• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Plane crash differences

kc440_ said:
If it's any consolation, I saw Hilary Rodham Clinton on TV last night. Boy did she look awful.
Click to expand...
I'm trying to figure out what this statement is saying. You think we will just naturally agree that anything slamming a Clinton is good? So do you think that we're all NWO-supporting dittoheads who agree with everything the Bush administration says? Am I reading that right?
 
kc440_ said:
I am very impressed by your film. The ground below the plane had to be scorched? The lawn at the Pentagon wasn't. But, if your film was the real thing, I am amazed.
Click to expand...
Scorched?!?

Something to notice about the F-4 video is that there was no fireball upon its collision, just shredded fighter jet being ejected at high speed. The plane had no actual fuel, but its tanks were filled with water to simulate the impact force of a fueled plane.

The only possible way that the ground might have been scorched is if the rockets on its underside scorched the ground as they passed by.

So how can you compare a plane with no fuel, but with thrust rockets, to whatever you would expect from a plane loaded with fuel but with no rockets? I just don't get the thought process.
 
kc440_ said:
You have all thrown so much evidence at me. I feel you could be right. So you accomplished something. But it's like a court case. The defense puts on an expert witness and the prosecuter does the same. Which one is correct?
Click to expand...
We are: the people who deal with reality, not fantasy. You have zero evidence of a missile. We've presented mountains of evidence that the aircraft did the damage. Do you agree? It would be nice if we can move on from this truly insane issue.
 
Bell said:
Excuse me? That is really amazing, I would have thought nothing of the victims of AA11 would have remained :(
I'm guessing they were from bodyparts thrown out of the tower. There were some pictures in the Moussaoui trail, I thought they were from people inside the towers :(
Click to expand...
No, many victims from both planes were identified. The last I checked, a few months ago, it was 33 from flight 11 and 12 from flight 175. That's a good thing! :)
 
kc440_ said:
You have all thrown so much evidence at me. I feel you could be right. So you accomplished something.
Click to expand...
This is a nice step forward, congrats.
But it's like a court case. The defense puts on an expert witness and the prosecuter does the same. Which one is correct?

kc440 :D
Click to expand...

The witness who is actually right, but this is a little different. If you could find a single witness who saw a missile, you could - I suppose - use his testimony in favor of the missile theory in a court. But the problem here is that everyone who saw the projectile that hit the Pentagon identified it as a large airplane, some even correctly identified the airline(AA) and model(757) and one incorrectly identified it as a 737.

When you add the DNA matches to all the passengers, 757 specific parts(like struts, turbine sections, tires and wheels) and a flight 77 that never landed...theres only one logical conclusion - it impacted the Pentagon.
 
Gravy said:
No, many victims from both planes were identified. The last I checked, a few months ago, it was 33 from flight 11 and 12 from flight 175. That's a good thing! :)
Click to expand...

I did not know that! Sure is a good thing. The forensic expert did/are doing a great job on identifying the victims.
 
One thing to consider about the Pentagon photos...

They are taken from considerable distance away on a very long focal length. Different focal lengths affect the "perspective" of a photograph. For 35mm film, a 50mm lens (50mm focal length) produces a photograph that looks "natural" to the human eye.

A lens with a smaller focal length exaggerates the distance between objects on the Z axis. At extremly short focal lengths 12mm, 8mm, etc. it creates a highly distorted image which is often referred to as "Fish eye".

Lenses with a larger focal length compact the Z axis. This makes it very difficult to determine the distance between objects, and their scale. This phenomenon is known as "foreshortening" and is used often in the film industry as a visual effect known as "forced perspective". This is the method by which cinematographers can make one person appear much larger than the other (on a long focal length lens, at the right angles, it can be impossible to determine that one person is actually significantly further from the camera than the other).

The Pentagon photos suffer from foreshortening. This is further exacerbated (sp?) because the building itself is deceptively large.

Make comparisons of foreground people to the building in the background. It will become apparant that the narrow strip of grass in front of the building is actually quite a considerable distance. As such what looks like pristine unscorched grass directly at the base of the building is actually as much as 200 meters away. Indeed, photos taken at closer distance reveal the ground at the base of The Pentagon was indeed burned, as was the entire facade of the building for a considerable distance.

-Gumboot
 
Bush and this Forum

CurtC said:
I'm trying to figure out what this statement is saying. You think we will just naturally agree that anything slamming a Clinton is good? So do you think that we're all NWO-supporting dittoheads who agree with everything the Bush administration says? Am I reading that right?
Click to expand...

Yes, I think most of you are supporting Bush because you believe in right-wing causes. I don't think you realize that Bush is taking you for a ride.

Second to that, I think W. Bush is the most stupid president we ever had. And when I think of him in comparison to President John F. Kennedy, I'm ill.

kc440
 
kc440_ said:
Yes, I think most of you are supporting Bush because you believe in right-wing causes. I don't think you realize that Bush is taking you for a ride.
Click to expand...
This is laughable.

kc440_ said:
Second to that, I think W. Bush is the most stupid president we ever had. And when I think of him in comparison to President John F. Kennedy, I'm ill.

kc440
Click to expand...
This may be the the most accurate statement I've seen you make.
 
kc440_ said:
Yes, I think most of you are supporting Bush because you believe in right-wing causes. I don't think you realize that Bush is taking you for a ride.
Click to expand...
Unsubstantiated sweeping generalization for use as a strawman argument.

Second to that, I think W. Bush is the most stupid president we ever had. And when I think of him in comparison to President John F. Kennedy, I'm ill.

kc440
Click to expand...
Irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
 
apathoid said:
This is a nice step forward, congrats.


The witness who is actually right, but this is a little different. If you could find a single witness who saw a missile, you could - I suppose - use his testimony in favor of the missile theory in a court. But the problem here is that everyone who saw the projectile that hit the Pentagon identified it as a large airplane, some even correctly identified the airline(AA) and model(757) and one incorrectly identified it as a 737.

When you add the DNA matches to all the passengers, 757 specific parts(like struts, turbine sections, tires and wheels) and a flight 77 that never landed...theres only one logical conclusion - it impacted the Pentagon.
Click to expand...

Rumsfeld himself said a missile impacted "this building," meaning the Pentagon, when he summed up all the damage that occurred on 9/11.

I didn't know there were DNA matches to all the passengers from the Pentagon mystery plane. I don't recall hearing or reading this. Wasn't there a discrepancy about where the DNA was taken -- 2 different labs?

kc440
 
kc440_ said:
Rumsfeld himself said a missile impacted "this building," meaning the Pentagon, when he summed up all the damage that occurred on 9/11.
kc440
Click to expand...
Do you have a link for this? I've never heard this claim before.
 
Rumsfeld

bob_kark said:
Do you have a link for this? I've never heard this claim before.
Click to expand...

I saw footage of this the other night. I believe it was the Loose Change film. I will try to find an equivalent on the Internet.

kc440 :p
 
lets see, 19 hijacker used civilian planes like missles and Rumsfeld refered to the planes as missles so therefore the US military fired missles?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom