopher
> How do you create a nice clean hole in a reinforced concrete wall? with
> an explosive shaped charge. An explosive shaped charge, or cutting
> charge is used in various military warhead devices. You design the
> geometry of the explosive charge so that you create a focused line of
> energy. You essentially focus nearly all of the explosive energy in what
> is referred to as a jet. You use this jet to cut and penetrate armor on
> a tank, or the walls of a bunker. The signature is clear and
> unmistakable. In a missile, the explosive charge is circular to allow
> the payload behind the initial shaped charge to enter whatever has been
> penetrated.
Any mass of circular cross section backed up by enough force will punch
a circular hole in anything.
You can fire a banana through a plank of wood. It leaves a round hole.
uptimod
an energetic pair of significantly massive jet engines -- going/gone
where?
-uptimod
M Dunne
>M Dunne wrote:
>> "tersono" <ethel....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:
>
> This is the second time, Marcus, that a post of yours,
> intentionally or unintentionally, paints a post of mine in the dubious
> light of an obfuscator.
'Obfuscator'...?!? Believe me, my own word would have been more severe.
> The other time being my admonition of Noam
> Chomsky and your admonition of me for daring to admonish Chomsky.
You aren't in a position to 'admonish' anyone, cupcake, least of all someone
like Chomsky. The fact that you insist on trying to just makes you look even
more like a paid trouble-maker trying to make America's 'moron majority'
even more convinced that what they all think of as 'the left' is merely a
bunch of irrational, inconsistent, contrarian, back-biting traitors with no
contribution to make.
> FTR, I know I am genuine. FWIW, I'll accept that you're
> genuine (at least for the time being). So how can we show the readers
> that we can _both_ be trusted in our 911 research even tho' we seem to
> bump heads from time to time? I have a simple suggestion, nay, one
> question. Do you or do you not believe that a Boeing 757 was the plane
> that hit the Pentagon?
Why are you trying to ask *me* questions when the first and most important
question is one that you should have asked yourself long ago: Why doesn't it
strike you as deeply suspicious that the Pentagon film clip which everyone
is so exercised about was released in a 'leak'? Why, in other words, are you
so eager to embrace a tainted piece of supposed 'evidence' that is
completely contradicted by the vast majority of the eye-witness testimony?
Why are you so happy to see the 'official' theory being attacked at its
strongest point with the opposition's weakest weapons? Why can't you see
that the clip was 'leaked' in order to confuse and distract opponents of the
official story? Why don't you acknowledge that no film clip would even have
*survived* that genuinely undermined the official story -- and that the
'leaked' frames were deliberately released with the intention of
strengthening the official story by undermining the kind of investigator you
are claiming to be? Why can't you see that the clip was released to *jerk
people around*...?
> So ... what is your take of the Pentagon attack?
Who says I need to have one...?
M.
zookumar yelubandi
> "zookumar yelubandi" <zook...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:Cc_dg.28492$zn1.5220@clgrps13...
> >M Dunne wrote:
> >> "tersono" <ethel....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> >> news:
> > This is the second time, Marcus, that a post of yours,
> > intentionally or unintentionally, paints a post of mine in the dubious
> > light of an obfuscator.
> 'Obfuscator'...?!? Believe me, my own word would have been more severe.
I bet it would. After all, those not grounded in facts are free
to say anything they like.
> > The other time being my admonition of Noam
> > Chomsky and your admonition of me for daring to admonish Chomsky.
> You aren't in a position to 'admonish' anyone, cupcake, least of all someone
> like Chomsky. The fact that you insist on trying to just makes you look even
> more like a paid trouble-maker trying to make America's 'moron majority'
> even more convinced that what they all think of as 'the left' is merely a
> bunch of irrational, inconsistent, contrarian, back-biting traitors with no
> contribution to make.
This clown, M. Dunne, folks, is most likely a paid shill
projecting his own burden of guilt onto me. As a disinformation
specialist, he's especially talented, for he had me believing in him.
Even now, I'm having trouble reconciling some of his posts with still
other posts of his.
Think agitprop. Would a genuine 911 research person be this
offended (as M. Dunne claims to be) if another 911 research person
(however genuine) admonishes Noam Chomsky and provides the following
informational link:
"http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/chart.htm"
Dunne doesn't even bother with the contents of the article,
which was located at "www.newtopiamagazine.net" when I first posted a
reference to it. Curiously, I can't find that article there anymore,
so I am posting this new website link:
"http://www.venusproject.com/ethics_in_action/Chomsky_A_Controlled_Asset.html"
[...]
> > FTR, I know I am genuine. FWIW, I'll accept that you're
> > genuine (at least for the time being). So how can we show the readers
> > that we can _both_ be trusted in our 911 research even tho' we seem to
> > bump heads from time to time? I have a simple suggestion, nay, one
> > question. Do you or do you not believe that a Boeing 757 was the plane
> > that hit the Pentagon?
> Why are you trying to ask *me* questions when the first and most important
> question is one that you should have asked yourself long ago: Why doesn't it
> strike you as deeply suspicious that the Pentagon film clip which everyone
> is so exercised about was released in a 'leak'?
Because my commitment to the "no-Boeing757" camp did not exist
prior to May 16, 2006. It was only realized after the Pentagon gave
its official stamp to that video. You see, Marcus, I'm not as
hysterical as you. I wait for incontrovertible evidence before making
any commitment (e.g. factual analysis). At other times, I am forthright
with my speculations. I'm stating that *based* on the official Pentagon
video, a Boeing 757 could not have struck the Pentagon. By contrast,
I'm speculating that Noam Chomsky is a left gatekeeper. Factual
analysis. Speculation. Understand the difference.
>Why, in other words, are you
> so eager to embrace a tainted piece of supposed 'evidence' that is
> completely contradicted by the vast majority of the eye-witness testimony?
Eye witness testimony is less credible than actual video
evidence. Such evidence exists in the gas station videotapes, Sheraton
Hotel roof camera videotape, and the surrounding traffic cameras in the
municipality, none of which has been released to the public some four
and a half years after the fact. That alone points to a coverup.
Moreover, official video evidence has now been released WHICH
CONCLUSIVELY REJECTS the theory that Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.
Question begs, why aren't *you* bothered by all of the above?
Further indictment of your shill credentials, I fear. Turning to the
post May 16, 2006 circumstance, the official evidence, whether tainted
or not, can only serve to indict those that claim a Boeing 757 hit the
Pentagon. For if it isn't tainted, then clearly no Boeing 757 is seen
on the video or measured using dimensional metrics. And if it *is*
tainted, then what is an official government institution doing faking
videos (and releasing for public consumption)? To wit, the official
Pentagon video is now incontrovertible evidence that a coverup is going
on, and this fact of coverup points to an inside job.
> Why are you so happy to see the 'official' theory being attacked at its
> strongest point with the opposition's weakest weapons?
The official story has already been debunked with the
opposition's strongest points (WTC7 and twin tower collapses). We're
now in the phase of preponderating the evidence. To this, only
incontrovertible evidence should be discussed. After May 16, 2006,
the official Pentagon video is now in the realm of incontrovertible
evidence (of a government coverup).
>Why can't you see
> that the clip was 'leaked' in order to confuse and distract opponents of the
> official story? Why don't you acknowledge that no film clip would even have
> *survived* that genuinely undermined the official story -- and that the
> 'leaked' frames were deliberately released with the intention of
> strengthening the official story by undermining the kind of investigator you
> are claiming to be? Why can't you see that the clip was released to *jerk
> people around*...?
Why can't you see that THAT is exactly what THEY want you to get
bogged down in, i.e. hysterical rambling about leaks and what not.
Fixating on leaks is counterproductive. Ask yourself: if the genuine
video has already been destroyed, this new officially released video
cannot possibly exonerate the guilty. But if the genuine video is
still around, then the guilty dare not release it now, not after May 16,
2006, for that would raise further questions of the 4.5 year gap and
charges of video-manipulation and what not. IOW, the government would
be trapped in a scenario of having lied then (on May 16, 2006) _or_
lying now (if any genuine video is released that counters the official
video of May 16, 2006). In essence, the government would be in a no-win
situation wrt the Pentagon video. Which would then completely throw the
Pentagon video out the door and refocus attention on the twin tower
collapses and WTC7.
People who focus on "leaks" and oher hysterical arguments that
are based outside the known set of facts do damage to the pursuit of
truth. For now, obfuscator is a sufficient word for you, Marcus. I
don't have enough evidence (as of yet) to use a harsher term.
> > So ... what is your take of the Pentagon attack?
> Who says I need to have one...?
> M.
Right now, your credibility is so low you need one.
-zookumar-
Phil Holman
The angle of intersection is 90 degrees for a point at the inner 4th
perimeter layer of the Pentagon, the blurry image is ~600 ft to the
right of this point and the camera is ~900 ft away. What is the viewing
angle? Figure it out and get back to us, here's the actual aerial shot.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/finalapproach.html
>
> Point two. It does not matter what APPARENT length the object
> is. The ratio of tail fin base length to the length of the fuselage
> is CONSTANT. Indeed, the object could be coming steeply towards the
> camera; then, even if only a sliver of the tail fin base length is
> visible, the fuselage's length can be calculated by positioning six
> "sliver" lengths side by side next to the visible sliver length of the
> tail fin. The position of the nose can then be pinpointed.
>
> So your argument about "155ft appearing as 100ft" betrays a
> lack of spatial understanding on your part.
Hardly, you're still at point one. Next step is to overlay a plan view
of a 757. You'll find that it fits into a ~100 ft wide band as viewed
from the camera position.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/pentdamage.html
Look at the small blue 757s at the bottom of this link.
If we can't get past this point we aren't going anywhere.
Phil H
zookumar yelubandi
> "zookumar yelubandi" <zook...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:OCseg.3093$kK6.1017@edtnps89...
> > Phil Holman wrote:
> >> "zookumar yelubandi" <zook...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> >> news:23meg.35912$Qq.7005@clgrps12...
[...]
> > trajectory
> > of the object is, indeed, about 45 degrees to the facade. But if you
> > look at the video stills, the camera's central point of focus falls on
> > the NEAR SIDE OF THE IMPACT ZONE, not on the impact zone itself, not
> > on
> > the far side, not on the moving object. Getting back to the aerial
> > view, if we drop a perpendicular from the camera onto the near side of
> > the Pentagon impact zone, and extend it through the building, it
> > intersects the 45-degree incidental trajectory of the moving object
> > somewhere on the outer wall of the C-ring (eg. the fifth concrete wall
> > that is punctured by the object before it exits on the other side of
> > the
> > C-ring). The ANGLE OF INTERSECTION is very close to 90 degrees.
> > So, in fact, what is show on the video stills is very much the full
> > length of the object as it moves across the viewing field. If the
> > object is indeed a Boeing 757, then we are seeing approximately its
> > full
> > length of 155 feet.
>
> The angle of intersection is 90 degrees for a point at the inner 4th
> perimeter layer of the Pentagon, the blurry image is ~600 ft to the
> right of this point and the camera is ~900 ft away. What is the viewing
> angle? Figure it out and get back to us, here's the actual aerial shot.
Forget the viewing angle, we can determine roughly what angle
the object is coming towards the camera by overlaying a protractor over
the image below:
> http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/finalapproach.html
Angle of incidence wrt Pentagon facade is approx. 50 degrees.
Camera's position wrt to the point on Pentagon facade where object's
trajectory intersects, is about 5 degrees. So effective angle of object
wrt camera is (50 - 5) or 45 degrees. So effective visible length of a
Boeing 757 would be cos(45)*155=110 ft, not 155 ft. So my earlier usage
of "approximate right angle" is incorrect wrt the appearance of object
in first frame; and is only true after the object has come to a stop in
about the C-ring deep inside. Fair enough, I concede my error. So
let's work with the new effective length of 110 feet. How does this new
length affect my argument of CONSTANT RATIO of tail fin baselength to
length of Boeing 757 fuselage? Answer. It doesn't.
"http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/vaportrail.html"
Look at the close-up of the tail fin. It, indeed, looks like
a tail fin is pointed slightly towards the camera (45 degrees???).
But look closely. It doesn't look like a Boeing 757 tail fin pointed
at 45 degrees (???). Oddly enough, it looks like a V-shaped tail fin
pointing at 45 degrees (???). You know the V-shape of a Global Hawk
drone or something like that:
"http://www.deskpicture.com/DPs/Military/GlobalHawk_e.html"
But I'm not asserting here that a Global Hawk drone was the
culprit. I'm here showing that a Boeing 757 could *not* have been the
culprit. And if the tail fin in the video is supposed to be a Boeing
757, then that would mean that we should see some part of the jetliner
protruding from the other side of the boom gate (at least three tail fin
baselengths worth, even if we're only seeing "cos45" times the actual
tail fin baselength in the video).
> > Point two. It does not matter what APPARENT length the object
> > is. The ratio of tail fin base length to the length of the fuselage
> > is CONSTANT. Indeed, the object could be coming steeply towards the
> > camera; then, even if only a sliver of the tail fin base length is
> > visible, the fuselage's length can be calculated by positioning six
> > "sliver" lengths side by side next to the visible sliver length of the
> > tail fin. The position of the nose can then be pinpointed.
> > So your argument about "155ft appearing as 100ft" betrays a
> > lack of spatial understanding on your part.
> Hardly, you're still at point one. Next step is to overlay a plan view
> of a 757. You'll find that it fits into a ~100 ft wide band as viewed
> from the camera position.
> http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/pentdamage.html
> Look at the small blue 757s at the bottom of this link.
> If we can't get past this point we aren't going anywhere.
The point above is irrelevant because the ratio between tail fin
baselength and Boeing 757 fuselage length is CONSTANT. That is to say,
what we see on the camera in terms of tail fin baselength is what we can
use to measure the expected length of a Boeing 757. This is true for
any angle of incidence.
-zookumar-
Phil Holman
I agree, this is a fairly accurate estimate of the image length.
>How does this new
> length affect my argument of CONSTANT RATIO of tail fin baselength to
> length of Boeing 757 fuselage? Answer. It doesn't.
It does however indicate a somewhat rational thought process, something
sadly lacking in the reference material I have been reviewing.
>
> "http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/vaportrail.html"
>
> Look at the close-up of the tail fin. It, indeed, looks like
> a tail fin is pointed slightly towards the camera (45 degrees???).
> But look closely. It doesn't look like a Boeing 757 tail fin pointed
> at 45 degrees (???). Oddly enough, it looks like a V-shaped tail fin
> pointing at 45 degrees (???). You know the V-shape of a Global Hawk
> drone or something like that:
>
> "http://www.deskpicture.com/DPs/Military/GlobalHawk_e.html"
>
I'm sorry but I don't recognize the black vertical object that appears
in the frame as anything definative. Notwithstanding the absence of 110
ft of 757 Fuselage or any other appearance of aircraft structure in
front of it, I would conclude that it is either debris from colliding
with fencing or light poles etc. or some other unexplained phenonemon.
Like I said, it doesn't look like a 757 vertical stabilizer to me. My
focus is on the white blurry image which disappears out of the frame.
You say it's a vapor trail but it has disappeared in the next frame and
is replaced with a more realistic image of a trailing wash.
Phil H
*us*
>Not if there's a good fire. There won't be many recognizable pieces to
>reassemble.
There's often a fire, and in every case, the remaining
pieces (there are always some) get analyzed.
There's no valid reason for this not to have occurred.
>The most probable explaination: The reports provided were way over the
>head of someone who was reading "My Pet Goat" when it all went down.
Assuming that Bush would be stupid is inappropriate.
He's being 'stupid' all the way to his offshore accounts.
>The conspiracy theory: Bush, or at least people in his administration
>knew something was going to happen
It's a fact that they had warnings, many of them.
It's also a fact that they lied about having had such
warnings and were caught in that lie.
>...the
>attacks happened pretty much as the majority of the press has reported
>them.
The press reported that flight 93 had been shot down, too.
On Sat, 27 May 2006 20:43:49 -0700, "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote:
>The school that would propose focusing on finding out what really did
>happen to the 757
Normally the pieces are put back together and
many diagnostics are done.
Had that happened?
>... conspiracy theorists have no idea ...
How do you suppose the guy in the cave in
Afghanistan stood down the US air defense
system on 9/11, even after warnings of his
specific involvement in imminent attacks
had been reported to Bush himself?
>Please do; this isn't a faith based supposition at work.
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
> > zookumar yelubandi wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > Yes, I'm sure that it's possible that no identifiable pieces
> > > remained. Probable? No. Indeed, as part of the diagnostics, one
> > > would hope resources would have been exhausted in trying to understand
> > > how a Boeing 757 nose cone would blast a hole clear through the C-ring
> > > of the Pentagon structure, a journey which would require the puncturing
> > > of no less than six steel-reinforced concrete walls at a total of nine
> > > feet of thickness.
> > That's nowhere near an accurate description of the Pentagon's
> > construction.
>
> I provided a link that details the Pentagon's construction less
> generically than I had stated above. You snipped that link out in order
> to pretend that my generic statement about the total thickness of
> steel-reinforce concrete (that the projectile had to penetrate) meant
> something more substantial than was offered.
>
> For honest researchers, here's the snipped portion that our
> resident P.E. (Peon of Empire) snipped to engage his obfuscation:
>
> ===============beginDeSnip============================================
>
> "http://www.pentagonresearch.com/104.html"
Please provide an official link describing the Pentagon's construction
details (one ending in .gov would be appropriate).
And watch the insults. They have pretty much discredited you hereabouts.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
A physicist is an atom's way of knowing about atoms.
-- George Wald
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> On Sun, 28 May 2006 14:22:34 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Pa...@Hovnanian.com> wrote:
>
> >Not if there's a good fire. There won't be many recognizable pieces to
> >reassemble.
>
> There's often a fire, and in every case, the remaining
> pieces (there are always some) get analyzed.
>
> There's no valid reason for this not to have occurred.
It did. What did you expect them to do with a couple of engine parts,
pieces of landing gear and little bits of molten aluminum? Had this been
an accident, there would not have been sufficient evidence to indicate
the cause. That happens quite often in aircraft accident investigations.
Unless it involves pieces falling off some distance away, the bits found
at a crash don't reveal much. Particularly in the case of controlled
flight into a building, analysis would indicate nothing out of the
ordinary. They found some larger pieces with serial numbers, which
confirmed what they already knew. The identity of the airplane involved.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't hate yourself in the morning -- sleep till noon.
zookumar yelubandi
Mea culpa. By now, I should have realized that the only
information you believe is what the government tells you.
> And watch the insults. They have pretty much discredited you hereabouts.
Hereabouts? As in your own mind? I'll live with that. Now
why would you think the Pentagon would be constructed with anything less
than the sturdiest of designs and materials? Or that the Pentagon brass
would offer its architectural blueprints (in fine detail) for the whole
world to see?
-zookumar-
zookumar yelubandi
> zookumar yelubandi wrote:
> Please provide an official link describing the Pentagon's construction
> details (one ending in .gov would be appropriate).
Not a government site, but it does provide useful info into the
construction of the C-ring "exit hole" wall:
"http://www.pentagonresearch.com/065.html"
-zookumar-
Alan
<drivel>
Did anyone work out how to filter on Newsgroup with Thunderbird? I'd
love to be able to remove any articles with rec.org.mensa in the
Newsgroup. Seems like we are getting more and more loonies out there.
Thunderbird seems to be only able to filter on Subject, From and Date,
unless I am missing something.
--
Alan
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! Replace 'deadspam.com' with 'penguinclub.org.uk' to
reply in email.
Stuart Moore
> zookumar yelubandi wrote:
> <drivel>
>
> Did anyone work out how to filter on Newsgroup with Thunderbird? I'd
> love to be able to remove any articles with rec.org.mensa in the
> Newsgroup. Seems like we are getting more and more loonies out there.
>
> Thunderbird seems to be only able to filter on Subject, From and Date,
> unless I am missing something.
>
Just looked through and couldn't find a relevant add on. I'm currently
filtering out the "foolsrushin" guy (so didn't see the post you replied
to) by address, but you're right, we're getting more of them (or
truetroll is having multiple identities).
Guys, please just stop. We're not interested.
Stuart Moore
>
> Just looked through and couldn't find a relevant add on. I'm currently
> filtering out the "foolsrushin" guy (so didn't see the post you replied
> to) by address, but you're right, we're getting more of them (or
> truetroll is having multiple identities).
PS - hitting the K key on threads you're not interesting is almost as good.
zookumar yelubandi
> zookumar yelubandi wrote:
> <drivel>
> Did anyone work out how to filter on Newsgroup with Thunderbird? I'd
> love to be able to remove any articles with rec.org.mensa in the
> Newsgroup. Seems like we are getting more and more loonies out there.
> Thunderbird seems to be only able to filter on Subject, From and Date,
> unless I am missing something.
You've been missing something all your life, namely, a working
conscience.
-zookumar-
The Natural Philosopher
There may be some plugins available on the thunderbird site. Can't be
arsed to look really.
Stuart Moore
> There may be some plugins available on the thunderbird site. Can't be
> arsed to look really.
Just did. None suitable :(
Alan
That's the conclusion I've come to :-(
Ah well, maybe they'll get bored and go away soon. Mean time, I'll have
to filter on an ad hoc basis using name and subject I suppose.
Sarah Brown
Stuart Moore <usenet_0...@stuartmoore.org.uk> wrote:
>
>PS - hitting the K key on threads you're not interesting is almost as good.
I've just killfiled anything crossposted from rec.org.mensa. That seems to
be where pretty much all of the junk is coming from, and I don't think I've
ever seen anything useful from there.
Alan Braggins
>Sarah Brown wrote:
>> I've just killfiled anything crossposted from rec.org.mensa.
>> That seems to be where pretty much all of the junk is coming
>> from, and I don't think I've ever seen anything useful from
>> there.
>
>intelligent people, but the crossposted traffic that is leaking
>into this group strongly suggests otherwise.
Or that the crossposters are no more Mensa members than they are
misc Cambridge people.
*us*
>It did.
Prove it.
On Sun, 28 May 2006 14:22:34 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Pa...@Hovnanian.com> wrote:
>Not if there's a good fire. There won't be many recognizable pieces to
>reassemble.
There's often a fire, and in every case, the remaining
pieces (there are always some) get analyzed.
There's no valid reason for this not to have occurred.
>The most probable explaination: The reports provided were way over the
dot cix dot co dot uk
Langley) wrote:
> *From:* Anna Langley <ja...@cam.ac.uk>
> *Date:* Tue, 30 May 2006 11:41:34 +0100
>
> Sarah Brown wrote:
> > I've just killfiled anything crossposted from rec.org.mensa.
> > That seems to be where pretty much all of the junk is coming
> > from, and I don't think I've ever seen anything useful from
> > there.
>
> Indeed. I once thought that mensa was meant to be for
> intelligent people, but the crossposted traffic that is leaking
> into this group strongly suggests otherwise.
Mensa may be for intelligent people (or that subset of intelligent people
who for some reason want to be Mensa members) but rec.org.mensa seems to
be for people who want others to think they must be intelligent, despite
the abundance of evidence to the contrary.
Actually Mensa is actually for people who can pass Mensa IQ tests; the
extent to which that set of people intersects with people who are usefully
intelligent is debatable.
The Natural Philosopher
be that hard.
tersono
Several people would, I'm sure, like to know which news program(s)
allow this.
--
Per ardua ad nauseam
Mark T.B. Carroll
> On Tue, 30 May 2006 10:31:25 GMT, Sarah Brown
> <sarah...@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
(snip)
>>I've just killfiled anything crossposted from rec.org.mensa. That seems to
>>be where pretty much all of the junk is coming from, and I don't think I've
>>ever seen anything useful from there.
>
> Several people would, I'm sure, like to know which news program(s)
> allow this.
trn and gnus certainly do.
-- Mark
Sarah Brown
I use trn, and the command I typed was:
/rec.org.mensa/hK:j
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> On Mon, 29 May 2006 17:13:16 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Pa...@Hovnanian.com> wrote:
>
> >It did.
>
> Prove it.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
> On Sun, 28 May 2006 14:22:34 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Pa...@Hovnanian.com> wrote:
>
> >Not if there's a good fire. There won't be many recognizable pieces to
> >reassemble.
>
> There's often a fire, and in every case, the remaining
> pieces (there are always some) get analyzed.
>
> There's no valid reason for this not to have occurred.
It did. The conclusion: "Yep, it was an airplane". What did you expect
them to find?
> >The most probable explaination: The reports provided were way over the
> >head of someone who was reading "My Pet Goat" when it all went down.
>
> Assuming that Bush would be stupid is inappropriate.
> He's being 'stupid' all the way to his offshore accounts.
>
> >The conspiracy theory: Bush, or at least people in his administration
> >knew something was going to happen
>
> It's a fact that they had warnings, many of them.
Warnings about what??
Here you are, claiming that the Pentagon (and the WTC) were the results
of some diabolical plot and the 'terrorists crashed airplanes'
explanation is just a cover-up. But then you claim 'they had warnings'.
You have a major logic flaw in your argument. If the Pentagon was an
'inside job', then why would they have 'warnings'?
> It's also a fact that they lied about having had such
> warnings and were caught in that lie.
The only way they 'got caught in that lie' is if the terrorist attacks
were real and a 757 did hit the Pentagon. Otherwise, its not really a
lie, now is it?
> >...the
> >attacks happened pretty much as the majority of the press has reported
> >them.
>
> The press reported that flight 93 had been shot down, too.
>
> On Sat, 27 May 2006 20:43:49 -0700, "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote:
>
> >The school that would propose focusing on finding out what really did
> >happen to the 757
>
> Normally the pieces are put back together and
> many diagnostics are done.
Diagnostics for what purpose in this case?
> Had that happened?
>
> >... conspiracy theorists have no idea ...
>
> How do you suppose the guy in the cave in
> Afghanistan stood down the US air defense
> system on 9/11, even after warnings of his
> specific involvement in imminent attacks
> had been reported to Bush himself?
The same way the guy with the Piper Cub crashed onto the White house
lawn. US air defense was asleep at the switch. Or rather, nobody told
them to stop looking for an imminent Soviet attack approaching from
overseas and re-target their radar.
> >Please do; this isn't a faith based supposition at work.
>
> Do you suppose God really speaks through
> Bush, as Bush has claimed?
>
> > In light of any
> >"serious" new evidence
>
> The evidence was destroyed rapidly, and in
> defiance of the experts who wanted it to be
> investigated properly.
>
> >...how do the French put it...
>
> Oooh la la: don't invade Iraq.
>
> You should have heeded.
>
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes."
(If you can read this, you're overeducated.)
zookumar yelubandi
> *, US, * wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 May 2006 17:13:16 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Pa...@Hovnanian.com> wrote:
> > >It did.
> > Prove it.
> http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
Nope. You're playing the game wrong. *US* requested proof.
Not weak arguments THAT WERE WRITTEN UP SOMETIME IN 2002, long before
the official Pentagon video was released on May 16, 2006. The official
video precludes the possibility that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon (by
using tail fin baselength to fuselage length RATIO analysis).
But even by 2002 standards, the attempted arguments are suspect.
For instance, pertaining to question #1, an image of the renovation of a
whole section of the Pentagon is shown, and it is then suggested that
the renovation was necessitated by the crash of a Boeing 757. As if a
missile and preplanted explosives could not have caused the same amount
of damage. IOW, leading the witness, as it were.
> > On Sun, 28 May 2006 14:22:34 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Pa...@Hovnanian.com> wrote:
> > >Not if there's a good fire. There won't be many recognizable pieces to
> > >reassemble.
> > There's often a fire, and in every case, the remaining
> > pieces (there are always some) get analyzed.
> > There's no valid reason for this not to have occurred.
> It did. The conclusion: "Yep, it was an airplane". What did you expect
> them to find?
I wouldn't expect them to find a Boeing 757 airplane given the
official video evidence of May 16, 2001. If they did find Boeing 757
parts, then either those parts were planted afterwards or pigs fly.
For the official video precludes the possibility of a Boeing 757
airplane.
> > >The most probable explaination: The reports provided were way over the
> > >head of someone who was reading "My Pet Goat" when it all went down.
> > Assuming that Bush would be stupid is inappropriate.
> > He's being 'stupid' all the way to his offshore accounts.
> > >The conspiracy theory: Bush, or at least people in his administration
> > >knew something was going to happen
> > It's a fact that they had warnings, many of them.
> Warnings about what??
Warnings about terrorist attacks using airplanes. Of course,
the warnings weren't genuine. They were part of the prologue to the
staged play.
> Here you are, claiming that the Pentagon (and the WTC) were the results
> of some diabolical plot and the 'terrorists crashed airplanes'
> explanation is just a cover-up. But then you claim 'they had warnings'.
> You have a major logic flaw in your argument. If the Pentagon was an
> 'inside job', then why would they have 'warnings'?
Staged play. Actors play their part. Understudies pace in the
corridors rehearsing the script, just in case.
> > It's also a fact that they lied about having had such
> > warnings and were caught in that lie.
> The only way they 'got caught in that lie' is if the terrorist attacks
> were real and a 757 did hit the Pentagon. Otherwise, its not really a
> lie, now is it?
In a staged play, neither the actors nor the props are real.
Of course, not everyone involved understood that it was a staged play,
i.e. not all were actors. Some of these real people tried to warn the
others, not knowing that the others were actors. For their part, the
actors lied about being warned by the nonactors.
-zookumar-
Alan
I'm trying Xananews at the moment instead of Thunderbird. That seems
to do the job for me quite well.
Jon Connell
> I'm trying Xananews at the moment instead of Thunderbird. That seems
> to do the job for me quite well.
Another Windows-only client it seems. Choice is rather limited for those
of us who choose to waste CPU cycles in rendering plaintext in fancy
GUIs. And even more so when that choice extends to a Mac.
Jon
Alan
Ah yes. Sorry I should have said. But as it's a windows machine that
I use for day to day desktop, it's not a problem for me.
I must admit, I don't find rendering plaintext into a gui slows my
machine down noticeably ;-)
*us*
>http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
There is nothing whatsoever on that site to indicate that
the pieces were collected for analysis at all much less that
any such analysis ever occurred.
You have failed.
You are free to try again.
>Warnings about what??
There were dozens of warnings in advance that
attacks were imminent against US targets.
Had you ever figured out what "Bojinka" was,
or, perhaps, "Operation Northwoods"?
Recall the title of a certain pertinent PDB?
>Here you are, claiming that the Pentagon (and the WTC) were the results
>of some diabolical plot and the 'terrorists crashed airplanes'
>explanation is just a cover-up. But then you claim 'they had warnings'.
>You have a major logic flaw in your argument. If the Pentagon was an
>'inside job', then why would they have 'warnings'?
You must be kidding: the plans existed and those
not privy to their real sources got wind of them.
You must be impaired not to be aware of even
such basic likelihoods.
>The only way they 'got caught in that lie' is ...
They claimed they'd had no warnings.
That lie was, in fact, exposed as such.
Your failure this time is a non sequitur.
>Diagnostics for what purpose in this case?
It's supposed to be the investigation of a crime.
>...US air defense was asleep at the switch...
Actually, they were deliberately diverted from SOP,
even after all those warnings.
On Mon, 29 May 2006 17:13:16 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Pa...@Hovnanian.com> wrote:
>It did.
Prove it.
On Sun, 28 May 2006 14:22:34 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Pa...@Hovnanian.com> wrote:
>Not if there's a good fire. There won't be many recognizable pieces to
>reassemble.
There's often a fire, and in every case, the remaining
pieces (there are always some) get analyzed.
There's no valid reason for this not to have occurred.
>The most probable explaination: The reports provided were way over the
>head of someone who was reading "My Pet Goat" when it all went down.
Assuming that Bush would be stupid is inappropriate.
He's being 'stupid' all the way to his offshore accounts.
>The conspiracy theory: Bush, or at least people in his administration
>knew something was going to happen
It's a fact that they had warnings, many of them.
It's also a fact that they lied about having had such
warnings and were caught in that lie.
>...the
>attacks happened pretty much as the majority of the press has reported
>them.
The press reported that flight 93 had been shot down, too.
On Sat, 27 May 2006 20:43:49 -0700, "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote:
>The school that would propose focusing on finding out what really did
>happen to the 757
Normally the pieces are put back together and
many diagnostics are done.
Had that happened?
>... conspiracy theorists have no idea ...
How do you suppose the guy in the cave in
Afghanistan stood down the US air defense
system on 9/11, even after warnings of his
specific involvement in imminent attacks
had been reported to Bush himself?
>Please do; this isn't a faith based supposition at work.
Jules
Pan does *I think* - so far I haven't bothered to try. Looks like
"tools/rules/bozo filter" could probably do it though. I just can't work
out why there's a rules menu option and a custom filter menu option as
they seem to cover the same concept but have different options -
hence maybe rules actually does something totally different :-)
Jules
zookumar yelubandi
> "zookumar yelubandi" <zook...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:y4Heg.2549$sK6.738@edtnps90...
[...]
> > Forget the viewing angle, we can determine roughly what angle
> > the object is coming towards the camera by overlaying a protractor
> > over
> > the image below:
> > http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/finalapproach.html
> > Angle of incidence wrt Pentagon facade is approx. 50 degrees.
> > Camera's position wrt to the point on Pentagon facade where object's
> > trajectory intersects, is about 5 degrees. So effective angle of
> > object
> > wrt camera is (50 - 5) or 45 degrees. So effective visible length of
> > a
> > Boeing 757 would be cos(45)*155=110 ft, not 155 ft. So my earlier
> > usage
> > of "approximate right angle" is incorrect wrt the appearance of object
> > in first frame; and is only true after the object has come to a stop
> > in
> > about the C-ring deep inside. Fair enough, I concede my error. So
> > let's work with the new effective length of 110 feet.
> I agree, this is a fairly accurate estimate of the image length.
> >How does this new
> > length affect my argument of CONSTANT RATIO of tail fin baselength to
> > length of Boeing 757 fuselage? Answer. It doesn't.
> It does however indicate a somewhat rational thought process, something
> sadly lacking in the reference material I have been reviewing.
The new length DOES NOT AFFECT the argument of CONSTANT RATIO
of tail fin baselength to fuselage length. So the only question that
remains about the video photo is whether the blurry image above the boom
gate is, indeed, a tail fin ... and if so, whether it's the vertical
stabilizer of a Boeing 757 or the V-shaped stabilizer of a military
plane viewed at an angle (eg. Global Hawk being the obvious candidate
but not the only one) or some other incoming aircraft.
> > "http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/vaportrail.html"
> > Look at the close-up of the tail fin. It, indeed, looks like
> > a tail fin is pointed slightly towards the camera (45 degrees???).
> > But look closely. It doesn't look like a Boeing 757 tail fin pointed
> > at 45 degrees (???). Oddly enough, it looks like a V-shaped tail fin
> > pointing at 45 degrees (???). You know the V-shape of a Global Hawk
> > drone or something like that:
> > "http://www.deskpicture.com/DPs/Military/GlobalHawk_e.html"
> I'm sorry but I don't recognize the black vertical object that appears
> in the frame as anything definative. Notwithstanding the absence of 110
> ft of 757 Fuselage or any other appearance of aircraft structure in
> front of it, I would conclude that it is either debris from colliding
> with fencing or light poles etc. or some other unexplained phenonemon.
Is that what you would really conclude? I mean, if you
superimpose a tail fin of either a Boeing 757 or a Global Hawk, they
make a good fit. I would expect generic debris to disappear into the
background noise of treelines and what not, not pronounce itself in a
clearly defined and regular shape. The following URL makes some
intriguing observations:
"http://membres.lycos.fr/applemacintosh2/Pentagon2.htm"
While it is difficult to say that it's a Global Hawk aircraft,
the blurry image profile almost exactly fits the V-shaped tail fin of
Profile B. But if it is profile B, then that definitely excludes the
Boeing 757, for those have vertical stabilizers.
[...]
> > The point above is irrelevant because the ratio between tail
> > fin baselength and Boeing 757 fuselage length is CONSTANT. That is
> > to say, what we see on the camera in terms of tail fin baselength is
> > what we can use to measure the expected length of a Boeing 757.
> > This is true for any angle of incidence.
> Like I said, it doesn't look like a 757 vertical stabilizer to me. My
> focus is on the white blurry image which disappears out of the frame.
> You say it's a vapor trail but it has disappeared in the next frame and
> is replaced with a more realistic image of a trailing wash.
At this point, the most realistic interpretation is that of a
vapor trail. It certainly doesn't look anything like a nose cone of
any aircraft, not even close. And it certainly looks like one of those
vaportrails that we see in high-flying jet aircraft (passenger jets do
release vapor trails at high altitudes).
It astounds rational sense that you are in denial of the
possible and highly probable; and are willing to support the absolutely
impossible scenario of a Boeing 757 (determined to be impossible by tail
fin baselength to fuselage length analysis).
-zookumar-
Alan
>
> It astounds rational sense that you are in denial of the
> possible and highly probable;
How does one astound rational sense?
A person can be astounded, and perhaps you are, but I'm not, and I'm STILL
anti-bush. ;-)
Alan
Alan
<* US *> wrote in message news:ba5r72ppno5mv454q...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 May 2006 16:18:32 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
<Pa...@Hovnanian.com> wrote:
>
> You must be impaired not to be aware of even
> such basic likelihoods.
>
Very mature. That'll win a lot of converts.
Alan
(still anti-bush despite wild claims by 'my side')
zookumar yelubandi
> "zookumar yelubandi" <zook...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:Zwifg.5129$S61.221@edtnps90...
> > It astounds rational sense that you are in denial of the
> > possible and highly probable;
>
> How does one astound rational sense?
It's hard to explain. Kinda like gravity. I mean, we know it's
there (some 9 points, 8 metres, layered over a double order of seconds)
.. but just what exactly is it? I wish I knew. Don't you?
> A person can be astounded, and perhaps you are, but I'm not, and I'm STILL
> anti-bush. ;-)
> Alan
Not all conspirators and supporters of the official story are
pro-Bush. Many Democrats are anti-Bush and supporters of the official
story. But now that you've given us a red fish, can you offer some
recipes on how to cook it? Thanx.
-zookumar-
Alan
"zookumar yelubandi" <zook...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:5lkfg.1053
>
> Not all conspirators and supporters of the official story are
> pro-Bush. Many Democrats are anti-Bush and supporters of the official
> story. But now that you've given us a red fish, can you offer some
> recipes on how to cook it? Thanx.
I doubt I can fillet this subject any better than other posters. Methinks
anything I had wouldn't persuade you either. You've already honed in on the
bait and you're not going to change your mind.
Alan
Wilbur Slice
Yeah, and you know, these folks don't help themselves when they
vehemently berate anyone who dares point out the holes in their
theories, immediately calling them all manner of vile names and
accusing them of things that are simply not true (like being Bush
supporters).
The first reaction to someone like that - especially a raver like *US*
- is to think "wow - I didn't know they allowed usenet connections in
the asylum." And the second thought is: "If this guy thinks I'm a
Bush supporter, he clearly has little grasp on reality," and all of
what little credibility he might have been granted just evaporates.
Sarah Brown
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
Odd. I think they have more in common with Bush than the rest of us.
They have adopted their belief system as a religion (much like Bush and
the WMD in Iraq fiasco) and seem to in the same manner as one defending
a faith would were it to be attacked.
That might lend some credibility to the theory that they postulate
bizarre theories in order to discredit legitimate examination of the
administration's performance. After all, who would take any such
investigation seriously?
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Telemark: If it was easy, they'd call it snowboarding.
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> On Tue, 30 May 2006 16:18:32 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Pa...@Hovnanian.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
>
> There is nothing whatsoever on that site to indicate that
> the pieces were collected for analysis at all much less that
> any such analysis ever occurred.
There's a photo of a piece lying on the lawn.
What sort of 'analysis' do you want them to conduct? It was an airplane.
It was hijacked. It hit the building. There are bits of it lying all
over the place. What would we learn from any possible analysis?
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten.
-- George Carlin
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
You imply that something was staged and at the same time you claim that
people didn't heed 'warnings'. If it was staged, there would have been
nothing to warn of. There would be no foreign intelligence failure,
because there was nothing for them to detect overseas. There would be no
possibility of the Bush administration colluding with al Qaida or the
Taliban because they didn't do anything. You can't have it both ways.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Bradley (IBM programmer who created the Ctrl-Alt-Del reboot
keyboard sequence), "I may have invented it, but Bill made it famous."
*us*
>Very mature ...
Were you, you'd address the subject, which is the fact that
PNAC/Bush/Cheney had more means, better opportunity,
and greater motive in the crimes of 9/11 than anyone else.
On Tue, 30 May 2006 16:18:32 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Pa...@Hovnanian.com> wrote:
>http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
There is nothing whatsoever on that site to indicate that
the pieces were collected for analysis at all much less that
any such analysis ever occurred.
You have failed.
You are free to try again.
>Warnings about what??
There were dozens of warnings in advance that
attacks were imminent against US targets.
Had you ever figured out what "Bojinka" was,
or, perhaps, "Operation Northwoods"?
Recall the title of a certain pertinent PDB?
>Here you are, claiming that the Pentagon (and the WTC) were the results
>of some diabolical plot and the 'terrorists crashed airplanes'
>explanation is just a cover-up. But then you claim 'they had warnings'.
>You have a major logic flaw in your argument. If the Pentagon was an
>'inside job', then why would they have 'warnings'?
You must be kidding: the plans existed and those
not privy to their real sources got wind of them.
You must be impaired not to be aware of even
such basic likelihoods.
>The only way they 'got caught in that lie' is ...
*us*
>...vehemently berate ...
>...calling them all manner of vile names and
>accusing them of things that are simply not true...
>... a raver like ...
You like substituting ad hominem fallacies for valid debate.
Are you aware that Bush lied about 9/11?
If you were aware of such things, would you wonder why?
On Wed, 31 May 2006 16:37:24 GMT, "Alan" <alannc44@{nospam}ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Very mature ...
Were you, you'd address the subject, which is the fact that
PNAC/Bush/Cheney had more means, better opportunity,
and greater motive in the crimes of 9/11 than anyone else.
On Tue, 30 May 2006 16:18:32 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Pa...@Hovnanian.com> wrote:
>http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
There is nothing whatsoever on that site to indicate that
the pieces were collected for analysis at all much less that
any such analysis ever occurred.
You have failed.
You are free to try again.
>Warnings about what??
There were dozens of warnings in advance that
attacks were imminent against US targets.
Had you ever figured out what "Bojinka" was,
or, perhaps, "Operation Northwoods"?
Recall the title of a certain pertinent PDB?
>Here you are, claiming that the Pentagon (and the WTC) were the results
>of some diabolical plot and the 'terrorists crashed airplanes'
>explanation is just a cover-up. But then you claim 'they had warnings'.
>You have a major logic flaw in your argument. If the Pentagon was an
>'inside job', then why would they have 'warnings'?
You must be kidding: the plans existed and those
not privy to their real sources got wind of them.
You must be impaired not to be aware of even
such basic likelihoods.
>The only way they 'got caught in that lie' is ...
*us*
>...If it was staged, there would have been
>nothing to warn of...
Why would anyone believe such a non sequitur?
*us*
>Odd. I think ...
You don't do so well enough to avoid fallacy, though.
I've deleted your empty ad hominem.
Are you aware that Bush has lied about 9/11? If so,
do you wonder why?
*us*
>There's a photo of a piece lying on the lawn.
So what?
Apparently you're unable to comprehend what's being discussed.
On Tue, 30 May 2006 16:18:32 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Pa...@Hovnanian.com> wrote:
>http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
There is nothing whatsoever on that site to indicate that
the pieces were collected for analysis at all much less that
any such analysis ever occurred.
You have failed.
Phil Holman
Rational sense says there is nothing in the video to identify the
aircraft which crashed into the Pentagon. As for making out the profile
of a Global Hawk from the skyline, I've been more impressed with the
face of Jesus in a slice of pizza.
Phil H
Alan
<* US *> wrote in message news:e1as72pefaudnrg83...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 31 May 2006 16:37:24 GMT, "Alan" <alannc44@{nospam}ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>
> >Very mature ...
>
> Were you, you'd address the subject, which is the fact that
> PNAC/Bush/Cheney had more means, better opportunity,
> and greater motive in the crimes of 9/11 than anyone else.
If the plan was to use 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq, why didn't they use
a better setup? Why not, for instance, paint up some Iraq flags and have
the hijackers flash them for the cameras, or why not leave a note of some
sort claiming allegiance to Saddam. If nuts like the hijackers are so easily
found, as Zook postulated, couldn't they have found suicidal Iraqis to do
the deed instead of Saudis?
If PNAC is so full of brilliance, they did a piss-poor job of drawing us
into Iraq by way of Afganhistan.
PNAC was going into Iraq despite 9/11. 9/11 has become a setback for even
Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney and Bush.
Alan
zookumar yelubandi
> > Phil Holman wrote:
[...]
> >> > The point above is irrelevant because the ratio between tail
> >> > fin baselength and Boeing 757 fuselage length is CONSTANT. That is
> >> > to say, what we see on the camera in terms of tail fin baselength
> >> > is what we can use to measure the expected length of a Boeing 757.
> >> > This is true for any angle of incidence.
> >> Like I said, it doesn't look like a 757 vertical stabilizer to me. My
> >> focus is on the white blurry image which disappears out of the frame.
> >> You say it's a vapor trail but it has disappeared in the next frame
> >> and is replaced with a more realistic image of a trailing wash.
> > At this point, the most realistic interpretation is that of a
> > vapor trail. It certainly doesn't look anything like a nose cone of
> > any aircraft, not even close. And it certainly looks like one of
> > those vaportrails that we see in high-flying jet aircraft (passenger
> > jets do release vapor trails at high altitudes).
> > It astounds rational sense that you are in denial of the
> > possible and highly probable; and are willing to support the
> > absolutely impossible scenario of a Boeing 757 (determined to be
> > impossible by tail fin baselength to fuselage length analysis).
> Rational sense says there is nothing in the video to identify the
> aircraft which crashed into the Pentagon.
True. Rational sense also says that there is enough in the
video to _exclude_ a Boeing 757 as the aircraft that crashed into the
Pentagon (eg. tailfin analysis). Certainly, even basic rational sense
["nothing in the video to identify the aircraft"] must reject the sundry
mainstream media assertions of "Flight 77 hits Pentagon" as the video is
being broadcast.
> As for making out the profile
> of a Global Hawk from the skyline, I've been more impressed with the
> face of Jesus in a slice of pizza.
The profile of a regularly shaped object that resembles a
V-shaped tailfin is _clearly_ visible. Moreover, it is not visible in
all the frames, only the one, and that suggests that it's not background
noise. Granted, whether the "V-shape" belongs to a Global Hawk or not,
is not discernible. It may belong to another type of military plane.
But even if we hypothesize that the front part of the V-shape is really
just the triangular shape of a Boeing 757 vertical stabilizer, with the
back part being background visual noise, tailfin-fuselage ratio analysis
quickly rejects this hypothesis. Here's the URL again:
"http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/vaportrail.html"
Of course, you were impressed with the official US government
fable of 911/2001; so your seeing images in a slice of pizza is not all
that implausible.
-zookumar-
zookumar yelubandi
> <* US *> wrote in message news:e1as72pefaudnrg83...@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 31 May 2006 16:37:24 GMT, "Alan" <alannc44@{nospam}ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
> > >Very mature ...
> > Were you, you'd address the subject, which is the fact that
> > PNAC/Bush/Cheney had more means, better opportunity,
> > and greater motive in the crimes of 9/11 than anyone else.
>
> If the plan was to use 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq, why didn't they use
> a better setup? Why not, for instance, paint up some Iraq flags and have
> the hijackers flash them for the cameras, or why not leave a note of some
> sort claiming allegiance to Saddam. If nuts like the hijackers are so easily
> found, as Zook postulated, couldn't they have found suicidal Iraqis to do
> the deed instead of Saudis?
The laws of physics are impervious to human manipulation. The
official account of 911/2001 requires human manipulation of the laws of
physics. Ergo, the nature of WTC7 and twin towers collapses proves
"insider job" beyond any shadow of doubt. But "inside job" implies that
Saudis were not the planners. At most, they were patsies. Osama is a
Saudi. If the plan was to implicate Osama as the central "planning"
figure, what sense would it make to find Iraqi patsies?
If, however, the plan had been to implicate Saddam as the
central "planning" figure behind 911/2001, then Iraqi patsies would have
made sense. But such a plan would be fraught with problems. Saddam
would have denied involvement and would have invited the outside world
to come in and check the facts for themselves, as he had done with WMD
inspectors. The "Saddam-central" plan would have imploded on the
conspirators (eg. the inside jobbers) soon after its injection
into the mainstream consciousness. Moreover, "Saddam-central" would
mean that Saddam had intended to attack America. Saddam did provide de
facto funding for Palestinian suicide bombers, but that was against
imperialist Israel. He had no plans to attack America. To sell
"Saddam-central", then, would have required an insurmountable activation
potential.
By contrast, Osama has been on record many times as wanting to
obliterate America, specifically, with regards to the defiling of Saudi
Arabian soil by American military bases. Whether he was sincere in his
to objections to America or not (e.g. the Carlyle Group Bush-bin Laden
family connections makes the actual intentions of Osama bin Laden
complex and nebulous) ... he is on record as wanting to destroy America
and his name is well connected with incidents such as the WTC attacks of
1993 and the USS Cole.
So we have two potential patsie plans, one with Saddam as the
key patsie and the other with Osama as the key patsie ... but only one
plan with a manageable activation potential. Enter patsie Osama bin
Laden and the 19 hijackers. A new Arabian tale is born.
> If PNAC is so full of brilliance, they did a piss-poor job of drawing us
> into Iraq by way of Afganhistan.
PNAC was a concoction by a mixture of megalomaniacs, egomaniacs,
pseudointellectuals, and idiots. The observed outcome matches the
intellectual input rather well. Notwithstanding your own brilliance for
figuring things out, Alan, who says PNAC was so full of brilliance?
> PNAC was going into Iraq despite 9/11. 9/11 has become a setback for even
> Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney and Bush.
> Alan
Warmongers act because they think they are infallible. Those
who think they are infallible are often those who are most prone to
making mistakes. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Saddam, Mao ... I'm sure
they all thought they were infallible at one point or another.
But you are right, PNAC was going into Iraq regardless. If
911/2001 had been scrapped by wiser men inside the movement (as was the
case with Operation Northwoods), then the fools would have come up with
another "catalyzing" event. Alas, wise men were nowhere to be found in
the immediate days and months before 911/2001.
-zookumar-
*us*
>If the plan was to use 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq, why didn't they use
>a better setup? Why not, for instance, paint up some Iraq flags and have
>the hijackers flash them for the cameras, or why not leave a note of some
>sort claiming allegiance to Saddam. If nuts like the hijackers are so easily
>found, as Zook postulated, couldn't they have found suicidal Iraqis to do
>the deed instead of Saudis?
They needn't have found anyone suicidal.
Moreover, you really have no idea whom those involved really were.
It was also important to restore the opium supply out of Afghanistan.
>If PNAC is so full of brilliance, they did a piss-poor job of drawing us
>into Iraq by way of Afganhistan.
I don't consider them brilliant.
They've been getting what they want, though.
>PNAC was going into Iraq despite 9/11. 9/11 has become a setback for even
>Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney and Bush.
>
>Alan
Actually, they're all still profitting from their crimes.
Alan
<* US *> wrote in message news:ph8u72llpp1d9p5ap...@4ax.com...
>
> Actually, they're all still profitting from their crimes.
And, there's the whole crux of the matter. Halliburton. This "spreading
Democracy", liberation, and even PNAC itself, are all herrings, as Zook
would say.
Great movie recently: "Why We Fight". I recommend it to every American.
Alan
--
Windsurfing Club: http://www.ibscc.org
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
[snip]
> Apparently you're unable to comprehend what's being discussed.
Yes. You and zookie are trying to defend the Bush administration.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't get even -- get odd! :耄
zookumar yelubandi
> *, US, * wrote:
> [snip]
> > Apparently you're unable to comprehend what's being discussed.
>
> Yes. You and zookie are trying to defend the Bush administration.
Yes, I suppose in your perverted world reality, that conclusion
is a natural fit with the green sky, the pink trees and the polka-dotted
rhinoceros. Peace. I mean, War.
-zookumar-
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
> [...]
> > Please provide an official link describing the Pentagon's construction
> > details (one ending in .gov would be appropriate).
>
> Not a government site, but it does provide useful info into the
> construction of the C-ring "exit hole" wall:
>
> "http://www.pentagonresearch.com/065.html"
That's a brick wall in the photo. Not 'steel reinforced concrete'.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Error: Keyboard not attached. Press F1 to continue.
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> Phil Holman wrote:
> > "zookumar yelubandi" <zook...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> [...]
> > > Two points. If you go back to the aerial photo, the
> > > trajectory
> > > of the object is, indeed, about 45 degrees to the facade. But if you
> > > look at the video stills, the camera's central point of focus falls on
> > > the NEAR SIDE OF THE IMPACT ZONE, not on the impact zone itself, not
> > > on
> > > the far side, not on the moving object. Getting back to the aerial
> > > view, if we drop a perpendicular from the camera onto the near side of
> > > the Pentagon impact zone, and extend it through the building, it
> > > intersects the 45-degree incidental trajectory of the moving object
> > > somewhere on the outer wall of the C-ring (eg. the fifth concrete wall
> > > that is punctured by the object before it exits on the other side of
> > > the
> > > C-ring). The ANGLE OF INTERSECTION is very close to 90 degrees.
> > > So, in fact, what is show on the video stills is very much the full
> > > length of the object as it moves across the viewing field. If the
> > > object is indeed a Boeing 757, then we are seeing approximately its
> > > full
> > > length of 155 feet.
> >
> > The angle of intersection is 90 degrees for a point at the inner 4th
> > perimeter layer of the Pentagon, the blurry image is ~600 ft to the
> > right of this point and the camera is ~900 ft away. What is the viewing
> > angle? Figure it out and get back to us, here's the actual aerial shot.
>
> Forget the viewing angle, we can determine roughly what angle
> the object is coming towards the camera by overlaying a protractor over
> the image below:
> > http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/finalapproach.html
>
> Angle of incidence wrt Pentagon facade is approx. 50 degrees.
> Camera's position wrt to the point on Pentagon facade where object's
> trajectory intersects, is about 5 degrees. So effective angle of object
> wrt camera is (50 - 5) or 45 degrees. So effective visible length of a
> Boeing 757 would be cos(45)*155=110 ft, not 155 ft. So my earlier usage
> of "approximate right angle" is incorrect wrt the appearance of object
> in first frame; and is only true after the object has come to a stop in
> about the C-ring deep inside. Fair enough, I concede my error. So
> length affect my argument of CONSTANT RATIO of tail fin baselength to
> length of Boeing 757 fuselage? Answer. It doesn't.
>
That's not necessarily a vapor trail either. Its probably a combination
of debris and fuel spray from where the 757 clipped the lampposts. Or
dirt kicked up where the wing dragged on the ground just before impact.
Missile vapor trails don't have eddies like that so close to the engine
exhaust. The flow is laminar (straight) for quite some distance until
the gas velocity drops to subsonic speeds.
> Look at the close-up of the tail fin. It, indeed, looks like
> a tail fin is pointed slightly towards the camera (45 degrees???).
> But look closely. It doesn't look like a Boeing 757 tail fin pointed
> at 45 degrees (???). Oddly enough, it looks like a V-shaped tail fin
> pointing at 45 degrees (???). You know the V-shape of a Global Hawk
> drone or something like that:
That's exactly what the V-shape between the horizontal stabilizer and
the vertical fin would look like if the 757 was rolled toward the
camera.
> "http://www.deskpicture.com/DPs/Military/GlobalHawk_e.html"
>
> But I'm not asserting here that a Global Hawk drone was the
> culprit. I'm here showing that a Boeing 757 could *not* have been the
> culprit. And if the tail fin in the video is supposed to be a Boeing
> 757, then that would mean that we should see some part of the jetliner
> protruding from the other side of the boom gate (at least three tail fin
> baselengths worth, even if we're only seeing "cos45" times the actual
> tail fin baselength in the video).
>
> > > Point two. It does not matter what APPARENT length the object
> > > is. The ratio of tail fin base length to the length of the fuselage
> > > is CONSTANT. Indeed, the object could be coming steeply towards the
> > > camera; then, even if only a sliver of the tail fin base length is
> > > visible, the fuselage's length can be calculated by positioning six
> > > "sliver" lengths side by side next to the visible sliver length of the
> > > tail fin. The position of the nose can then be pinpointed.
> > > So your argument about "155ft appearing as 100ft" betrays a
> > > lack of spatial understanding on your part.
> > Hardly, you're still at point one. Next step is to overlay a plan view
> > of a 757. You'll find that it fits into a ~100 ft wide band as viewed
> > from the camera position.
> > http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/pentdamage.html
> > Look at the small blue 757s at the bottom of this link.
> > If we can't get past this point we aren't going anywhere.
>
> The point above is irrelevant because the ratio between tail fin
> baselength and Boeing 757 fuselage length is CONSTANT. That is to say,
> what we see on the camera in terms of tail fin baselength is what we can
> use to measure the expected length of a Boeing 757. This is true for
> any angle of incidence.
Not true if the 757 is moving and the shutter speed of the camera is
slow. The image of the rudder would be blurred by some amount as would
the image of the fuselage. This blurring would increase the length of
the image of both objects by the same amount (same number of feet, or
pixels on the image). But this would be a different percentage of the
fuselage length than the rudder length.
Its a color CCTV and, if they expect it to work at all at night, it will
have a very slow speed. Maybe 1/30 sec, or worse. Color cameras aren't
very sensitive.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard drive?
*us*
><* US *> wrote in message news:ph8u72llpp1d9p5ap...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Actually, they're all still profitting from their crimes.
>
>And, there's the whole crux of the matter. Halliburton. This "spreading
>Democracy", liberation, and even PNAC itself, are all herrings, as Zook
>would say.
>
>Great movie recently: "Why We Fight". I recommend it to every American.
>
>Alan
Glad you mentioned it.
*us*
>... trying to defend the Bush administration.
Well that's indefensible.
Are you now going to try to pretend you haven't failed?
On Wed, 31 May 2006 16:13:42 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Pa...@Hovnanian.com> wrote:
>There's a photo of a piece lying on the lawn.
So what?
Apparently you're unable to comprehend what's being discussed.
On Tue, 30 May 2006 16:18:32 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Pa...@Hovnanian.com> wrote:
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 12:42:11 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Pa...@Hovnanian.com> wrote:
>
> >... trying to defend the Bush administration.
>
> Well that's indefensible.
>
> Are you now going to try to pretend you haven't failed?
I haven't been trying to sell people any alternate theories. You haven't
convinced me of anything so you have failed.
The Bush administration was caught off guard by 19 semi-skilled
terrorists hijacking 4 airplanes. I'm not getting side tracked by secret
missile launches, sophisticated plots or any other nonsense that gives
them an excuse.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ask me about my vow of silence.
zookumar yelubandi
> zookumar yelubandi wrote:
> > Phil Holman wrote:
> > > "zookumar yelubandi" <zook...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> > > news:OCseg.3093$kK6.1017@edtnps89...
>
> That's not necessarily a vapor trail either. Its probably a combination
> of debris and fuel spray from where the 757 clipped the lampposts. Or
> dirt kicked up where the wing dragged on the ground just before impact.
> Missile vapor trails don't have eddies like that so close to the engine
> exhaust. The flow is laminar (straight) for quite some distance until
> the gas velocity drops to subsonic speeds.
I'm no expert on vapor trails, and I doubt very much that you
are. First of all, you're shaving with the wrong end of Occam's razor.
You're looking for extremely elaborate explanations when the simple ones
are right there in front of you. Here's an argument by Dick Eastman
outlining several key points that are inconsistent with a Boeing 757:
"http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/articles/IndexOfProveByDickEastman.htm"
----------------------beginExcerpt---------------------------------
4. Downed lampposts and witness consensus each identify
a different approach path to the Pentagon, the Boeing's
and the killer jet's and they are mutually incompatible --
(path of sighted Boeing also inconsistent with civil
engineers reported "50 degree- angle of entry" -- witnesses
reporting the Boeing coming over the Sheraton Hotel, the
Naval Annex, the Citgo gas station, and the southernmost
extremity of Arlington National Cemetery -- an angle much
closer to perpendicular to the wall)
-----------------------end----------------------------------------
A near-perpendicular angle would necessitate 757 moving away
from the camera, not towards it. Near perpendicular does not reconcile
with the culprit projectile's determined approximate 50 degree angle of
entry. That should end all speculation about a Boeing 757 right then
and there. But the neoArabian tale of Osama bin Laden and the 19 creeps
was going to be told come hell or tall water.
----------------------beginAnotherExcerpt--------------------------
1. Pentagon security camera shows
a. Too short a plane
b. Smoke trail of a missile being fired
c. White-hot flash explosion consistent with a missile warhead
--------------------end---------------------------------------------
"White-hot flash" explosion which is inconsistent with a jet
fuel explosion fire, and consistent with a missile warhead. Look at
the official Pentagon video, again. 'Nuff said.
> > Look at the close-up of the tail fin. It, indeed, looks like
> > a tail fin is pointed slightly towards the camera (45 degrees???).
> > But look closely. It doesn't look like a Boeing 757 tail fin pointed
> > at 45 degrees (???). Oddly enough, it looks like a V-shaped tail fin
> > pointing at 45 degrees (???). You know the V-shape of a Global Hawk
> > drone or something like that:
> That's exactly what the V-shape between the horizontal stabilizer and
> the vertical fin would look like if the 757 was rolled toward the
> camera.
But such a V-shape on a Boeing 757 as you describe it, would
necessarily cause deep gouging of the lawn. No evidence of such
lawn-gouging in any of the available photos. You use the word "exactly"
rather capriciously here, no?
[...]
> > > Hardly, you're still at point one. Next step is to overlay a plan view
> > > of a 757. You'll find that it fits into a ~100 ft wide band as viewed
> > > from the camera position.
> > > http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/pentdamage.html
> > > Look at the small blue 757s at the bottom of this link.
> > > If we can't get past this point we aren't going anywhere.
> > The point above is irrelevant because the ratio between tail fin
> > baselength and Boeing 757 fuselage length is CONSTANT. That is to say,
> > what we see on the camera in terms of tail fin baselength is what we can
> > use to measure the expected length of a Boeing 757. This is true for
> > any angle of incidence.
> Not true if the 757 is moving and the shutter speed of the camera is
> slow. The image of the rudder would be blurred by some amount as would
> the image of the fuselage. This blurring would increase the length of
> the image of both objects by the same amount (same number of feet, or
> pixels on the image). But this would be a different percentage of the
> fuselage length than the rudder length.
In theory, your math is okay ... but the effect would be small,
because the tail fin that is observable does not appear to be blurred in
any significant degree. Even if the blurring effect is enormous (say
about 10% ... that is, 110% virtual length on a tailfin base that is
100% actual length); then the fuselage should have an actual length of
700% and a virtual length of 710% (as opposed to 770%).
710/110 < 700/100 for 10% blur
or 720/120 < 700/100 for 20% blur
Ergo, the ratio would not be 7, but between 6 and 7. If a
ratio of seven means _three_ tailfin baselengths should be protruding
from the other side of the boom gate; where are those two and a half
missing Boeing tailfin baselengths for a 10% blur or two missing
baselengths for a 20% blur? Even with a 50% blur, 750/150 = 5, and we
would expect one missing baselength. Indeed, it would take a 100% blur
or 800/200 = 4, to make the Boeing disappear behind the boom gate
(since the boom gate spans four baselengths). Are you suggesting that
the observed video frame is blurred by as much as 100%? That what we
see is actually twice of what actually is? You have an imaginative
mind. You should be writing screenplays for big Hollywood productions.
> Its a color CCTV and, if they expect it to work at all at night, it will
> have a very slow speed. Maybe 1/30 sec, or worse. Color cameras aren't
> very sensitive.
Occam's shutter?
-zookumar-