Clear evidence that 9/11 was an inside job

[Craig4]

You seem to be trying to obfuscate the issue.

Look at the second picture in this post.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...ssage-non-9-11-truthers-3.html#post1059427768

If you draw a line from the point where the yellow line touches the red line to the Pentagon wall so that it makes a 90 degree angle with the wall, that's one of the sides I'm referring to. The other side I'm referring to is the red line from the point where it touches the yellow line to the wall. If you simply measure both of those lines, you'll see that the difference is about twenty seven percent. That can be figured out with trigonometry too but the result will be the same. That's the point I'm making; I'm not trying to figure out the length of the third side of the triangle.

Watch the movie I suggested to you. Afterwards answer honestly if you are applying the same amount of rigor and effort that Woodward and Bernstein did.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Hey, FatFreddy88 - when are you going to report your failure back to Insanity HQ?

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/4278775/1/

It has been 10 days since you posted notice of your brave incursion into enemy territory and you STILL haven't been handed the ban you thought you were going to get. Or when you said this:

Let's see how long I last there.

did you actually mean:

Let's see how long before my arguments are torn to pieces and I look really foolish.

If that's the case, then that actually happened the moment you hit 'POST'.

 

[NutCracker]

Hey, FatFreddy88 - when are you going to report your failure back to Insanity HQ?

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/4278775/1/

"... only discussing the evidence..." he said. ".. the evidence .."

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Beautiful, isn't it?!

 

[Dave Rogers]

I don't think we should be too hard on FatFreddy88, if this is him. He's proposed a theory - that truthers who politely discuss the evidence on JREF still get banned - and he's tested that theory by experiment, by politely discussing what he believes to be the evidence. I'm sure that, at some point, he's going to conclude that he wasn't banned for doing it. After all, he's committed to exposing the truth, so I can't imagine why he wouldn't want to expose this one.

Dave

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Dave; did you type that with a straight face? Any of it?

 

[Dave Rogers]

In an ideal world, I should have been able to.

Dave

 

[FatFreddy88]

First of all, it turns out that point C on the wall is the point that's as far from the camera as the plane was when this picture was taken.
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm

On my screen, D-C is 47mm, and D-B is 62mm. Depending on which of the two is 100%, the difference is either 32% or 24%

Maybe I'm missing something here. How can it be one or the other? The way I figure it, it can only be 24%.

47 times 100 divided by 62 equals 75.8 which means the difference is roughly 24%.

You measured 14-15mm for the corner where the protruding wall ends but point C is further down. That's the point we have to measure. I can't measure the screen, but I'll say 13mm. With the 13mm figure a 757 would be 26mm long.

Your pink line is 18mm. 18 increased by 24% is 22.32. That's too short to be a 757.

I can't see how it's more complicated than this.

Here are my measurements again.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7183548&postcount=145

Using your measurements the maximum length of the craft is 85.8% the length of a 757.

Using my measurements the maximum length of the craft is 78.1 percent the length of a 757.

 

[NutCracker]

...

Congratulations! You cracked the case wide open!

You won the $50.000.000 reward for Truth Finding I invented just 1 minute ago. Congrats!

That ain't USD's, though. That's TLD's: Trutherland Dollars.. These are like about everything else in Trutherland, its facts, its evidence, its logic, its science.. its intellectual honesty... well, worthless in the real world. But that's, I'm confident, no reason at all for you not to feel very excited and rich.

Again, congrats!


Sorry folks, TM = entertainment these days.

 

[BCR]

Rational Thought

Maybe I'm missing something here. How can it be one or the other? The way I figure it, it can only be 24%.

47 times 100 divided by 62 equals 75.8 which means the difference is roughly 24%.

You measured 14-15mm for the corner where the protruding wall ends but point C is further down. That's the point we have to measure. I can't measure the screen, but I'll say 13mm. With the 13mm figure a 757 would be 26mm long.

Your pink line is 18mm. 18 increased by 24% is 22.32. That's too short to be a 757.

I can't see how it's more complicated than this.

You are missing a number of things. Study the PBPR. You'll learn that the wall is sectional. You'll learn that the 'hole' for the most part is sectional. What that means is that when the force on a given sectional reached a critical point, it failed. That is why the 'hole' is in rectangular segments rather than the nice 'outline' you see at the WTC.

The wing tips and stablizer are not that massive, hence their 'break-away' was reached long before the impulse reached the critical point required for sectional failure. The wing part closer in (with a big honking engine) delivered a higher impulse and exceeded the critical point. The veritcal stabilizer, same deal.

The resulting debris scattered along a path, equal but opposite to the impact path. In this case, that corresponds to the helipad area exactly where the debris field was found.

So might I suggest a HS physics book? Because an understanding of physics and rational thought is what you are missing.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Maybe I'm missing something here.

No... you?

 

[leftysergeant]

FatFreddy gets blocked from websites quite frequently. He is as obnoxious about the moon hoax videos as about 9/11.

I have long given up trying to re-educate such persons.

 

[Oystein]

First of all, it turns out that point C on the wall is the point that's as far from the camera as the plane was when this picture was taken.
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm

Well, not precisely, but close enough. Why is this helpful? We can't identify that point in the photo.

Maybe I'm missing something here. How can it be one or the other? The way I figure it, it can only be 24%.

47 times 100 divided by 62 equals 75.8 which means the difference is roughly 24%.

Easy. 62 times 100 divided by 47 equals 131.9 which means the difference is roughly 32 percent.
Like I said, depends on whether you set the long or the short line as 100%

You measured 14-15mm for the corner where the protruding wall ends but point C is further down. That's the point we have to measure. I can't measure the screen, but I'll say 13mm. With the 13mm figure a 757 would be 26mm long.

Like I said, that point C is somewhere on the wall where we have no marking. We can't identify it in the photo. Therefore, we can't measure anything in the photo.
Besides, your assertion that A-C = A-D is incorrect, even though the difference is small enough to be insignificant. Just pointing out that your trig is faulty.

Your pink line is 18mm. 18 increased by 24% is 22.32. That's too short to be a 757.

No. I have no idea what you measure where. I wish you could produce your own image with labled lines and points.

I can't see how it's more complicated than this.

Here are my measurements again.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7183548&postcount=145

Using your measurements the maximum length of the craft is 85.8% the length of a 757.

No. I already showed in great detail why. You did not point out an error in my presentation, and failed to explain how you come up with that 85.8%.

Using my measurements the maximum length of the craft is 78.1 percent the length of a 757.

Yes. I already showed how your measurements and math were wrong.


You add nothing useful to the debate.
Please try to be clearer.
I suggest you draw a complete image, so we know what you are measuring.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

FatFreddy gets blocked from websites quite frequently. He is as obnoxious about the moon hoax videos as about 9/11.

I have long given up trying to re-educate such persons.

Amazingly, he's not alone. Utilikilt1 has racked up about as many "Order of the Boot" awards ....

... and yet both remain unbanned at DIF. But they don't get much response there either.

 

[Oz1976]

There are plausible explanations for what happened to the passengers. Our not knowing which one is the correct one doesn't make the clear evidence of an inside job go away.
http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/182662-video-message-non-truthers.html#post3774590

This is about the third time I've said this.

In this link there's a video called "Painful Deceptions".
http://www.question911.com/linksall.htm

It can also be found on YouTube. In the last five minutes of part one an explanation for what happened to the passengers is put forth. I think it's probably the correct one.

It says flight 77 probably landed at a military base and the passengers were killed there. There are more details. Why don't you just watch the video?

Here's part one. Watch the last five minutes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_q6j6BZkHQ


Lots of people had colleagues die on 9/11. Where and how they died is the part that we don't know. We just know that they didn't die on the planes that crashed.

Your "plausible explanations" of what happened are not as plausible as the fact that 19 hijackers under the direction of Osama Bin Laden and Al'qaeda commandeered 4 aircraft on 9/11 and smashed 2 of them into the WTC towers, 1 into the Pentagon and a 4th in Shanksville. That is FAR MORE plausible than the idiocy you present.

 

[leftysergeant]

In this image:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/368864dd294f4f2766.jpg[/qimg]
I drew a white line where I guess the base of the Pentagon is, and a vertical line to highlight the height of the protruding corner. It is 14-15mm on my screen.
I drew a pink line on the yellow box to indicate how much plane it could obscure. The pink line is 18mm, or about 1.25 times the apparent height of the Pentagon corner.
I found earlier that at the distance and angle that AA77 flew, it would appear only 1.05 times longer than that Pentagon corner.


Conclusion:
The yellow box is wide enough to obscure a 757 entirely

Excuse me, but where is the fire station in relation to that white box that you have drawn on the facade? The plane struck on the opposite side of the fire station from the camera.

 

[Oystein]

Excuse me, but where is the fire station in relation to that white box that you have drawn on the facade? The plane struck on the opposite side of the fire station from the camera.

You mean that square that's drawn with a dotted line? I didn't draw that. I took the photo from a forum that FatFreddy linked to. The dotted square was already in there. I drew the two solid white lines.
I have no idea where that fire station is, and I am not interested in this context where the plane struck.

 

[leftysergeant]

I have no idea where that fire station is, and I am not interested in this context where the plane struck.

It has occurred to me that the square may actually enclose the fire station, which would mean that the aircraft struck much further down the facade from that point, thus would have to be much farther from the camera than that point.

The fire station may actually be the "protruding wall" to which he refers. You can see the fire station outlined against the fireball at the time of impact.

Does this help any in establishing the scale?

 

[Oystein]

It has occurred to me that the square may actually enclose the fire station, which would mean that the aircraft struck much further down the facade from that point, thus would have to be much farther from the camera than that point.

No. Whoever drew that square in the forum that FatFreddy linked to, had something else in mind. IIRC, only the right edge is of interest for that person, but I forget of which.

The fire station may actually be the "protruding wall" to which he refers. You can see the fire station outlined against the fireball at the time of impact.

No. If you look at the aerial view in my post 214, you will see that the face of the Pentagon is not on a straight line, but the center part is protruding a bit from the flanks.

Does this help any in establishing the scale?

No, but thanks for trying.

 

[Drs_Res]

If everything is right (scale wise) in the Integrated Consultants, Inc. video (I am sure that most of us have seen it before) then all of this measuring of lines on pictures is is not really needed. I do find it interesting none the less.

Video below. Go to 1:45 in.