PDA

View Full Version : Problems With the ASCE Report On The Pentagon Cast Further Doubt on 757 Story



Jason Gortician
2005-Nov-26, 01:30 AM
http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce

Accompanying photos at above link.


Problems With the ASCE Report On The Pentagon Cast Further Doubt on 757 Story

By Jason Christie
8/8/2004


Three years after 9/11, there is still little to no evidence indicating a 757 struck the Pentagon. Indeed, there seems to have been no "official" investigation into this topic at all. Many who claim a 757 hit the Pentagon cite an American Society of Civil Engineers building study as proof. I contend that the ASCE report, despite its assumptions regarding the day in question, actually supports the belief that no 757 hit the Pentagon.


The report, some sixty pages long, was released in January of 2003. Its stated purpose was not to investigate the events that caused damage to the Pentagon, but to examine the performance of the building after the incident in question. It makes certain base assumptions regarding the assumed presence of a 757, and works forward from there.


While there are an impressive number of PhDs behind the building performance report, some of the logic is rather spotty, and the report seems to include at least one falsehood. Other areas of the report openly contradict the claims many have made in support of the 757 theory.


The most serious error in the ASCE report can be found in section 3, "Review of Crash Information". Figure 3.3, a still frame from the unofficial, yet released Pentagon security camera footage, incorrectly labels the white smoke trail in the still "Approaching Aircraft". If the many building performance experts on the panel who assembled the report cannot tell the difference between a white, bumpy smoke trail and a 757, their credibility is questionable, at best.


Smoke trail mislabled as 757.

Figure 3.4 clearly shows an extension of the same smoke trail reaching all the way to the Pentagon, which would make this "757" hundreds of feet longer than a real 757. That is, of course, ignoring the fact that this supposed 757 lacks any wings, a tail, or any marking that would indicate it is an airliner.


Smoke trail remains in place. Clearly, that was not a 757.


In fact, the ASCE report is the only place I have seen this bumpy, irregular smoke trail referred to as a 757. I believe this piece of disinformation is deliberate. If it is unintentional, then the ASCE should correct this report in order to save their credibility. There is nothing in the still frames that remotely resembles a 757, so it is difficult to believe a team of engineers could make a mistake of this magnitude.


The ASCE report also aids supporters of the 757 theory by misrepresenting the width of the initial impact damage. While the photograph in figure 3.8 indicates that only two windows, and a single column are missing from the second floor, the drawing placed beside it (figure 3.10) shows a total of four missing windows. This illustration does not correspond to any known photograph. Its inclusion is yet another reason to doubt the veracity of the report.


Note the fencing in place, where the left wing clearly would have struck, had a 757 hit the Pentagon.


The ambiguous presence of the two windows on the second floor are revealed only under magnification. No columns are shown on the bottom floor.


This is crucial, as the small size of the initial entry point, along with the stunning lack of debris, is the main reason so many doubt the claim that a 757 struck the Pentagon to begin with.


Careful reading of the report shows that only a single column and two windows from the second floor were removed. This makes the width of the damage at the top of the entry point somewhere between sixteen and twenty feet. Of course, part of the top of the column is still evident in photographs, which calls into question the possibility that a massive 757 inflicted the damage, yet left this piece of the building in position.

Note the lack of tail damage.
Two windows wide, with the top part of the column hanging down. Total lack of tail damage above presumed impact area.


The damage to the first floor columns, based on photographic evidence and the ASCE report text, shows only 5 columns were removed at that point. However, figure 3.10, again, seems to show a much larger area of damage. This confusion aids many 757 theorists by enabling them to claim, falsely, that the entry hole into the Pentagon was one hundred to one hundred and twenty feet wide. This figure, as revealed in the ASCE text (section 6.1), actually refers to damage to the Pentagon’s façade, and not the actual entry hole.


Deceptively, both missing and damaged columns are assigned the same color. In the front wall, only columns 10-14 were removed, in fact.

Finally, the diagrams 6.2 and 6.3 show another fallacy of the 757 story, and illustrate a dramatic lack of critical thinking on the part of the report’s authors. The supposed exit point of the alleged 757 is commonly referred to as the "AE punch-out". It was a circular hole approximately eight feet wide in the rear wall of the Pentagon, where the remains of the aircraft are claimed to have exited.


An amazing number of columns in front of the AE punch-out "exit hole". Did a giant pachinko ball strike the Pentagon?


However, as diagrams 6.2 and 6.3 clearly illustrate, at least four columns remained in place in front of the claimed exit hole. It is difficult to imagine something with the size and mass required to create this exit point weaving around the columns like a giant pachinko ball in order to reach the rear wall and create this circular-shaped hole. This facet of the damage in not questioned in the ASCE report.


Whatever made this hole couldn't have been a 757, or even a missile, due to the columns in front of it. Probably man-made.

Furthermore, the supposed 757 engines remain unaccounted for in the ASCE’s study. With these obvious holes in the 757 theory, and the lack of debris, supporters of the 757 story are reduced to reliance on eyewitness testimony. This testimony, hearsay evidence, would not even be allowed in court unless presented by the eyewitness themselves, and certainly cannot account for the lack of 757 debris or explain the other serious flaws in the 757 theory.


There is an ambiguity to the World Trade Center case that allows for endless debate on the issues involved. There is considerably less "wiggle room" when it comes to the Pentagon, and that is probably why FEMA neglected to study the Pentagon at all. A formal report on the cause of the damage itself would have renewed debate, and put FEMA on the defensive.


Unless definitive evidence indicating a 757 is uncovered, the most logical conclusion that can be reached when studying all of the available evidence is that no 757 hit the Pentagon, and a subsequent cover-up was attempted. And of course, if no 757 struck the Pentagon, then all of the events surrounding 9/11 must be questioned. I invite all interested parties to read the ASCE report for themselves and consider the many flaws in this building performance report.

jrkeller
2005-Nov-26, 01:45 AM
So all the witnesses who saw the plane actually go into the Pentagon must be lying

PhantomWolf
2005-Nov-26, 01:58 AM
The physical evidence and eyewittness testimony shows you are wrong.

Read this article from abovetopsecret. (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html)

01101001
2005-Nov-26, 02:11 AM
http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce

Problems With the ASCE Report On The Pentagon Cast Further Doubt on 757 Story

By Jason Christie
8/8/2004

Are you Jason Christie? Do you have Jason Christie's permission to post this article? You gave a link; why then also post the entire contents here?

Jason Gortician
2005-Nov-26, 02:48 AM
The physical evidence and eyewittness testimony shows you are wrong.

Read this article from abovetopsecret. (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html)

Erm, no.

I've read that thread. I've posted to that thread. If you think that Catherder post ties up all the many loose ends, you'd be incorrect.

I guess we can take apart, point by point, in here, if you feel that's necessary or desirable. The issues I raised in that thread went unanswered, for what it's worth.

Thanks for that insightful analysis of the essay in question, though.

Jason Gortician
2005-Nov-26, 02:49 AM
Are you Jason Christie? Do you have Jason Christie's permission to post this article? You gave a link; why then also post the entire contents here?

I appear to have Jason Christie's permission to do absolutely anything I want. I posted it here for the people who won't follow the link.

What's it to you?

Jason Gortician
2005-Nov-26, 02:50 AM
So all the witnesses who saw the plane actually go into the Pentagon must be lying

Have you ever actually examined the "eyewitness" accounts in depth?

Obviousman
2005-Nov-26, 03:23 AM
Have you ever actually examined the "eyewitness" accounts in depth?

What do you mean? Like:

Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief - "I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building," Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief Sean Boger said. "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building."

But I failed read later that:

Sean Boger also said "It was amazing, real trippy. Mind you, I was snorting a lot of coke and high as a kite at the time, so I suppose it could well have been a hallucination".

Do you mean something like that?

Jason Gortician
2005-Nov-26, 03:28 AM
What do you mean? Like:

Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief - "I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building," Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief Sean Boger said. "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building."

But I failed read later that:

Sean Boger also said "It was amazing, real trippy. Mind you, I was snorting a lot of coke and high as a kite at the time, so I suppose it could well have been a hallucination".

Do you mean something like that?

How about the guy who said the "757" ripped an antenna off of a Jeep Cherokee?

; )

Archer17
2005-Nov-26, 03:30 AM
More 9/11 CT malarkey. The Pentagon was struck by a passenger plane. That's bad enough IMO. The Pentagon "phantom plane" is old news Jason.

Let's hear what you think really happened. Include the how and why .. although if it has anything to do with Reptilians, don't bother.

Jason Gortician
2005-Nov-26, 03:40 AM
More 9/11 CT malarkey. The Pentagon was struck by a passenger plane. That's bad enough IMO. The Pentagon "phantom plane" is old news Jason.

Let's hear what you think really happened. Include the how and why .. although if it has anything to do with Reptilians, don't bother.

Well, you could address the essay above, I guess. I don't think a 757 hit the Pentagon.

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-26, 03:49 AM
Okay. So a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon. What's your evidence? How do you refute the eyewitness testimony? How were all of those witnesses "mistaken"? And/or how were they fooled?

Jason Gortician
2005-Nov-26, 03:53 AM
Okay. So a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon.


Ok. I agree.



What's your evidence? How do you refute the eyewitness testimony? How were all of those witnesses "mistaken"? And/or how were they fooled?

You could start, or perhaps someone else, by addressing the essay I posted here. Still waiting for someone to, you know, do that.

As for the "eyewitnesses", how hard is it to get a few military people, USA Today editors and members of a military-related publishing company to lie?

In what scenario does "eyewitness" trump "physical evidence"?

84 video cameras, and none of them show a 757?

Archer17
2005-Nov-26, 04:15 AM
More 9/11 CT malarkey. The Pentagon was struck by a passenger plane. That's bad enough IMO. The Pentagon "phantom plane" is old news Jason.

Let's hear what you think really happened. Include the how and why .. although if it has anything to do with Reptilians, don't bother.Well, you could address the essay above, I guess. I don't think a 757 hit the Pentagon.I already did. I'm not buying it. Are you here just to pick lint too?

CT promoters like to avoid the big picture, preferring to dwell on snory minutiae (see some of those WTC threads) but for me, you have to tell me how it was done and even more importantly, why. That's the Achilles' Heel of the whole 9/11 conspiracy hokum. There's no "ends" to justify the alleged "means."

I want to know what you think really happened and why it happened. If you're not up for that just say so.

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-26, 04:27 AM
I COULD play Devil's Advocate here for a moment. No, really.

Okay. Let's assume that the Government is in control by some group or another -- some private group that has the whole "Ends justify the means, and the Ends are only understandable by us, thus, we're always justified" group...

Then let's assume that Bush is part of this group, or at least has something to gain from a relationship with said group.

Okay. So we have a conspiracy already. But now the conspiracy gets worse -- take in that Bush's family dealt with oil, and that they needed an excuse to go to Iraq. Well, if you attack the twin towers, and then attack the Pentagon, two stong symbols in America, you run into the little area of patriotism. Add in the patriotic music videos and ideals in the prevailing month, and you suddenly have time where the people can be moved into acts of patriotism.

The Patriot Act, which basically lets the Government imprison whoever they want, as long as they "think that they're terrorists" is passed; many of those arrested, some of which are undoubtably innocent, are moved into secret camps and tortured.

I dunno, if you ask me, I can actually see a motive here. You can't assume to know all of the picture in a conspiracy, but enough of it is clear to say "motive"... you just have to make assumptions. Like, say, the moral bankruptcy of those in charge, and a conspiracy group good enough to hide all the facts.

But that's the key -- I can explain *WHY* decently enough (at least, enough to seem plausible); but the "HOW" floors me. How do you do all of that without confuzzling every physicist, engineer, construction worker, etc., across the nation (and in other nations as well)?

Edit: Now that I'm really thinking about it, isn't it kinda interesting that the majority of Americans are really starting to realize the dwindling abilities of fossil fuels? Ironically, just when we're practically finishing up an occupation into a country that holds a vast amount of oil reserves.

Y'know, I should probably stop being devil's advocate before I actually convince myself >.<

kookbreaker
2005-Nov-26, 04:56 AM
Just to let you know guys, this fellow has been on USENET with this nonesense, and pulls the same evasive junk. He uses a load of aliases, so search for the website in his .sig. You won't get anywhere with him. He just ignores anything inconvenient to his faith.

They laughed him out of aviation.disaster with his silly claims. Its was fun when he pretended to know more about planes than the people who work with them.

Archer17
2005-Nov-26, 05:01 AM
IMO, the "whys" I've heard regarding 9/11 conspiracy theories have more holes than Swiss cheese.

To me the 9/11/Iraq correlation is weak. First of all, if Bush wanted to invade Iraq he didn't have to "stage" a terrorist attack. He could always claim they had uh .. WMD. Other possibilities? .. maybe stage a sort of "Gulf of Tonkin" incident with the no-fly zones. I can think of other "reasons" he could use to try to justify invading Iraq, but it all comes down to this - the need to kill our own people wasn't necessary for Bush to try to "sell" Iraq. If he was supposedly willing to go to such an extreme as to attack his own country to try then I think we ought to ask why we didn't "find" WMD over there. Planting them would be child's play compared to the sophistication needed to pull off a 9/11.

I actually feared martial law was a possibility in the days following 9/11, not for the reasons the CTers spout, but because of the uncertainty of followup attacks. It never happened. I won't go into the Patriot Act due to FAQ constraints but like it or no, it isn't martial law.

jrkeller
2005-Nov-26, 05:35 AM
Have you ever actually examined the "eyewitness" accounts in depth?

No I haven't.

But when I see an interview on the National Geographic channel and one of the witnesses states that he say the plane go into the Pentagon and he saw the windows of the jet pass by him as the plane went into the building. That's good enough for me.

Jason Gortician
2005-Nov-26, 05:38 AM
No I haven't.

But when I see an interview on the National Geographic channel and one of the witnesses states that he say the plane go into the Pentagon and he saw the windows of the jet pass by him as the plane went into the building. That's good enough for me.

Was that the guy who said he said he saw the faces of the passengers at 400mph?

; )

If only everyone were so uncritical and accepting as you.

Obviousman
2005-Nov-26, 05:44 AM
I appear to have Jason Christie's permission to do absolutely anything I want. I posted it here for the people who won't follow the link.

What's it to you?

From the Rules for posting to BAUT:

4. Copyright

Do not post copyrighted material here. This is very serious. It is within the law to post small, relevant quotes, but not whole passages from newspapers, magazines, books, etc. If you do, the post will be deleted, and you will be warned. Do it twice and you will be banned. If you want to reference material somewhere else on the web, give a brief summary and link to the rest. People can go take a look at what you're talking about and then return to discuss it further.

The site does not say the material is copyrighted, but neither does it say it can be reproduced without permission / attributation.

Jason Gortician
2005-Nov-26, 05:46 AM
From the Rules for posting to BAUT:

4. Copyright

Do not post copyrighted material here. This is very serious. It is within the law to post small, relevant quotes, but not whole passages from newspapers, magazines, books, etc. If you do, the post will be deleted, and you will be warned. Do it twice and you will be banned. If you want to reference material somewhere else on the web, give a brief summary and link to the rest. People can go take a look at what you're talking about and then return to discuss it further.

The site does not say the material is copyrighted, but neither does it say it can be reproduced without permission / attributation.

It's a good thing I wrote it, eh, you [EXPLETIVE DELETED BY MODERATOR]?

jrkeller
2005-Nov-26, 05:51 AM
Was that the guy who said he said he saw the faces of the passengers at 400mph?


Nope, he said he only saw the windows.

WHarris
2005-Nov-26, 05:51 AM
Have you ever actually examined the "eyewitness" accounts in depth?

I heard them on 9/11.

The Pentagon is bracketd by 2 major highways, and the plane crashed at a time when both are filled with cars. Dozens of people saw the plane crash.

Plus there's the people who were talking to passengers on the plane when it crashed.

jrkeller
2005-Nov-26, 05:54 AM
How about the guy who said the "757" ripped an antenna off of a Jeep Cherokee?


If you had read the the ASCE report, the witness doesn't say that at all, he states, "possibly clipping the antenna of the vehicle immediately behind him"

No mention of a Jeep or ripped an antenna off.

Jason Gortician
2005-Nov-26, 06:03 AM
If you had read the the ASCE report, the witness doesn't say that at all, he states, "possibly clipping the antenna of the vehicle immediately behind him"

No mention of a Jeep or ripped an antenna off.

I did read it, moron.



Evey, Walker Lee


The plane approached the Pentagon about six feet off the ground, clipping a light pole, a car antenna, a construction trailer and an emergency generator before slicing into the building, said Lee Evey, the manager of the Pentagon's ongoing billion-dollar renovation. The plane penetrated three of the Pentagon's five rings, but was probably stopped from going farther by hundreds of concrete columns. The plane peeled back as it entered, leaving pieces of the front of the plane near the outside of the building and pieces from the rear of the aircraft farther inside, Evey said. The floors just above the impact remained intact for about 35 minutes after the crash, allowing many people in those offices to escape, Evey said
http://detnews.com/2001/nation/0110/06/nation-312016.htm

Probst, Frank
An engine had clipped the antenna off a Jeep Grand Cherokee stalled in traffic not far away.
http://www.militarycity.com/sept11/fortress1.html


I'm glad you know what you're talking about.

Jason Gortician
2005-Nov-26, 06:05 AM
Nope, he said he only saw the windows.


"...Then I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board,'' Cissell said.


Who was it?

Jason Gortician
2005-Nov-26, 06:11 AM
Just to let you know guys, this fellow has been on USENET with this nonesense, and pulls the same evasive junk. He uses a load of aliases, so search for the website in his .sig. You won't get anywhere with him. He just ignores anything inconvenient to his faith.

They laughed him out of aviation.disaster with his silly claims. Its was fun when he pretended to know more about planes than the people who work with them.

How am I being evasive?

Why not just...prove me wrong? There's the essay...

When did I "pretend to know more about planes than the people who work on them"?

Cite?

Van Rijn
2005-Nov-26, 06:13 AM
It's a good thing I wrote it, eh, you [text removed]?

Great attitude. The copyright rule applies to everyone. You asked what the issue was, and it was kindly explained to you. Then you respond by cursing. If you want to continue to post here, I would suggest you read the board rules (bolding added):



3. Language

No cursing. This goes along with being polite. This website is read by a lot of kids, including young school kids who want to learn about astronomy, space, and space exploration. The Universe is a marvelous place, full of beauty and wonder, and if you despoil it by using bad language you will quickly invoke the ire of the administrators and moderators. Think of the language used on TV during an after-school special and you'll get the idea. Deliberately misspelled bad words, or replacing key letters with different characters or numbers will not be tolerated. Same goes with adult topics -- talk about them somewhere else. If you do need to post something risqué, stick with arcane scientific terminology.

Just so it is clear, long time board members get banned just like anyone else if they break board rules.

Obviousman
2005-Nov-26, 06:13 AM
Now, let's see:

If the many building performance experts on the panel who assembled the report cannot tell the difference between a white, bumpy smoke trail and a 757, their credibility is questionable, at best.

I'm not sure what it is. It could well be a fuselage. Too difficult for me to tell. Besides, these people are building performance experts, not aerospace engineers or pilots or photographic experts. They could be wrong about the label they have placed in the image. It does nothing to affect their credability as building engineers.

Smoke trail remains in place. Clearly, that was not a 757.

Clearly, it says no such thing. The 'smoke trail' was not in that position in the previous image (i.e. left of the right-most tan coloured box). In the second image, you can see to the right of that box a 'smoke trail' that is completely different from the first image.

Looking at the two in the report (the second image has had the RH edge of it cropped on that website, so you can't see right of the box), I would believe that they were correct that it was the aircraft and that it is NOT a smoke trail. (Have a look at the report, not the website, compare the two and make up your own minds)

I believe this piece of disinformation is deliberate.

You have no evidence that it is disinformation. I believe that they are correct in identifying it as the aircraft.

While the photograph in figure 3.8 indicates that only two windows, and a single column are missing from the second floor, the drawing placed beside it (figure 3.10) shows a total of four missing windows. This illustration does not correspond to any known photograph. Its inclusion is yet another reason to doubt the veracity of the report.

No, you are wrong. The photographic image (Figure 3.8) matches the CGI (Figure 3.10).

Bottom row of windows: Two windows, expansion joint 11, upgraded windows (2) in place, windows (2) column line 14 missing.

It matches perfectly.

Jason Gortician
2005-Nov-26, 06:16 AM
I already did. I'm not buying it. Are you here just to pick lint too?

So you "addressed it" by saying "I'm not buying it"?

Are there some sort of errors in the text? Or are you dismissing it out of hand because it doesn't fit what you believe?




CT promoters like to avoid the big picture, preferring to dwell on snory minutiae (see some of those WTC threads) but for me, you have to tell me how it was done and even more importantly, why. That's the Achilles' Heel of the whole 9/11 conspiracy hokum. There's no "ends" to justify the alleged "means."

I want to know what you think really happened and why it happened. If you're not up for that just say so.

If you don't see any "ends", you're clearly blind. Pipelines? Israel? Bases in Iraq? Empire building? Financial ****ery? Tons of new laws?

What do I think happened? I think a small group of people engineered 9/11, and they weren't muslims. But that's sort of a given, isn't it?

Dumb questions.

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-26, 06:20 AM
If it was a small group of people, why do all the construction workers, engineers, and scientists accept the story? I mean, are you suggesting that every single person with any experience at all in engineering has been paid off, or is just incompetent?

Jason Gortician
2005-Nov-26, 06:24 AM
Now, let's see:

If the many building performance experts on the panel who assembled the report cannot tell the difference between a white, bumpy smoke trail and a 757, their credibility is questionable, at best.

I'm not sure what it is. It could well be a fuselage. Too difficult for me to tell. Besides, these people are building performance experts, not aerospace engineers or pilots or photographic experts. They could be wrong about the label they have placed in the image. It does nothing to affect their credability as building engineers.

Smoke trail remains in place. Clearly, that was not a 757.

Clearly, it says no such thing. The 'smoke trail' was not in that position in the previous image (i.e. left of the right-most tan coloured box). In the second image, you can see to the right of that box a 'smoke trail' that is completely different from the first image.

Looking at the two in the report (the second image has had the RH edge of it cropped on that website, so you can't see right of the box), I would believe that they were correct that it was the aircraft and that it is NOT a smoke trail. (Have a look at the report, not the website, compare the two and make up your own minds)

I believe this piece of disinformation is deliberate.

You have no evidence that it is disinformation. I believe that they are correct in identifying it as the aircraft.

While the photograph in figure 3.8 indicates that only two windows, and a single column are missing from the second floor, the drawing placed beside it (figure 3.10) shows a total of four missing windows. This illustration does not correspond to any known photograph. Its inclusion is yet another reason to doubt the veracity of the report.

No, you are wrong. The photographic image (Figure 3.8) matches the CGI (Figure 3.10).

Bottom row of windows: Two windows, expansion joint 11, upgraded windows (2) in place, windows (2) column line 14 missing.

It matches perfectly.

That's pretty weasel-like of you, to say a smoke trail is a fuselage. How is the fuselage to the right of the explosion, again?

; )

As far as the illustration goes, what is your explanation for the two 'blacked out' windows to the left of the two that were actually missing? You can only see the detail because it's extremely magnified. On paper, or unzoomed, it looks very much like four windows are missing.

It's a snarky attempt at deception, just like you calling an obvious trail of smoke a "fuselage".

Jason Gortician
2005-Nov-26, 06:27 AM
If it was a small group of people, why do all the construction workers, engineers, and scientists accept the story? I mean, are you suggesting that every single person with any experience at all in engineering has been paid off, or is just incompetent?

All construction workers (I am one), engineers and scientists accept the story? Really? All of them?

How far do you think you can get with lies?

You're simply ignoring all of the many, many people with experience in engineering and other fields that don't buy the story. There are more of them every day, you know.

And what does "small group of people" have to do with the rest of your premise, anyway?

Obviousman
2005-Nov-26, 06:27 AM
You DO realise that you are well on your way to being suspended, if not banned, for both the tone of your posts and the language used?

Please, read the rules before making any more posts which could see this discussion prematurely terminated.

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-26, 06:31 AM
All construction workers (I am one), engineers and scientists accept the story? Really? All of them?

Most of them, yes.



How far do you think you can get with lies?

I'm lying? News ta me. So... if someone disagrees with you, they're lying. Hmm.


You're simply ignoring all of the many, many people with experience in engineering and other fields that don't buy the story. There are more of them every day, you know.

show me lists of those who agree with the reports, and those who do not. Let's compare the two numbers, shall we?


And what does "small group of people" have to do with the rest of your premise, anyway?

Because if a small group of people are behind a conspiracy, then they would have to fool a very large number of people. If it was a large group of people behind the conspiracy, then there's more the likelihood of someone slipping up and saying something; but you said it was a small group of people.

Obviousman
2005-Nov-26, 06:34 AM
How is the fuselage to the right of the explosion, again?


No, you referred to figure 3.3 with the label "Approaching aircraft". You have said "Smoke trail mislabled as 757.". This image is PRIOR to impact.

I believe that the the object labelled in Figure 3.3 in all likelyhood IS the aircraft.

The other image is Figure 3.4, which is AT the time of impact. To the left of the box you can see what is probably a smoke trail, but to the right of the box you can see what might be a smoke trail. Compare the right of the box in Figures 3.3 and 3.4, and the object in 3.3 is clearly different to that in 3.4 - from which I draw the conclusion that identifying it in Figure 3.3 as the aircraft was most likely correct.

Jason Gortician
2005-Nov-26, 06:34 AM
Great attitude. The copyright rule applies to everyone. You asked what the issue was, and it was kindly explained to you. Then you respond by cursing. If you want to continue to post here, I would suggest you read the board rules (bolding added):



Just so it is clear, long time board members get banned just like anyone else if they break board rules.

Rules against profanity. Hilarious. That's why these petty fiefdoms of the web are strictly small potatoes. You can talk among yourselves, all you like. Your impact on the world outside of this small group of regulars is nil.

"Copyright" doesn't apply to things I wrote. And hey, if you can't prove someone is wrong, simply ban them.

; )

Sounds like you cats have a strong case.

Jason Gortician
2005-Nov-26, 06:37 AM
No, you referred to figure 3.3 with the label "Approaching aircraft". You have said "Smoke trail mislabled as 757.". This image is PRIOR to impact.

I believe that the the object labelled in Figure 3.3 in all likelyhood IS the aircraft.

The other image is Figure 3.4, which is AT the time of impact. To the left of the box you can see what is probably a smoke trail, but to the right of the box you can see what might be a smoke trail. Compare the right of the box in Figures 3.3 and 3.4, and the object in 3.3 is clearly different to that in 3.4 - from which I draw the conclusion that identifying it in Figure 3.3 as the aircraft was most likely correct.

Man, you people go through some amazing contortions, eh?

So, in that tenth of a second, the (irregular, bumpy, smoketrail-like) 'fuselage' is replaced by an actual smoketrail?

; )

As for "clearly different", do you expect smoke to remain static? It behaves as smoke does.

Most amusing.

Jason Gortician
2005-Nov-26, 06:38 AM
You DO realise that you are well on your way to being suspended, if not banned, for both the tone of your posts and the language used?

Please, read the rules before making any more posts which could see this discussion prematurely terminated.

Who are you, the tone police?

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-26, 06:38 AM
Rules against profanity. Hilarious. That's why these petty fiefdoms of the web are strictly small potatoes. You can talk among yourselves, all you like. Your impact on the world outside of this small group of regulars is nil.

Riiiight. I mean, heaven forbid if we like to make a forum family friendly...


"Copyright" doesn't apply to things I wrote.

And how was he supposed to know that you wrote it beforehand, anyways? That's why he brought it up.


And hey, if you can't prove someone is wrong, simply ban them.

I mean, yeah, you breaking the rules of the very forum that you decide to send your bytes of text information surely don't play into it...

After all, if they ban you, it MUST be because they can't debunk your theory, not because of the clearly labelled rules that clearly say "Read these first!". I mean, surely not.


Sounds like you cats have a strong case.

I resent being called a cat. I must snarl viscious at you now. Snarl snarl.

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-26, 06:40 AM
Who are you, the tone police?

The rules are here for a reason. The forum is supposed to be family friendly, and conducive for reasonable discussion; insults and Ad Hominem attacks are simply not allowed.

Jason Gortician
2005-Nov-26, 06:41 AM
Most of them, yes.



I'm lying? News ta me. So... if someone disagrees with you, they're lying. Hmm.

You said all of them believe the official story. A lie. Now you've changed your statement to "most of them".





show me lists of those who agree with the reports, and those who do not. Let's compare the two numbers, shall we?

Because, hey, the truth is a numbers game. Right?





Because if a small group of people are behind a conspiracy, then they would have to fool a very large number of people.

And a large group would have to fool...a large number of people.




If it was a large group of people behind the conspiracy, then there's more the likelihood of someone slipping up and saying something; but you said it was a small group of people.

You catch on straight away, don't you?

kookbreaker
2005-Nov-26, 06:42 AM
How am I being evasive?


Unsupported comments like "Have you ever actually examined the "eyewitness" accounts in depth?". That's not an arguement, its an attempt to invalidate a large body of evidence with handwaving.

Just a few of the eyewitness accounts:

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm

Oh, and your unsupported claim that somehow you stumped Catherder on the abovetopsecret post. No supporting evidence, of course.



Why not just...prove me wrong? There's the essay...


Because it is junk, deliberately vague, and failed utterly to contradict the eyewiness accounts and physical evidence



When did I "pretend to know more about planes than the people who work on them"?


Every single time you tried to post 'facts' about airplanes on x-posts the alt.aviaiton.disaster. Such as your claims of remote control:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy/browse_thread/thread/a3495a6c9ecf4729/546870f4489ee58c?q=remote+control+bedoper&rnum=4#546870f4489ee58c

A few good 'uns

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy/msg/cc59ca6c046abb61

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy/msg/63af5804cfe6ea1d?dmode=source

Jason Gortician
2005-Nov-26, 06:45 AM
Riiiight. I mean, heaven forbid if we like to make a forum family friendly...

I'm not cursing anymore. Can you start to get over it, and maybe begin to heal?

I'm sure all the little kids out there reading this would appreciate you getting back on topic. Little Timmy, Jimmy and Suzie.




And how was he supposed to know that you wrote it beforehand, anyways? That's why he brought it up.


I didn't like his tone.



I mean, yeah, you breaking the rules of the very forum that you decide to send your bytes of text information surely don't play into it...


Cry me an ocean.



After all, if they ban you, it MUST be because they can't debunk your theory, not because of the clearly labelled rules that clearly say "Read these first!". I mean, surely not.

I resent being called a cat. I must snarl viscious at you now. Snarl snarl.

That's nice. Can you try and focus on the issue at hand, now?

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-26, 06:45 AM
You said all of them believe the official story. A lie. Now you've changed your statement to "most of them".

Dang, you got me. I'm really paid billions by the US government to lie to people like you. I admit it.

(Or, alternatively, I just wasn't careful about my particular word choice, and it's 11:42 in the frikkin' night where I am. But no, I MUST be lying!)



Because, hey, the truth is a numbers game. Right?

When those numbers involve qualified specialists, why not?


And a large group would have to fool...a large number of people.

Yes... and?


You catch on straight away, don't you?

Straight as an arrow, yeap.

goodastronomy
2005-Nov-26, 06:45 AM
Hmm..

Could someone explain to me why non-muslims would engineer 9-11? Of course, then the question becomes what is the difference? Either way the result is the same. It appears this is a way to change the responsibility of 9-11 away from terrorist's merely due to a lack of evidence.

I read this online; From - http://911review.com/attack/pentagon/


In the minutes following the attack, the FBI confiscated from nearby businesses video recordings that may have captured the attack. In contrast to the well documented tower crashes and collapses in Manhattan, the story of Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon had no corroborating pictures, only eyewitness accounts and photos of the building's damaged facade.

Although I understand why they would conviscate them, what I would like to have done is to release these video's and the evidence to put this to rest. Of course some lone wolfe conspirators would claim the video's were "Faked" but nonetheless I'd like to actually see the aircraft crashing into the building because at this point I can only assume the plane desintegrated?

Even with this - This lack of evidence does not constitute a massive government coverup conspiracy, when we KNOW the terrorists were learning how to fly and planning this for years. We also know planes were crashed into the WTC Towers and that Flight 77 never returned. Of course, the conspirators would probably have to create some mythical event that happened to "get rid of the flight and it's people" because the whole thing is built on nothing. This "theory" is built on a lack of evidence and that's why it fails.

The question becomes; Why with this lack of evidence, does one lean toward such an extraordinary explanation of the events and not a more plausible and realistic explanation? :naughty:

Jason Gortician
2005-Nov-26, 06:47 AM
The rules are here for a reason. The forum is supposed to be family friendly, and conducive for reasonable discussion; insults and Ad Hominem attacks are simply not allowed.

That mostly seems to apply to the pro-conspiracy people.

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-26, 06:49 AM
That mostly seems to apply to the pro-conspiracy people.

How so? What Ad Hominem attacks and insults have we lobbed against you?

Please, point them out, quote who did them, and in full. Also, if you truly think you've been attacked (or someone else has been attacked), feel free to report their thread to the administrators.

I was suspended from this forum for a good 24 hours once. Since you seem to be making me out to be some kinda of active liar (Hint: I'm not), that's kinda amazing that they would choose to suspend me... must be, I dunno, a case of unbiasedness or something.

Jason Gortician
2005-Nov-26, 06:54 AM
Unsupported comments like "Have you ever actually examined the "eyewitness" accounts in depth?". That's not an arguement, its an attempt to invalidate a large body of evidence with handwaving.


Actually, "Kookbreaker", it's a "question".



Just a few of the eyewitness accounts:

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm


Yes. A select few. From the site that claims a 757 hit the ground in front of the Pentagon. ; )



Oh, and your unsupported claim that somehow you stumped Catherder on the abovetopsecret post. No supporting evidence, of course.

Are those my words? Or your words?

Did you read the thread? My post is there. Page 14 or so. Denying it won't make it go away.




Because it is junk, deliberately vague, and failed utterly to contradict the eyewiness accounts and physical evidence


Ah. Because you say so.




Every single time you tried to post 'facts' about airplanes on x-posts the alt.aviaiton.disaster. Such as your claims of remote control:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy/browse_thread/thread/a3495a6c9ecf4729/546870f4489ee58c?q=remote+control+bedoper&rnum=4#546870f4489ee58c

A few good 'uns

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy/msg/cc59ca6c046abb61

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy/msg/63af5804cfe6ea1d?dmode=source

So you think I'm "Bill Ding"?

Jason Gortician
2005-Nov-26, 07:00 AM
Dang, you got me. I'm really paid billions by the US government to lie to people like you. I admit it.

Who said anything like that?



(Or, alternatively, I just wasn't careful about my particular word choice, and it's 11:42 in the frikkin' night where I am. But no, I MUST be lying!)

I suggest you watch your tone and language before you are banned. You also might want to be less sloppy with your words. So you don't look like a liar.



When those numbers involve qualified specialists, why not?


There are qualified specialists on both sides. One side has a vested interest in promoting the official story.



Yes... and?


I don't know. It was your line of thought. I was hoping you had a point.

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-26, 07:03 AM
I think I'm just going to take a break from this. My temper is rising a little too high, I don't have enough knowledge to contribute, and it's late. Adieu.

Obviousman
2005-Nov-26, 07:03 AM
If you compare the two images from the report, and looking at the tan box on the far right, you can see:

Figure 3.3 - LEFT: Nothing; RIGHT: An object (unknown) labelled as 'Approaching aircraft'

Figure 3.4 - LEFT: Probable smoke trail; RIGHT: Faint traces of probable smoke trail.

Comparing the object to the RIGHT in Figure 3.3 with the object to the LEFT in 3.4, and assuming that the object in 3.4 IS smoke, then I don't think the object (RIGHT) in Figure 3.3 looks like smoke, and it is more likely to be the aircraft.

goodastronomy
2005-Nov-26, 07:04 AM
I think I'm just going to take a break from this. My temper is rising a little too high, I don't have enough knowledge to contribute, and it's late. Adieu.

Yes, doing this :wall: Will make you mad.. lol

:dance:

goodastronomy
2005-Nov-26, 07:10 AM
If you compare the two images from the report, and looking at the tan box on the far right, you can see:

Figure 3.3 - LEFT: Nothing; RIGHT: An object (unknown) labelled as 'Approaching aircraft'

Figure 3.4 - LEFT: Probable smoke trail; RIGHT: Faint traces of probable smoke trail.

Comparing the object to the RIGHT in Figure 3.3 with the object to the LEFT in 3.4, and assuming that the object in 3.4 IS smoke, then I don't think the object (RIGHT) in Figure 3.3 looks like smoke, and it is more likely to be the aircraft.

Thank's for that Obvious Man. That helps and does give me something to work with. Now I want to blow the image up and resize it, but I don't know if it'd convince Father Paranoia. :p

kookbreaker
2005-Nov-26, 07:14 AM
Actually, "Kookbreaker", it's a "question".


Not really, it is an implication that you know something that makes all that evidence useless, especially given where you are coming from.



Yes. A select few. From the site that claims a 757 hit the ground in front of the Pentagon. ; )


That does not make them go away.



Are those my words? Or your words?

Did you read the thread? My post is there. Page 14 or so. Denying it won't make it go away.


Ah! There it is.

Now having seen it, I am not impressed. You just yanked a post from USENET that was incomprehensible and really didn't have much context. From the looks of it, it was little more than a shotgun approach that was ignored. It hardly makes a dent in Catherders' arguements.



Ah. Because you say so.


I am not the only one.



So you think I'm "Bill Ding"?

Absolutely not. You are the one Bill Ding is replying to and humiliating.

Obviousman
2005-Nov-26, 07:18 AM
As far as the illustration goes, what is your explanation for the two 'blacked out' windows to the left of the two that were actually missing? You can only see the detail because it's extremely magnified.

If you look carefully at the attached image, I've highlighted the 'missing' window in red. The subsequent windows can just be seen through the smoke.

You're wrong.



On paper, or unzoomed, it looks very much like four windows are missing.

Then you should zoom in and examine the image more carefully before making unsupportable statements.

Obviousman
2005-Nov-26, 07:26 AM
Ooops! You said to the LEFT of the missing windows - I read that as right. My apologies.

In that case, there are two 'upgraded' windows, with nothing underneath them. Then to the LEFT of them are two normal windows, with nothing underneath them. Then there is solid wall with nothing under the first floor window line (I'm Australian - we name the floors as ground, then first).

That's all reflected in the CGI figure.

Perhaps you could explain in a little more detail what your problem with the CGI is?

Superluminal
2005-Nov-26, 07:31 AM
So, what happened to the 757 and all the passengers? Disappear into the Bermuda Triangle?

Jason Gortician
2005-Nov-26, 07:35 AM
I don't have enough knowledge to contribute

You said it, not me.

Jason Gortician
2005-Nov-26, 07:36 AM
If you compare the two images from the report, and looking at the tan box on the far right, you can see:

Figure 3.3 - LEFT: Nothing; RIGHT: An object (unknown) labelled as 'Approaching aircraft'

Figure 3.4 - LEFT: Probable smoke trail; RIGHT: Faint traces of probable smoke trail.

Comparing the object to the RIGHT in Figure 3.3 with the object to the LEFT in 3.4, and assuming that the object in 3.4 IS smoke, then I don't think the object (RIGHT) in Figure 3.3 looks like smoke, and it is more likely to be the aircraft.


These are very amusing contortions. Smoke that looks like an aircraft to certain people.

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-26, 07:38 AM
I never claimed to be an expert. I'm not an engineer or a construction worker. I'm working on a Liberal Arts degree, and I just started college.

Obviousman
2005-Nov-26, 07:44 AM
These are very amusing contortions. Smoke that looks like an aircraft to certain people.

And your point is?

I consider it to be more likely an aircraft than smoke.

Jason Gortician
2005-Nov-26, 07:46 AM
Not really, it is an implication that you know something that makes all that evidence useless, especially given where you are coming from.


It...is...a...question. They are followed by one of these:"?".





That does not make them go away.


And, of course, no one said it did. Do you believe a 757 hit the ground at the Pentagon, as Snopes claims?

Do you know about how many people actually claimed to have seen an impact?



Ah! There it is.


At least you quit insinuating I was lying. That's a start.




Now having seen it, I am not impressed.


Well, Kookbreaker, you've failed to wow me thus far, as well.




You just yanked a post from USENET that was incomprehensible and really didn't have much context. From the looks of it, it was little more than a shotgun approach that was ignored. It hardly makes a dent in Catherders' arguements.


If must be nice to just dismiss anything you don't agree with out of hand.





I am not the only one.


Safety in numbers.



Absolutely not. You are the one Bill Ding is replying to and humiliating.

If you say so, Kookbreaker.

There's no such thing as a plane being flown from the U.S. to Australia without a pilot, right?

Jason Gortician
2005-Nov-26, 07:48 AM
And your point is?

I consider it to be more likely an aircraft than smoke.

Might I suggest glasses?

In what way does a lumpy, irregular smoke trail resemble a shiny 757?

Then, in the next frame, a smoketrail appears where the previous 757-that-looks-like-a-smoketrail once was?

Do you think anyone but the shills buys this explanation? Are you comfortable making perfectly ridiculous statements?

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-26, 07:51 AM
Okay, I can't resist.


It...is...a...question. They are followed by one of these:"?".

It's also called a leading question, or a loaded question. There was a purpose behind it being asked.


At least you quit insinuating I was lying. That's a start.

As opposed to you outright accusing me of lying. ;) That's not quite a start, now is it?

Obviousman
2005-Nov-26, 07:53 AM
Might I suggest glasses?

In what way does a lumpy, irregular smoke trail resemble a shiny 757?

Then, in the next frame, a smoketrail appears where the previous 757-that-looks-like-a-smoketrail once was?

Do you think anyone but the shills buys this explanation? Are you comfortable making perfectly ridiculous statements?

Yes, because they are not ridiculous. I'm not sure what the object is, but it is more likely to be an aircraft than a smoke trail.

Do you have any evidence or experience to prove otherwise?

Jason Gortician
2005-Nov-26, 07:55 AM
Okay, I can't resist.



It's also called a leading question, or a loaded question. There was a purpose behind it being asked.


There is a purpose behind all questions being asked. It's sort of the point of questions.



As opposed to you outright accusing me of lying. ;) That's not quite a start, now is it?

Gee, you lied, and I called you a liar?

The audacity!

Jason Gortician
2005-Nov-26, 07:58 AM
Yes, because they are not ridiculous. I'm not sure what the object is, but it is more likely to be an aircraft than a smoke trail.

Do you have any evidence or experience to prove otherwise?


Just the obvious photographic evidence.

Why is your "757" so lumpy and malformed? Why is it white, with no distinguishing features on it what so ever?

Why does it turn into smoke in the next frame?

Why are you pursuing this absolutely insane agenda?

If you want to discuss some technical aspect, please, by all means. I posted that paper so someone could perhaps try and refute it.

But for you to say that smoke trail is a 757 is to insult the intelligence of everyone on this board. You may believe that utter tripe, but I certainly will not.

goodastronomy
2005-Nov-26, 08:05 AM
Just the obvious photographic evidence.

Why is your "757" so lumpy and malformed? Why is it white, with no distinguishing features on it what so ever?

Why does it turn into smoke in the next frame?

Why are you pursuing this absolutely insane agenda?

If you want to discuss some technical aspect, please, by all means. I posted that paper so someone could perhaps try and refute it.

But for you to say that smoke trail is a 757 is to insult the intelligence of everyone on this board. You may believe that utter tripe, but I certainly will not.

It's rather obvious that in all other photographs that object is no longer there and that it was probably the jetliner that blasted into the Pentagon.

So the question becomes, what do you think that object is?

wayneee
2005-Nov-26, 08:08 AM
I will never be able to accept that some one like or president would be capable of such evil, either in orchrestration or advanced knowledge. I was able to be sceptical about Moon Landings, but this , 9/11, I was never more outraged in my life. To think One of our own could carry out something like this and have enough people to back him up ,simply couldnt happen. I will never accept it. If this was hoxed, everything that I hold dear would be lost.

Obviousman
2005-Nov-26, 08:08 AM
Just the obvious photographic evidence.

Why is your "757" so lumpy and malformed? Why is it white, with no distinguishing features on it what so ever?

Why does it turn into smoke in the next frame?

Why are you pursuing this absolutely insane agenda?

If you want to discuss some technical aspect, please, by all means. I posted that paper so someone could perhaps try and refute it.

But for you to say that smoke trail is a 757 is to insult the intelligence of everyone on this board. You may believe that utter tripe, but I certainly will not.


It's YOUR opinion that it has no distinguishing features.

I see what could be a fuselage and a tail outlined in red). The silver colour could show up as white in the image because of the quality of the image and the distance. The pixelation makes identifying anything very difficult.

I'm pursuing it because YOU ask people to discuss the paper. If you don't agree, well, then we'll agree to disagree.

Jason Gortician
2005-Nov-26, 08:14 AM
It's rather obvious that in all other photographs that object is no longer there


Except as dissipating smoke...



and that it was probably the jetliner that blasted into the Pentagon.


Except it doesn't have a single property of a plane, and all the properties of a smoke trail.

Except for that little detail, sure, it's a 757, all right.



So the question becomes, what do you think that object is?

Erm, a smoketrail, perhaps?

Archer17
2005-Nov-26, 08:14 AM
So you "addressed it" by saying "I'm not buying it"?Exactly.
Are there some sort of errors in the text? Or are you dismissing it out of hand because it doesn't fit what you believe?You haven't sold it Jason. I pointed out the flaws of this CT approach. Your beliefs are based on faulty logic. I think that outside of trying to get a bite on your woowoo link you have nothing to offer this board except rhetoric and immaturity.
If you don't see any "ends", you're clearly blind. Pipelines? Israel? Bases in Iraq? Empire building? Financial ****ery? Tons of new laws?Have you really thought this through? Wasn't the majority of the hijackers Saudi? Why invade Iraq? If I take this flawed reasoning to it's logical conclusion we would have invaded Saudi Arabia! Let's have a look at your other examples:

Israel? Israel is the dominant military power in the region and a U.S. occupation of a weakened Arab country that doesn't even border them would do what exactly? How does this help Israel?

Bases in Iraq. We had bases in the region prior to 9/11.

Empire building? What empire?

Tons of new laws. I presume you mean laws like the Patriot Act. Do you think "new laws" after terrorist incidents are really that surprising? Other countries that have been victimized by terrorist attacks enacted "new laws" too. Is that OK, or are they part of the nefarious cabal as well?
What do I think happened? I think a small group of people engineered 9/11, and they weren't muslims. But that's sort of a given, isn't it? Dumb questions.For being "dumb questions" you seem unable to answer them. You throw "Israel," "pipelines," "military bases," "Empire building" etc out there in rhetorical fashion but lack the geopolitical savvy to realize how empty such phrases are.

BTW, I still haven't read from you how the conspirators pulled this off Jason.

kookbreaker
2005-Nov-26, 08:14 AM
It...is...a...question. They are followed by one of these:"?".


As Lonewulf points out, a loaded question.



And, of course, no one said it did. Do you believe a 757 hit the ground at the Pentagon, as Snopes claims?


Stick with the eyewitness accounts.



Do you know about how many people actually claimed to have seen an impact?


Loaded question. Lots of folks saw the plane heading hard and fast towards the Pentagon. This loaded question reminds me of the all those Mumia supporters who claim only one person saw Mumia shoot Faulkner. Of course, several other witnesses saw Mumia run over to Faulkner with a gun and heard shots.



At least you quit insinuating I was lying. That's a start.


Oh, I never doubted that you posted there, and any such insinuations were netirely in your imagination. What I doubted was your claims about what your accomplishments in that thread were. It turns out, I was right.



Well, Kookbreaker, you've failed to wow me thus far, as well.


Not caring. As can be seen, you did little more than plop a USENET post onto the thread. It had a load of hashmarks, and even I, experienced with USENET's quirks, found it annoying to fuss through. Even then I am still not certain if you added any comments of your own.



If must be nice to just dismiss anything you don't agree with out of hand.


I just call 'em as I see 'em. you plop gibberish into a thread, then claim a victory.

For those who want to see it, the link is here:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg14




Safety in numbers.

If you say so, Kookbreaker.


I do.



There's no such thing as a plane being flown from the U.S. to Australia without a pilot, right?

Are we talking about a Commercial Airplane from a Commercial Airline? You need to define your terms better, as this is looking a lot like another loaded question.

You can twist all you want, but the pilots and aerospace engineers found your scenario laughable.

Jason Gortician
2005-Nov-26, 08:20 AM
It's YOUR opinion that it has no distinguishing features.

I see what could be a fuselage and a tail outlined in red).


And I'm saying you're full of it. You may want to see that. You might possibly even believe that. But that's not what the picture shows. Every other detail in the photo is clear. The big shiny, reflective "757", however, appears as a lumpy, misshaped white cloud of smoke.

This is the silliest, most convoluted argument I've ever seen anyone make regarding 9/11.



The silver colour could show up as white in the image because of the quality of the image and the distance. The pixelation makes identifying anything very difficult.


Keep squirming and reaching.



I'm pursuing it because YOU ask people to discuss the paper. If you don't agree, well, then we'll agree to disagree.

If your whole case rests on a white cloud of smoke being a 757, I'd find a new hobby.

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-26, 08:23 AM
Gee, you lied, and I called you a liar?

The audacity!

So... if someone's wrong about something... they're automatically a liar. Nevermind that they might have simply misstated something or, y'know, said something with honesty that ended up being wrong.

The audacity, indeed. According to you, "Wrong = lying".

Jason Gortician
2005-Nov-26, 08:25 AM
Let me put this another way for you, Obviousman.

Ever do any raytracing?

I'm pretty sure you haven't. In raytracing, each pixel of the image is generated by following the path of a given light to it's target.

Reflective objects are shiny. They bounce the light wave back more or less directly.

Diffuse objects, like your smoketrail, scatter the light.

Raytracing is a computer model of the real world. In the real world, Obviousman, shiny metal objects don't have the properties of a diffuse smoke cloud.

It's sort of an apples and oranges thing. I know, the ASCE made the claim, and you have to cling to it. But don't you feel the least bit silly?

It's like you're calling an elephant a kitty cat, and expect everyone else to chime in with you.

"Oh, yes, nice kitty. It's definitely a cat."

I just wish the rest of your ilk would try and support you.

Jason Gortician
2005-Nov-26, 08:27 AM
So... if someone's wrong about something... they're automatically a liar. Nevermind that they might have simply misstated something or, y'know, said something with honesty that ended up being wrong.

The audacity, indeed. According to you, "Wrong = lying".

So you honestly thought ALL engineers, contruction workers, etc. believe the official story?

Where did you get that naive idea?

goodastronomy
2005-Nov-26, 08:27 AM
Well, I went ahead and made an animation;

http://www.nasafiles.com/PentagonAnimation.gif

:cry:

You can see the trail of the airplane as it crashes in causing the resulting explosion.

Edit ( By the way, this is from the three images in the report. If anyone has any higher quality images of the video I'd like to use it. Unfortunately this camera just does not have great resolution apperently.)

Van Rijn
2005-Nov-26, 08:39 AM
So you honestly thought ALL engineers, contruction workers, etc. believe the official story?

Where did you get that naive idea?

You've dug a deep enough hole for yourself already. May I suggest you stop digging? And as we have previously suggested, please read the board rules:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32864

Pay attention to rule 2. Then note how often you have broken it. If you have an argument, make it. If you just want to insult people, go somewhere else.

Obviousman
2005-Nov-26, 08:42 AM
Let me put this another way for you, Obviousman.

Ever do any raytracing?

I'm pretty sure you haven't. In raytracing, each pixel of the image is generated by following the path of a given light to it's target.

Reflective objects are shiny. They bounce the light wave back more or less directly.

Diffuse objects, like your smoketrail, scatter the light.

Raytracing is a computer model of the real world. In the real world, Obviousman, shiny metal objects don't have the properties of a diffuse smoke cloud.

It's sort of an apples and oranges thing. I know, the ASCE made the claim, and you have to cling to it. But don't you feel the least bit silly?

It's like you're calling an elephant a kitty cat, and expect everyone else to chime in with you.

"Oh, yes, nice kitty. It's definitely a cat."

I just wish the rest of your ilk would try and support you.


No, I have never done any raytracing.

Are you a photographic expert? I didn't know.

Jason Gortician
2005-Nov-26, 08:46 AM
Exactly.You haven't sold it Jason. I pointed out the flaws of this CT approach. Your beliefs are based on faulty logic. I think that outside of trying to get a bite on your woowoo link you have nothing to offer this board except rhetoric and immaturity.



So, since you can't actually disprove the paper in the least, it's not worth of looking at.

Nice. ; )




Have you really thought this through? Wasn't the majority of the hijackers Saudi? Why invade Iraq? If I take this flawed reasoning to it's logical conclusion we would have invaded Saudi Arabia!


What hijackers?

Why invade Iraq indeed?




Let's have a look at your other examples:

Israel? Israel is the dominant military power in the region and a U.S. occupation of a weakened Arab country that doesn't even border them would do what exactly? How does this help Israel?


And you call me politically naive?

; )

Who was the Israeli official, when asked what 9/11 meant for Israel, said "It's good"?

Do you think this is going to stop at Iraq?



Bases in Iraq. We had bases in the region prior to 9/11.


Well, we're building four more. In Iraq.

Did we have four bases in Iraq before?





Empire building? What empire?


Yes. I'm the naive one, here.




Tons of new laws. I presume you mean laws like the Patriot Act. Do you think "new laws" after terrorist incidents are really that surprising?


Not at all. That was, you know, sort of the point of me bringing it up.



Other countries that have been victimized by terrorist attacks enacted "new laws" too. Is that OK, or are they part of the nefarious cabal as well?


It doesn't take you long to start getting absurd, does it?



For being "dumb questions" you seem unable to answer them. You throw "Israel," "pipelines," "military bases," "Empire building" etc out there in rhetorical fashion but lack the geopolitical savvy to realize how empty such phrases are.


Please share more of your savvy with me. You strike me as enormously clued-in.




BTW, I still haven't read from you how the conspirators pulled this off Jason.

It was a lot easier for them than it would have been for 19 arabs.


Who benefits?

The arab world?

The "hijackers"?

Islam?

Or the people who are currently in the midst of a feeding frenzy, the military-industrial complex and the oil industry?

Jason Gortician
2005-Nov-26, 09:10 AM
As Lonewulf points out, a loaded question.


And why couldn't you just answer the question honestly, instead of whining about it for 6 posts?




Stick with the eyewitness accounts.


Heh. Are you too cowardly to tell me whether or not you believe Snopes when they say a 757 hit the ground at the Pentagon?

I guess you are.




Loaded question. Lots of folks saw the plane heading hard and fast towards the Pentagon. This loaded question reminds me of the all those Mumia supporters who claim only one person saw Mumia shoot Faulkner. Of course, several other witnesses saw Mumia run over to Faulkner with a gun and heard shots.


Keep squirming.




Oh, I never doubted that you posted there, and any such insinuations were netirely in your imagination. What I doubted was your claims about what your accomplishments in that thread were. It turns out, I was right.


And what "accomplishment" did I claim?

; )




Not caring. As can be seen, you did little more than plop a USENET post onto the thread. It had a load of hashmarks, and even I, experienced with USENET's quirks, found it annoying to fuss through. Even then I am still not certain if you added any comments of your own.


Comments of my own? You're really well versed in all of this stuff, I can tell.





I just call 'em as I see 'em. you plop gibberish into a thread, then claim a victory.

For those who want to see it, the link is here:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg14


The "punchout". What made it?

The right side engine. What happened to it?

Why is that piece of "757" so nice and shiny, and so far away from the Pentagon? If one piece flew that far, where are the others?

"Catherder" claims something else entirely is the "757". He and Obviousman need to get their stories straight. Which one are you prepared to say is wrong?

Why does the "757" seem to hit the Pentagon straight on, when it is claimed that it came in at nearly a 45 degree angle?

He claims there are visible 757 seats. Where are they?

No bodies? No luggage?

For starters, anyway.




I do.





Are we talking about a Commercial Airplane from a Commercial Airline? You need to define your terms better, as this is looking a lot like another loaded question.

You can twist all you want, but the pilots and aerospace engineers found your scenario laughable.

Britain's ITN continued: "The Global Hawk, a jet-powered aircraft with a wingspan equivalent to a Boeing 737, flew from Edwards Air Force Base in California and landed late on Monday at the Royal Australian Air Force base at Edinburgh, in South Australia state…. It flies along a pre-programmed flight path, but a pilot monitors the aircraft during its flight via a sensor suite which provides infra-red and visual images."

According to the Australian Global Hawk manager Rod Smith: '"The aircraft essentially flies itself, right from takeoff, right through to landing, and even taxiing off the runway."'

Of course, you're still assuming a 757 hit the Pentagon. I don't feel there is evidence supporting that conclusion. I'd love to be wrong about it.

The FBI says they have 84 different video tapes, I believe, and none of them show a 757?

Jason Gortician
2005-Nov-26, 09:14 AM
You've dug a deep enough hole for yourself already. May I suggest you stop digging? And as we have previously suggested, please read the board rules:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32864

Pay attention to rule 2. Then note how often you have broken it. If you have an argument, make it. If you just want to insult people, go somewhere else.

By what stretch of the imagination am I violating a rule?

Are you saying it's NOT naive to believe that ALL engineers and construction workers believe the official 9/11 story?

Obviousman
2005-Nov-26, 09:19 AM
Are you a photographic expert?

Jason Gortician
2005-Nov-26, 09:24 AM
Are you a photographic expert?

No. Did I claim to be?

Obviousman
2005-Nov-26, 09:42 AM
No. Did I claim to be?

No, you never did claim that.

So, because you are NOT a photographic expert, what makes your claim more valid than what I've said?

I've said I can't conclusively identify what that object is; if I had to choose between an aircraft or smoke, I'd go with aircraft.

Gillianren
2005-Nov-26, 09:48 AM
What happened to the plane? What happened to the passengers?

And why don't we all insist this question gets answered before we ask any more questions?

Obviousman
2005-Nov-26, 10:25 AM
Reflective objects are shiny. They bounce the light wave back more or less directly.

Not in the physics I was taught they don't.

It depends on the angle of incidence, and that determines the ray path.

Perhaps the physics experts can correct what I've said.

PhantomWolf
2005-Nov-26, 10:30 AM
By what stretch of the imagination am I violating a rule?

It's a good thing I wrote it, eh, you [EXPLETIVE DELETED BY MODERATOR]?

I did read it, moron.

I'd say they counted.

Van Rijn
2005-Nov-26, 10:42 AM
And from here: (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=610071&postcount=32)

"That's pretty weasel-like of you"

"It's a snarky attempt at deception"

From here: (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=610072&postcount=33)

"How far do you think you can get with lies?"

From here: (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=610146&postcount=64)

"Are you comfortable making perfectly ridiculous statements?"

There are others, but this should be sufficient.

kookbreaker
2005-Nov-26, 01:52 PM
Why is that piece of "757" so nice and shiny, and so far away from the Pentagon? If one piece flew that far, where are the others?


You seem to think everything would fall in a nice neat pattern for your convenience? Nope. That is not the way things work.



"Catherder" claims something else entirely is the "757". He and Obviousman need to get their stories straight. Which one are you prepared to say is wrong?


Are you referring to the security photo.



Why does the "757" seem to hit the Pentagon straight on, when it is claimed that it came in at nearly a 45 degree angle?


Source for this 45 angle claim?



He claims there are visible 757 seats. Where are they?


In the picture with the crew carrying the ladder, like he said. Its damaged, and not pretty, but it is there.



No bodies? No luggage?


You want photos of body parts? Sorry, but you'll have to live with the Coroners' report.



For starters, anyway.


Not a good start.



Britain's ITN continued: "The Global Hawk, a jet-powered aircraft with a wingspan equivalent to a Boeing 737, flew from Edwards Air Force Base in California and landed late on Monday at the Royal Australian Air Force base at Edinburgh, in South Australia state…. It flies along a pre-programmed flight path, but a pilot monitors the aircraft during its flight via a sensor suite which provides infra-red and visual images."

According to the Australian Global Hawk manager Rod Smith: '"The aircraft essentially flies itself, right from takeoff, right through to landing, and even taxiing off the runway."'


That's nice. The pilots on USENET laughed and laughed at you when you tried to claim this was proof of anything.



Of course, you're still assuming a 757 hit the Pentagon. I don't feel there is evidence supporting that conclusion. I'd love to be wrong about it.


No you would not. You have made a life of trolling this stuff on message boards.



The FBI says they have 84 different video tapes, I believe, and none of them show a 757?

Source?

G O R T
2005-Nov-26, 02:32 PM
What happened to the plane? What happened to the passengers?

What do you not understand?

A 757 hits the building at high spped. The high inertia fuselage and engines penetrate the buildings walls while the lower inertia outer wings and tail get ripped to shreds that bounce off the building. The fuselage would be peeling away at the front as impacts reduced its semi-rigid original form into a more fluid collection of the fuselage structure and the mass of it's contents. Some of the buildings contents would accumulate at the front of the moving mass as some of the original mass is lost within the building. The contents of the plane experienced impact acceleration of 20 to 40 gees, fluid rendering of contents, and of course extensive fire damage. I cringe to think of what happened to the passengers.

Much ado has been made of photos of the wrong part of the Pentagon lawn. The plane hit at an angle and so obviously the debris bounced at an angle. Photos of the area left of the helipad show the lawn there was littered with copious amounts of the shredded aluminum skin of the plane.

Disagreement over one bad image cannot supplant the testimony of hundreds of people. I for one watched the news that day. To think that someone "got to" all of the people on the freeway before they made statements is more than ludacris.

I remember seeing this (http://www.cnn.com/2001/CAREER/trends/09/11/witnesses/usatoday.wav)particular guy make this statement.

Graham2001
2005-Nov-26, 03:57 PM
So, what happened to the 757 and all the passengers? Disappear into the Bermuda Triangle?


What happened to the plane? What happened to the passengers?

And why don't we all insist this question gets answered before we ask any more questions?

These two questions can be asked time and time again, but neither Jason Gortician, nor to my knowledge can any 911 CT believer or promoter is willing to attempt to answer them.

In any case this and any other post that tries to suggest alternatives to the beliefs of the CT believers will simply be ignored or belittled. (See also post 174 in this thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=34746&page=6))

Fraser
2005-Nov-26, 04:48 PM
This thread went off the rails in so many ways. I'm shutting it down.