BBC 10 years of 9/11 conspiracy theories

[JazzRoc]

(09-10-2011 02:31 AM)p4r4 Wrote:  That depends on the explosive payload amount.

Compare deflagration and detonation HERE.
And you'll see what I'm talking about.
Kerosine and TNT have the same energy weight-for-weight, but the TNT carries its own oxidant. The kerosine has to mix with air, and a flame front has to pass through the mixture. It is tens, hundreds of times slower than a brisant detonating solid.
There is MUCH evidence against explosives.
The debris field, directionality of damage, the locations of human bodies and remains, the fascia itself, the impacted columns, and, of course, the LARGE RECTANGULAR AREA OF MISSING PENTAGON NINETY-ONE FEET ACROSS could NOT have been caused, either by the ENTRY of a small missile, or indeed, by the explosion it made. Ludicrous...

Quote:Several witnesses described seeing a bright or silvery flash. This is also inconsistent with jet fuel combustion, which produces a fireball whose color is at brightest yellow, not white or silver.

That would be vaporizing aluminum (of the nose and leading edges of a Boeing 757) burning in air. Old-fashioned photographic flashguns worked the same way, except they used magnesium.

Quote:Now compare to a real airplane crash

What, that piddly little thing?
How about this, with NINE times the kinetic energy per unit mass:



That's closer to the speed of the Pentagon plane.
This F4 Phantom was made primarily of a tougher material, titanium and carrying no fuel. Even the high-temperature steel alloy engine shafts "vanished".
Aluminum would make more of a flash.



THIS is interesting and similar. BRISANCE is spectacularly more powerful. I think the site's explanation isn't correct. What you see is the aftermath of supersonic shrapnel strikes.

Light would have done it had the explosion been nuclear.

[sekular]

---

[p4r4]

Quote:Kerosine and TNT have the same energy weight-for-weight, but the TNT carries its own oxidant. The kerosine has to mix with air, and a flame front has to pass through the mixture. It is tens, hundreds of times slower than a brisant detonating solid.

Cruise missiles don't use regular TNT. The pentagon explosion looks exactly like a HE explosion, a better real time camera would prove that. That's why there is just a crappy slide show of a few frames ...

Your f4 phantom video does not show it "exploding" on contact. and the phantom is made out of aluminum mostly, about 8% titanium:


http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/mili...tanium.htm

Same goes for the airplanes that allegedly hit the twin towers, they did not produce anything similar on impact to the pentagon explosion.

[sekular]

The wtc 1 and 2 impacts are consistent with a tomahawk going faster than the speed of sound. I am guessing as i am not a missile expert at all. But the wtc 1 and 2 damage is consistent with a large missile, most likely not from an aircraft. Either from a ship or from a land device. The pentagon however is more consistent with a missile from an aircraft, most likely a helicopter or a b52.

But of course both sites (wtc and pentagon) had additional explosions. Both places has eye witness testimony of explosions and the secondary damage to the pentagon points towards explosives.













Warning .gov site
http://www.defense.gov/dodcmsshare/newsp...0N-001.jpg





Look how cleanly the building was damaged. the entire area collapsed as if it had been destroyed deliberating moments after the impact of the missile. There was also the holes in the three rings that are not consistent with a missile or a plane which indicates that there was additional explosives or a missile from inside the court yard as well.

I find it unlikely that a missile could travel through three of the rings and punch out on the other side, but I guess it could be possible. If that did occur then I doubt that it was meant to happen, that is why they had to destroy the outer ring with cutter charges after the impact.

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4Iup3z_gTw&#t=372s

If you watch the above youtube video which i can not embed because of the timecode. The sound is very similar to this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzvFZnew41U&#t=20s

[JazzRoc]

(09-10-2011 01:29 PM)sekular Wrote:  Thermate & opinion.

Thermate
Thermate isn't required to explain the heat in the basement or the metal pouring from exactly where the wreckage of the aircraft lay in a roomful of fire.
Exotic (& successful) ways of packing thermate into column holes NEVER included the required insulation to prevent the FIRE from STARTING the thermate.
Indeed, the very argument that the steel is heat-conductive, is the argument PROVING that thermate couldn't have been laid.
Thermate or thermite, there's NO difference. Neither could have been used.

Opinion
Opinion is all there is here.
The NIST Report isn't discussed.
That's the one about initial damage, initial loads and loads after impact damage, tower sag/slump, the detail of a progressing fire, thermal creep stress, load transfer via the top hat truss, expansion effects, flooring sag/slump, detaching floors, destabilized and buckling columns.
That's ENGINEERING conversation. Something which I and other engineers use on a daily basis.
Instead we are led to the "poised to collapse" point without mentioning ANY of the above points, where the two protagonists SNEER at NIST's refusal to go beyond the initial column failure, and into the world of the UNPREDICTABLE.

YOU aren't.

---

(09-10-2011 01:34 PM)p4r4 Wrote:  Cruise missiles don't use regular TNT.

So what.

Quote:The pentagon explosion looks exactly like a HE explosion

Except a hundred times slower.

Quote:a better real time camera would prove that. That's why there is just a crappy slide show of a few frames ...

No it wouldn't at all.
Did the Pentagon conspire to put a low-resolution one frame/sec security camera in a security camera position, do you think?

Quote:Your f4 phantom video does not show it "exploding" on contact.

No, of course not.
It quietly moves radially away from the point of impact without the slightest sound.
Of course none of that would have been seen had it been carrying 24,000 pounds of kerosine as well.

Quote:the phantom is made out of aluminum mostly

Thanks for the info.
However there are several flashes to be seen on the sunny day of this impact.

Quote:Same goes for the airplanes that allegedly hit the twin towers, they did not produce anything similar on impact to the pentagon explosion.

Oh, yes they did. In fact flashes are visible in EVERY video that was taken that showed the impact face.

You could, of course, be wondering why a 450 mph 70-ton passenger plane didn't so easily penetrate a reinforced concrete wall backed up by reinforced concrete pillars and floors, than a 560 mph 80-ton passenger plane confronted by hollow steel box beams 5/16" thick and fourteen inches square and lightweight foam concrete floors 4" thick?

---

(09-10-2011 02:45 PM)sekular Wrote:  The wtc 1 and 2 impacts are consistent with a tomahawk going faster than the speed of sound. I am guessing as i am not a missile expert at all. But the wtc 1 and 2 damage is consistent with a large missile, most likely not from an aircraft. Either from a ship or from a land device. The pentagon however is more consistent with a missile from an aircraft, most likely a helicopter or a b52.

You are guessing as you are not a missile expert at all. Thanks. Next.

Quote:But of course both sites (wtc and pentagon) had additional explosions. Both places has eye witness testimony of explosions

Fires often lead to explosions.

Quote:and the secondary damage to the pentagon points towards explosives.

What secondary damage?

Quote:Look how cleanly the building was damaged.

That's a feature of the way the structure was made.

Quote:There was also the holes in the three rings that are not consistent with a missile or a plane which indicates that there was additional explosives or a missile from inside the court yard as well.

Is that more opinion? Thanks.

Quote:I find it unlikely that a missile could travel through three of the rings and punch out on the other side, but I guess it could be possible.

More possible than taking out the FIVE lamp posts before it got there, in a glorious zig-zag. Before it went on to etc.
That's not just brilliant programming, but a tough plane, er, missile, as well.

I've got a RANT for you:

[p4r4]

Quote:No it wouldn't at all.
Did the Pentagon conspire to put a low-resolution one frame/sec security camera in a security camera position, do you think?

No, they would never do that!

Quote:So what.

It's you who was comparing kerosine with TNT, that's what.
Various explosive explode differently some are faster than others, it' all depends on the exact explosive mix used. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/s...osives.htm
And assuming such a conspiracy, the pentagon could have already been rigged with explosives ...

Quote: Your f4 phantom video does not show it "exploding" on contact.
-----
No, of course not.
It quietly moves radially away from the point of impact without the slightest sound.
Of course none of that would have been seen had it been carrying 24,000 pounds of kerosine as well.

It's you who claimed that the vaporizing aluminum would create a silvery flash, than claimed that the phantom is made of some "special" metals and that's why it did not make a flash. When in fact the F4 phantom is made out of aluminum and has only 8% titanium. kerosine does not make a flash, at it's brightest burn it's yellow.

Quote:Oh, yes they did. In fact flashes are visible in EVERY video that was taken that showed the impact face.

You could, of course, be wondering why a 450 mph 70-ton passenger plane didn't so easily penetrate a reinforced concrete wall backed up by reinforced concrete pillars and floors, than a 560 mph 80-ton passenger plane confronted by hollow steel box beams 5/16" thick and fourteen inches square and lightweight foam concrete floors 4" thick?

The flash on twin towers is not from impact as the shadows proves it.

Quote: The pentagon explosion looks exactly like a HE explosion
-----
Except a hundred times slower.

Where did you pull that number from? Make it 1000 for more dramatic flare.


They been so sloppy that even the only footage released is incriminating:

[JazzRoc]

(09-12-2011 01:34 AM)p4r4 Wrote:  No, they would never do that!

Why not? It was a normal security camera duty which it had to fulfil.

Quote:It's you who was comparing kerosine with TNT, that's what.

And what I said was true. There is slightly more energy available to kerosine than there is to TNT (or any other detonating explosive, because TNT and all the other explosives contain their own oxidant.

Quote:Various explosives explode differently, some are faster than others, it all depends on the exact explosive mix used. And assuming such a conspiracy, the pentagon could have already been rigged with explosives...

You aren't honest enough to recognize the distinction between kerosine/air and brisant explosives, apparently. Sharpen up.

Quote:It's you who claimed that the vaporizing aluminum would create a silvery flash

Yes.

Quote:then claimed that the phantom is made of some "special" metals and that's why it did not make a flash.

I did no such thing.

Quote:When in fact the F4 phantom is made out of aluminum and has only 8% titanium. kerosine does not make a flash, at its brightest burn it's yellow.

Flashing still takes place. In the case of the Pentagon wall the aftermath, white aluminum oxide powder, is plainly visible blown into the corners of the undamaged windows.

Quote:The flash on twin towers is not from impact as the shadows proves it.

Shadows cannot "disprove" a flash. The flashes are plainly visible to any innocent onlooker. They are THERE.
Even this long-distance vid shows it.

Quote:Where did you pull that number from? Make it 1000 for more dramatic flare.

It isn't a number that has been determined by research. Or if it has, it has been classified. But it's in the range of 2 to 3 orders.
A brisant explosive is one that attains its maximum pressure so rapidly that a shock wave is formed. The net effect is to shatter (by shock resonance) the material surrounding or in contact with the supersonic detonation wave created by the explosion. Thus, brisance is a measure of the shattering ability of an explosive and is not necessarily correlated with the explosive's total work capacity. - WIKI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_ex...velocities
Kerosine/air doesn't even compare as a high explosive even though it can do this.

Quote:They been so sloppy that even the only footage released is incriminating

In that it incriminates YOU as a fool, true.




"All of these 9/11 conspiracy sites on the internet have museum-grade idiots stating what 'obviously' happens at velocities and temperatures that they are flat-out incapable of understanding. Not only are these people too stupid to understand the physics involved with what they are bloviating about -- they are too stupid to realize how stupid they really are.
Debunking stupid people is fun, its like watching and interacting with a Three Stooges movie or an old Jerry Lewis movie. The way you twoofers ignore facts and believe shit made up by sly conmen is sad but funny.
Look at Richard Gage he travels the world spreading twoof, collecting money for 3 yrs, nothing else, no paper, no theory how the cd was done, no legal proceedings, he just wants RECURRING DONATIONS: you too can be an official 911AETRUTH HERO for the low payments of $1000 per month! Suckers!!" - Truthinator
I so agree...

[p4r4]

Quote: Various explosives explode differently, some are faster than others, it all depends on the exact explosive mix used. And assuming such a conspiracy, the pentagon could have already been rigged with explosives...
-----
You aren't honest enough to recognize the distinction between kerosine/air and brisant explosives, apparently. Sharpen up.

Sure are not the same. The pentagon explosion shows that clearly, white flash and shock wave felt by the witnesses. A slow exploding/burning kerosine would not do that.

Quote: The flash on twin towers is not from impact as the shadows proves it.
-----
Shadows cannot "disprove" a flash. The flashes are plainly visible to any innocent onlooker. They are THERE. Huh
Even this long-distance vid shows it.

shadows don't disprove the flash, just the origin of the flash. check the video again...

Quote:Flashing still takes place. In the case of the Pentagon wall the aftermath, white aluminum oxide powder, is plainly visible blown into the corners of the undamaged windows.

Do you have a sample to "plainly" prove it's aluminum oxide ?

[JazzRoc]

(09-13-2011 02:52 AM)p4r4 Wrote:  Sure are not the same. The pentagon explosion shows that clearly, white flash and shock wave felt by the witnesses. A slow exploding/burning kerosine would not do that.

But the plane impacting the Pentagon would. The kerosine in the plane needed a short time to disperse and mix, so there would definitely be TWO flashes, the one bright white and brief, preceding the other, whitish yellow turning to orange and black over several seconds.

Quote:check the video again

This FIVE year old vid is missing information just as much as the first time I saw it.
The flash is centered on the exact point that the plane contacted the tower. Just as you cannot see the windows of the tower, you cannot see that point in the degraded images of this video.

Quote:white aluminum oxide powder, is plainly visible blown into the corners of the undamaged windows - Do you have a sample to "plainly" prove it's aluminum oxide ?

No.
But there's little else it can be. Do you suppose that the windows started off clean that morning, it being the Pentagon, an' all?
From the position and location of the "dust" on the windows there was quite obviously an external blast event with a radial component emanating from the main fuselage and wing root impact area.
Seeing as aluminum was the FIRST material of the plane to present itself to the wall, and oxidized aluminum is WHITE - it seemed logical to me to suggest the material IS aluminum oxide.
If you have studied the F4 Phantom striking the r/c concrete block, then that's what happened to the 757 at the Pentagon, the differences being at a slightly lower speed, four times the material, the 70 degree strike angle and the presence of windows and walls as weak spots, and with floor/wall junctions as strong places. And all that fuel...
But the kinetics would work in a very similar way for each. The parts of the aircraft matching the window spaces would continue relatively unobstructed, whilst the delayed parts of its structure would either smack down their obstructions or perform exacly as the F4 did.

And if you look REAL closely at the photo showing the aluminum oxide dust on the windows, you'll see that this part of the Pentagon has been SMACKED INWARD.

That's pretty nifty for a missile. Did it suddenly GROW MASS?

[p4r4]

Quote:But the plane impacting the Pentagon would. The kerosine in the plane needed a short time to disperse and mix, so there would definitely be TWO flashes, the one bright white and brief, preceding the other, whitish yellow turning to orange and black over several seconds.

No it would not, the flash in the official slide show is not from the plane impact as the plane is nowhere to be seen, and kerosine does not "flash" or create a shock wave sending a bystander flying 100 feet and sustaining heavy internal injuries.

Quote:But there's little else it can be. Do you suppose that the windows started off clean that morning, it being the Pentagon, an' all?

All you do is speculate. The aluminum oxide on the window would have to deposit as a first layer, after which it would stain from the black smoke.

Quote:That's pretty nifty for a missile. Did it suddenly GROW MASS?

you mean this small missile is not enough ?

Quote:And if you look REAL closely at the photo showing the aluminum oxide dust on the windows, you'll see that this part of the Pentagon has been SMACKED INWARD.

Not inwards, upwards by the blast and that section is collapsing...

[JazzRoc]

(09-13-2011 05:49 PM)p4r4 Wrote:  No it would not, the flash in the official slide show is not from the plane impact as the plane is nowhere to be seen, and kerosine does not "flash" or create a shock wave sending a bystander flying 100 feet and sustaining heavy internal injuries.

You appear to be quaintly innocent of how tenuous a coincidence it would be for an automatic camera triggered at one frame each second to CATCH the appearance and/or disappearance of a 180 foot long airplane doing 657 feet each second. Just over a quarter of a second...

Quote:The aluminum oxide on the window would have to deposit as a first layer, after which it would stain from the black smoke.

It's been blown UPWARDS, and its WHITE.

Quote:Not inwards, upwards by the blast and that section is collapsing...

"Now, people have tried to get me to describe what it was like while the collapse was happening. It was a montage of different sounds and experiences. The sounds were a combination of sounds. This building collapsed in what’s called a pancake fashion. In other words, one floor would hit another floor and would collapse that floor and then collapse the next floor. And every time a floor would hit another floor, it created a loud boom and tremendous vibration.
The entire collapse of this 110-story building took 13 seconds. So it sounded like boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, you know, like that. And every time that happened, it shook the entire building. It shook the whole floor. So every time a floor would hit another floor, we’d be literally bouncing off the floor. We were being thrown around the stairway.
There was also this very loud sound of twisting steel all around our heads. These massive steel beams and girders were just being twisted around our heads just like they were twist ties on a loaf of bread. And a very loud, like a steel screeching sound, almost like a lot of trains coming into a subway station at the same time and all of them hitting their brakes at the same time.
There was tremendous air movement with the building coming down. The air movement was so strong that one of my fireman was standing on the fourth floor. You’ve got to figure with his gear and everything on, he’s well over 200 pounds. He’s about 180 pounds and with his gear, you gotta figure he’s about 250 pounds. This wind kind of picked him up and threw him down two flights of stairs.
We were getting hit with all kinds of debris. Thank God it was nothing that was going to really hurt us, but after it was all over, it was almost like we kind of got mugged. We were all bruised up and small cuts and things like that.
And then the collapse stopped.
In a day of first experiences for everybody, well here’s another one. I can’t believe we just survived that. It was very quick and during the collapse you couldn’t help but think that this is it. It’s over. This is how it ends. I kept waiting for that big beam to hit or that big piece of concrete to come down and crush us.
It never came." - FDNY Captain Jay Jonas, survivor of the North Tower collapse.

[p4r4]

Quote:What's with all the white? Have the firemen sprayed the Pentagon with foam? Nope. They're just getting out their hoses...

Than what is it, if it's not foam?

Quote:You appear to be quaintly innocent of how tenuous a coincidence it would be for an automatic camera triggered at one frame each second to CATCH the appearance and/or disappearance of a 180 foot long airplane doing 657 feet each second. Just over a quarter of a second...

Sure, it can't catch a plane but it did caught something, a bird or maybe Ironman.

Quote:Why are the bases of these columns dragged inward and leftward?

They look blown outwards.



German Officials Claim:
The FBI told them a Missile hit the Pentagon.

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

After reading an article from Stefan Grossmann, I had noticed a claim that the FBI told German officials that the Pentagon was hit by a missile. I wanted confirmation fo this so I wrote Mr. Grossmann and his reply is below.
I commend his efforts, and ask that anyone wanting to repost this, follow his request to include his name and webiste.
http://www.gallerize.com

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


Hi Brad:

I was investing with a client in Kentucky in the internet project Gallerize.com since 1999 (with earlier preparations). The client was Spiro Armenis (client 1990-2002). I have the Armenis Papers on my web site, http://www.gallerize.com. They describe about four or five strands of epic story since 1988 (summaries of current historical events are always risky), about this:
- manipulating (we assume) the 670 mill $$ case Cramer v. Armenis in Florida since 1988
- Armenis, a DNC campaign financier (through Costas Gratsos/Onassis chief exec and Michael Dukakis - apparently in good faith, then later??) travelled to Libya, met Qaddhafi, and Iraq, met trade minister, to make deals for billions of $$ to flow to Clinton/Gore - here: many travel papers since 1992 (many Clinton team names involved, a huge scandal including extortion bribery using the PanAm103/Lockerbie situation as a pretext)
- AIPC/MSUP 19.200 square kilomoeters Kazakstan oil and gas exploration licence project
- founding of http://www.gallerize.com as an art poster + news site
- the shutting down of gallerize.com through a corrupt judge in a different Armenis litigation that did not involve the Gallerize ownership (me)(Jennifer B. Coffman of Charles Hayes and alleged Clinton sex fame)in March - May 2001 just in time before 9-11-1 flew in the door.

I lost a lot of money in this. Further, 11 (today's number I believe: 16) German citizens were murdered by the U.S. shadow government on 9 11 01 in the twin towers. After collecting facts and overcoming my natural scepticism of my explanation (which I believe I have further confirmed by my research, not least the valuable Armenis Papers), I started discussions with the German police - Polizeidirektion Frankfurt am Main, Abteilung Staatsschutz (Police Presidium Frankfurt am Main, department National Security Police).

I met with them on a day in January 2003 (I had falsely remembered in late 2002, but I have documentation in my files, including two of their business cards, a receipt for the Armenis Papers mentioning the exact date in January '03) to discuss the Armenis Papers and my financial losses in Gallerize.com. We discussed the papers, and they were duly impressed.

They kept the original papers in a police safe, where they still are today. I have color scans and photocopies.

They kept trying to urge me to make the cross-connection to 9/11 01. This is an effort that has strongly motivated me ever since 9/11 01 In brief, there are direct and highly specific (Greenwich/Stamford CT US terror cell involving the Silverstein family, AIG and others) leads in this effort of cross-connecting the Armenis Papers with 9-11. You see a lot of this in my e-book "T MINUS 9-11" the prt that is free on the plaguepuppy 9-11 video archive (10 MB of the total 38 MB), see at
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/
(top item, free download of part of my book that is here relevant).

During these discussions in a conference room in the huge new police presidium (where the PX complex used to be before the US troops left Frankfurt in 93 or 94), they fed me the information that you reference. They told me they had personal contacts in the FBI. They said they "shuddered" at the methods that the US police uses. They had just concluded a meeting with their FBI contacts. The FBI contacts - as I was told - informed the German National Security Police officers that the flying object that hit the Pentagon in the morning of 9-11-1 was a U.S. cruise missile, not an airliner.

I was stunned. I asked them several times, exlaiming things like "What??" etc. They confirmed and repeated the same information several times. They were totally sober, not jokers. Thy are a middle thing between police officers and intelligence officers. They can be called as witnesses to testify providing that the German state government gives them a permit to testify. Without such an - unlikely - permit, this information of these German government officials remains blocked, which does not hinder inofficial disclosure. I believe my publication efforts, and my knowledge and personal involvement through Gallerize and the Armenis situation were helpful in having them open up and make these statements during our meeting. I have been in touch with one of them since, several times, with tidbits about 9-11.

I had prepared our meeting by thick briefs etc. All that is in my files.

I hope this helps to clarify your query. You may publish this information if you mention my name (Dr. Stefan Grossmann, Frankfurt) and my web site (http://www.gallerize.com). If you need more information, please get back to me for further discussions. If the whole story is put together in a nutshell and disseminated I think the entire US inside terror connection will come unravelled. I have quite a bit, including organization articles etc. by now. Please study the very convoluted section in "T MINUS 9-11" about the "whodidit" question and you will get the flavor.

Thanks for writing!

In the Light,
Stefan Grossmann


"Brad" schrieb:
> Hi Mr. Grossman,
> I am writing in response to the article below...
>
> http://www.themedianews.com/DAGGER/Stefa...0UA175.htm
>
> QUESTION 4: Why did FBI contacts tell their friends in the
> German National Security Police that the object that hit the
> Pentagon on 9-11-1 was no passenger plane but a U.S. military
> cruise missile?
>
> this seems to be a very important point in that it would add to the
> evidence that a 757 did not hit the pentagon as reported. I am copying
> Dick Easman, as he supports a missile theory.
>
> Most important is the evidence to back this up. Do you have an article
> on the net to point to as to where you recieved this information ?
>
> I would like to add i think the page is well done...
>
> respectfully,
> Brad M.



source: http://www.911review.org/brad.com/pentagon_missile.html

[JazzRoc]

(09-14-2011 02:19 PM)p4r4 Wrote:  Then what is it, if it's not foam?

Of course it's foam. I just wanted to give you the opportunity to AVOID answering:

This is the main impact hole. If a brisant explosive charge went off INSIDE the Pentagon, then WHY is there a heap of burning rubble INSIDE, and no burning rubble outside?

This is obviously an external impact. The I-section beam has been buckled downward and inward.

Why is there any damage at all HERE?

Which you took.
I am listing all the questions you have ignored and failed to answer.

Quote:Sure, it can't catch a plane but it did caught something, a bird or maybe Ironman.

For the Elmer Fudds amongst us let's demonstrate this:

THAT is what is seen in the low-res camera.

Quote:Why are the bases of these columns dragged inward and leftward? - They look blown outwards.

Well, not actually, mate.

The whole wall is pushed inward away from you. The cracks running at 45 degrees, along and across the fascia limestone blocks tells you which way the setback runs.
It runs INWARD from the right. The left vertical side of the bright white foamed wall shows exactly where it slopes away from you. There are other places too, where the rectangular limestone blocks act as powerful indicators of surface irregularities.

Quote:German Officials Claim: The FBI told them a Missile hit the Pentagon.

Diversion. What the FBI or CIA tells anyone will rarely be the truth. Just because they do it doesn't mean YOU have to.

You could try acknowledging the points you previously avoided - now.

[p4r4]

Quote:Of course it's foam. I just wanted to give you the opportunity to AVOID answering:

How considerate. I translate that as a "diversion". so it's foam, good to know ... i was thinking it might be some kind of magic powder ...

Quote:This is the main impact hole. If a brisant explosive charge went off INSIDE the Pentagon, then WHY is there a heap of burning rubble INSIDE, and no burning rubble outside?

The main "brisant" explosion happened at the impact not inside. you can setup your missiles to explode as you wish. Then there would be planted internal explosive and burning fuel to be ignited for more realism and damage.

Quote:Why is there any damage at all HERE?

what damage? A broken window and the wall looks blackened by the smoke.

Quote:This is obviously an external impact. The I-section beam has been buckled downward and inward.

As i mentioned in my previous post. it's bent outwards! Most likely from preplanted explosives in the pentagon.

Quote:Diversion. What the FBI or CIA tells anyone will rarely be the truth. Just because they do it doesn't mean YOU have to.

You seem to accept all of the "truth" by FBI, CIA. Who claimed al qaeda did it...

Quote:THAT is what is seen in the low-res camera.

Size of 757-200 relative to post can be estimated using geometry.
The Pentaon's facade is 72 feet high.
A 757-200 is 155 feet long.


The size of the Boeing 757 in this picture was determined directly from that of a similar picture on David Bosankoe's web-site (without verifying its accuracy, as the picture seems to be roughly what one would expect). As David has since recalculated the size of the pictured 757 and released an updated (and significantly different) version of this picture, I decided to check his work by calculating the size of the Boeing 757 using a different approach (an approach already put to use in the above mentioned article). This alternate approach is particularly suited to the task here, as it automatically accounts for the distortion due to the security camera's wide angle lens.



Since the heliport control tower is strangely invisible in the "plane" photo, the lines bounding it had to be superimposed from the "impact 2" photo. These are the 2 lines on the left. The line bounding the planes tail has also been marked. It is the rightmost line. What we need to calculate is the position of the line that bounds the nose of the 757. The angle between the lines bounding the heliport control tower is 6.4 degrees. The other (rightmost) angle is 16.5 degrees.

We now transfer these lines to the overhead photo of the area, presented below.

We mark on the 2 lines bounding the heliport control tower.
We measure the angle between these lines, and find it to be 4.8 degrees.

Since the angles must maintain the same ratio in both pictures (imagine that the lines have been painted on the ground) the 16.5 degree angle in the "plane" photo must correspond to a 12.2 angle in the overhead photo. That is, the 6.4 : 4.8 ratio must be the same as the 16.5 : 12.2 ratio, which is the same as saying that 6.4 / 4.8 = 16.5 / 12.2 (this value is about 1.34).

We measure 12.2 degrees toward the top of the photo and mark the line that bounds the tail of the 757.
We draw in a line, emanating from the point of impact, at an angle of 50 degrees to the Pentagon wall. This is the path of the aircraft.
We measure the length of the side of the Pentagon visible in the photo, and find it to be 622 pixels.

Now each side of the Pentagon is known to be 920 feet long, so each pixel corresponds to 920 / 622 = 1.48 feet. We know that a Boeing 757 is 155 feet long. So in the overhead picture, the Boeing must be 155 / 1.48 = 105 pixels long.

We measure 105 pixels from the point where the line that bounds the tail of the 757 and the line that shows the planes path, intersect.
We scale a picture of a Boeing 757 to 105 pixels and superimpose it on our picture.
We draw a line from the nose of the aircraft to the security camera.
We measure the angle between the middle 2 lines emanating from the security camera booth. It is 1.9 degrees.

At this point we have obtained the following picture.



Now the 1.9 degree angle in the overhead photo corresponds to an angle of 1.9 x 1.34 = 2.6 degrees in the "plane" photo. Making a line 2.6 degrees to the right of the line that bounds the right of the heliport control tower, we obtain the desired line which bounds the nose of the 757. Thus we obtain the following picture that shows roughly what one would expect to see if the security camera had indeed snapped a picture of a Boeing 757 (with its tail in the same position as the purported tail section that we are meant to be able to see above the larger of the two parking control structures).



source: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guar...e/size.htm

Quote:You could try acknowledging the points you previously avoided - now.

happy?

[JazzRoc]

(09-15-2011 12:47 AM)p4r4 Wrote:  i was thinking it might be some kind of magic powder ...

Just aluminum oxide.

Quote:The main "brisant" explosion happened at the impact not inside. you can setup your missiles to explode as you wish. Then there would be planted internal explosive and burning fuel to be ignited for more realism and damage.

And extra bodies. And aircraft parts verified as once belonging to a 757-200.
Moreover, a multitude of damaged r/c columns were impacted by objects traveling in the same direction, and a pile of rubble. Aircraft parts and human remains ended up a hundred yards away poking through a hole in a brick wall. A whole bunch of parts of extra people turned up.

Quote:what damage? A broken window and the wall looks blackened by the smoke.

Something impacted THAT window. From outside.
What broke the window? Two inches thick, and blast-proof.

Quote:As i mentioned in my previous post. it's bent outwards! Most likely from preplanted explosives in the pentagon.

They would blow stuff OUTSIDE. Almost all the rubble is INSIDE. I thought you said the brisant explosives were OUTSIDE.
How come an explosion strong enough to bend the column outwards didn't have the strength to push out any wall rubble?

Quote:You seem to accept all of the "truth" by FBI, CIA. Who claimed al qaeda did it...

Not at all. What I look for is the internal consistency of related facts. Yours aren't consistent with physics, which is a good falsifier.

What sort of explosive charge is it that knocks down or damages a decreasing wedge of columns, and pushes small fragments through brick walls?
Other than sixty tons of disintegrating passenger plane...

Quote:Size of 757-200 relative to post can be estimated using geometry.

But not without employing perspective. Which is what you have done here. NOT employed it.
The approach angle to the camera view is around 50 degrees.
The front-to-rear distance of the aircraft is foreshortened by a factor of 65%.
More to the point, the HEIGHT of the tailfin is REDUCED by perspective, because it is SIXTY YARDS BEHIND the nose of the aircraft.
So your picture draws the 757 colliding almost SQUARE to the building on a course it couldn't have followed if it was to
a) Knock down five lampposts and
b) Knock through the brick wall.
That was as useful as a cock-flavored lollipop.

Quote:happy?

Not at all.
Were you to use a proper 3-D drafting procedure I'd be more interested.
I would do it myself, were there not TWO IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS.
The first is IT'S BEEN DONE ALREADY.
The second is IT'S BEEN DONE ALREADY.
I thought I'd mention it twice. Homilies to "Red Dwarf".