The new Pentagon video

[[email protected]]

The surveillance camera pix were released by the Pentagon today were on
the conspiracy theory sites since they started, and won't do anything
to bed the theorists' apprehensions (not that I believe them).

Did anyone here see anything in those pix that was conclusively one way
or the other? I couldn't.

Ramapriya

[Tom Conner]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> The surveillance camera pix were released by the Pentagon
> today were on the conspiracy theory sites since they started,
> and won't do anything to bed the theorists' apprehensions
> (not that I believe them).
>
> Did anyone here see anything in those pix that was conclusively
> one way or the other? I couldn't.
>

In the age of digital photography, and computer generated graphics, no
picture by itself can be believed. However, if eye witnesses back up the
picture then its accuracy becomes more reliable. Of course, a good paranoid
conspiracy believer will know that the eye witnesses are really part of the
clever diabolical plot by the government to hide the truth.

[cjcampbell]

wrote:
> The surveillance camera pix were released by the Pentagon today were on
> the conspiracy theory sites since they started, and won't do anything
> to bed the theorists' apprehensions (not that I believe them).

The conspiracy theorists are mostly a bunch of Holocaust deniers,
terrorist sympathizers, Michael Moore freaks, and other nutcases.
Nothing will convince them. Heck, numerous videos showing planes flying
into the WTC have not convinced them that the towers were destroyed by
airplanes, not demolition explosives.

A lot of these guys think the real world works like Hollywood movies.
They expect to see an airplane silhouette in the wall of the Pentagon,
as if Wile E. Coyote had run through it. Next time someone tries to
justify Hollywood's continual refusal to recognize the laws of physics
by saying "It's only a movie" you might want to remember just how much
that idiocy influences these nutcases.

[Chris W]

Tom Conner wrote:

> In the age of digital photography, and computer generated graphics, no
> picture by itself can be believed. However, if eye witnesses back up the
> picture then its accuracy becomes more reliable. Of course, a good paranoid
> conspiracy believer will know that the eye witnesses are really part of the
> clever diabolical plot by the government to hide the truth.


I have to agree, there is nothing that will convince the conspiracy
morons. All the going to court to have this video released was just a
wast of time and money.


--
Chris W
KE5GIX

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com

[[email protected]]

Tom Conner wrote:
>
> In the age of digital photography, and computer generated graphics, no
> picture by itself can be believed. However, if eye witnesses back up the
> picture then its accuracy becomes more reliable. Of course, a good paranoid
> conspiracy believer will know that the eye witnesses are really part of the
> clever diabolical plot by the government to hide the truth.


The most odd bit about the conspiracy theorists is their utter failure
to explain what then happened to the 757 itself and/or where its
passengers were lost. That hole in their conjecture is bigger than that
in the Pentagon.

Ramapriya

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
wrote:

> The most odd bit about the conspiracy theorists is their utter failure
> to explain what then happened to the 757 itself and/or where its
> passengers were lost. That hole in their conjecture is bigger than that
> in the Pentagon.

simple, the 757 itself is stored right next to the missile launcher(s)
that took down TWA800. No, wait. It's actually at AMARK.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Matt Barrow]

"cjcampbell" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> The surveillance camera pix were released by the Pentagon today were on
>> the conspiracy theory sites since they started, and won't do anything
>> to bed the theorists' apprehensions (not that I believe them).
>
> The conspiracy theorists are mostly a bunch of Holocaust deniers,
> terrorist sympathizers, Michael Moore freaks, and other nutcases.
> Nothing will convince them. Heck, numerous videos showing planes flying
> into the WTC have not convinced them that the towers were destroyed by
> airplanes, not demolition explosives.
>
> A lot of these guys think the real world works like Hollywood movies.
> They expect to see an airplane silhouette in the wall of the Pentagon,
> as if Wile E. Coyote had run through it. Next time someone tries to
> justify Hollywood's continual refusal to recognize the laws of physics
> by saying "It's only a movie" you might want to remember just how much
> that idiocy influences these nutcases.
>
http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/ :~)

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

Having been onsite for quite a number of airplane crashes, numerous
military aircraft, jets and piston, single and multi engine, the thing
that struck me was the lack of aircraft wreckage and the bodies of
occupants.
Curious that the hole was round and showed no evidence of the wings or
engines impacting the building. Large pieces of engines have been on
every crash site I ever photographed as part of an accident
investigation team.
I know the conspiracy buffs want to go someplace with it. I'd like to
know what in hell happened to all the aircraft parts and pieces? Even
the space shuittle left a lot of wreckage and bodies that were
identified from how big an explosion and how high?

[Jay Honeck]

> I know the conspiracy buffs want to go someplace with it. I'd like to
> know what in hell happened to all the aircraft parts and pieces? Even
> the space shuittle left a lot of wreckage and bodies that were
> identified from how big an explosion and how high?

The other thing that's baffling to me are the eye-witnesses who "saw"
the plane hit the ground in front of the Pentagon, and slide (at a very
high rate of speed) into the building. There are dozens of photos
taken on 9/11 that show the Pentagon lawn in pristine condition
directly in front of the hole in the wall.

Here's a pretty funny site that nonetheless brings up some interesting
points:
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/pentanium.html
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Barrow]

"Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Having been onsite for quite a number of airplane crashes, numerous
> military aircraft, jets and piston, single and multi engine, the thing
> that struck me was the lack of aircraft wreckage and the bodies of
> occupants.

Gee, there wasn't any at the crash site where Stewart Payne was killed. Do
you suppose that was faked so he wouldn't have to defend his US Open crown?

> Curious that the hole was round and showed no evidence of the wings or
> engines impacting the building. Large pieces of engines have been on
> every crash site I ever photographed as part of an accident
> investigation team.
> I know the conspiracy buffs want to go someplace with it. I'd like to
> know what in hell happened to all the aircraft parts and pieces? Even
> the space shuittle left a lot of wreckage and bodies that were
> identified from how big an explosion and how high?

Get a clue!!

[[email protected]]

Even though it has only now been officially released, that video was
going around on the Internet since 2001. Oh hum.

The aircraft flew over my neighborhood on the way to the Pentagon. A
number of my neighbors saw it, and wondered, since this was not a
normal flight path. I was at work a few miles from the Pentagon, and
felt the ground shake at impact. Although my view of the Pentagon
itself was blocked by a building, I could see the black kerosene smoke.

The various conspiracy theories all provide complex explanations of
something that was far simpler -- the aircraft was hijacked, and flown
into the building at high speed.

Paul

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> I know the conspiracy buffs want to go someplace with it. I'd like to
>> know what in hell happened to all the aircraft parts and pieces? Even
>> the space shuittle left a lot of wreckage and bodies that were
>> identified from how big an explosion and how high?
>
> The other thing that's baffling to me are the eye-witnesses who "saw"
> the plane hit the ground in front of the Pentagon, and slide (at a very
> high rate of speed) into the building. There are dozens of photos
> taken on 9/11 that show the Pentagon lawn in pristine condition
> directly in front of the hole in the wall.

You never bouced a landing?

[Private]

> http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/ :~)
>

Good website link,
thanks.

[Private]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Here's a pretty funny site that nonetheless brings up some interesting
> points:
> http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/pentanium.html
> --

also checkout http://www.geocities.com/pentalawn2000/

[[email protected]]

This airplane hit a solid stone building at very high speed. The
aluminum in the airframe was obliterated. Have you never seen the
video of the F4 phantom slamming into the concrete barrier to test the
containment vessel of a nuclear power plant? The F4 literally
vaporizes. Nothing left but the wingtips that miss the outside edge of
the concrete...

Jay Honeck has this video on his website. Watch it and you will
understand what happened to Flight 77.

Dean

[[email protected]]

Simple concrete proof of no conspiracy...

The previous presidnet could not get a discrete service from
a slightly overweight intern without it making national news.

Yet the conspiracy wackos think that this president organized a
conspiracy that had to involve hundreds of people over
a widely scattered geographic area,
None of which have come forward?
None of which has leaked?

I just don't think that the governement can keep that kind of secret.


Paul

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

Matt
I'd ask how many crash sites you have been to and smelled the stink of
burnt aircraft and bodies.????
My responses have been of a questioning nature and you, in your
expertise, want to chastise me?
Please do illuminate us with your wisdom and experience.

[Chris W]

Jay Honeck wrote:


> The other thing that's baffling to me are the eye-witnesses who "saw"
> the plane hit the ground in front of the Pentagon, and slide (at a very
> high rate of speed) into the building. There are dozens of photos
> taken on 9/11 that show the Pentagon lawn in pristine condition
> directly in front of the hole in the wall.
>

Don't be ridiculous. First, that lawn is far from pristine. It doesn't
look like a plane slid across that grass because one didn't. It simply
bounced off the lawn. It is obvious from the photos of the hole in the
building, that when the plan hit it, it was not sliding across the
ground. It is also easy to see a spot that looks like it might be where
the plane bounced off the grass.


--
Chris W
KE5GIX

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

Dean
What is the difference in size and payload between the F4 and Flight 77?

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Ol Shy & Bashful" > writes:

> Having been onsite for quite a number of airplane crashes, numerous
> military aircraft, jets and piston, single and multi engine, the thing
> that struck me was the lack of aircraft wreckage and the bodies of
> occupants.
> Curious that the hole was round and showed no evidence of the wings or
> engines impacting the building. Large pieces of engines have been on
> every crash site I ever photographed as part of an accident
> investigation team.
> I know the conspiracy buffs want to go someplace with it. I'd like to
> know what in hell happened to all the aircraft parts and pieces? Even
> the space shuittle left a lot of wreckage and bodies that were
> identified from how big an explosion and how high?

Not my area of expertise, but one thing that strikes me is that many
accidents happen attempting to land, with the pilot flying the plane
relatively slowly (depending on conditions, any damage, etc.), whereas
the Pentagon strike was apparently done at close to cruise speed.
Much faster, I think. Which means much more energy available, which
means things broken into considerably smaller pieces. I can easily
believe it wouldn't look like a normal crash-while-attempting-to-land
accident site.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[Bob Chilcoat]

I'm convinced that the Dukes of Hazard (the TV show, not the recent movie)
was directly responsible for the death of the woman who tried to jump the
gap in the Bay Bridge during the Loma Prieta Earthquake in 1989. In the TV
show the good-ol'-boy heros were always jumping the General Lee over stuff,
without any sign of a ramp. When the bridge in front of her collapsed, the
woman decided to try and jump the 50-foot gap rather than stop her car and
wait things out. A quick calculation indicates that she would have to have
been going roughly 236 mph to get to the other side with a 4" drop in
height, probably the maximum drop that would allow the car to survive. If
the car could survive hitting the other side 6" below the road surface, you
could make it at "only" 193 mph.

Don't believe the "science" in Hollywood.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"cjcampbell" > wrote in message
oups.com...

>
> A lot of these guys think the real world works like Hollywood movies.
> They expect to see an airplane silhouette in the wall of the Pentagon,
> as if Wile E. Coyote had run through it. Next time someone tries to
> justify Hollywood's continual refusal to recognize the laws of physics
> by saying "It's only a movie" you might want to remember just how much
> that idiocy influences these nutcases.
>

[Jay Honeck]

> I just don't think that the governement can keep that kind of secret.

Hell, the government can't get drug assistance for the elderly right -- yet
people believe that they can organize a conspiracy?

It's laughable.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[cjcampbell]

Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:
> Having been onsite for quite a number of airplane crashes, numerous
> military aircraft, jets and piston, single and multi engine, the thing
> that struck me was the lack of aircraft wreckage and the bodies of
> occupants.
> Curious that the hole was round and showed no evidence of the wings or
> engines impacting the building. Large pieces of engines have been on
> every crash site I ever photographed as part of an accident
> investigation team.
> I know the conspiracy buffs want to go someplace with it. I'd like to
> know what in hell happened to all the aircraft parts and pieces? Even
> the space shuittle left a lot of wreckage and bodies that were
> identified from how big an explosion and how high?

Don't be stupid. The conspiracy web sites are very selective in the
pictures that they show. There are plenty of pictures of airplane parts
if you look for them.

The same for damaged grass.

The conspiracy buffs are also very good at taking reporters' comments
out of context.

As I said, most of these conspiracy buffs are a bunch of holocaust
deniers and other enemies of the United States. In a just world they
would be tried and hanged as the terrorists and traitors that they are.

[Skywise]

"Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote in
ups.com:

> Dean
> What is the difference in size and payload between the F4 and Flight 77?

You need to go back to high school and sit in on the physics
class on kinetic energy. This time, pay attention instead of
wanking off over the cheerleader sitting in front of you.

Damn. If I were rich, I would pay for a re-enactment of the
Pentagon and Twin Towers crashes into re-creations of both
structures using remote controlled aircraft. It would be
worth the millions of dollars just to hear all you conspiracy
whacks sit in silence with nary a retort.

Out government is screwed up enough as it is without a bunch
of idiots making **** up. If you put your energies into fixing
all the real problems instead of all the imaginary ones, this
Country would be much better off than it currently is.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Bob Noel]

In article <n3Nag.153382$oL.66718@attbi_s71>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > I just don't think that the governement can keep that kind of secret.
>
> Hell, the government can't get drug assistance for the elderly right -- yet
> people believe that they can organize a conspiracy?

It's all part of the conspiracy... feigning incompetence to lull people into
thinking that there couldn't be a successful conspiracy.


:-)

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:n3Nag.153382$oL.66718@attbi_s71...
>> I just don't think that the governement can keep that kind of secret.
>
> Hell, the government can't get drug assistance for the elderly right --
> yet people believe that they can organize a conspiracy?
>
> It's laughable.

They think they can "run" the economy, whereas in reality, they couldn't run
a lemonade stand.

[Matt Barrow]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article <n3Nag.153382$oL.66718@attbi_s71>,
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>> > I just don't think that the governement can keep that kind of secret.
>>
>> Hell, the government can't get drug assistance for the elderly right --
>> yet
>> people believe that they can organize a conspiracy?
>
> It's all part of the conspiracy... feigning incompetence to lull people
> into
> thinking that there couldn't be a successful conspiracy.
>
>

Feigning?

[Matt Barrow]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote in
> ups.com:
>
>> Dean
>> What is the difference in size and payload between the F4 and Flight 77?
>
> You need to go back to high school and sit in on the physics
> class on kinetic energy. This time, pay attention instead of
> wanking off over the cheerleader sitting in front of you.
>
> Damn. If I were rich, I would pay for a re-enactment of the
> Pentagon and Twin Towers crashes into re-creations of both
> structures using remote controlled aircraft. It would be
> worth the millions of dollars just to hear all you conspiracy
> whacks sit in silence with nary a retort.

That wouldn't shut them up; they'd say it was part of the conspiracy.

"Ignorance is bliss!!"

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> > It's all part of the conspiracy... feigning incompetence to lull people
> > into
> > thinking that there couldn't be a successful conspiracy.
> >
>
> Feigning?

see how good they are?

:-)

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[[email protected]]

cjcampbell wrote:
>
> As I said, most of these conspiracy buffs are a bunch of holocaust deniers and other enemies of the United States. In a just world they would be tried and hanged as the terrorists and traitors that they are.


I differ with you somewhat here. The scenario you describe is
dangerously similar not to a just but an intolerant world. We should do
everything we can to preserve freedom of everything, speech included,
so stifling a dissenting voice is no solution. The best way to beat
such people down is with objective, irrefutable evidence although I
agree it'd involve the precious time of many.

Ramapriya

[Skywise]

wrote in news:1147928450.364812.197730
@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> cjcampbell wrote:
>>
>> As I said, most of these conspiracy buffs are a bunch of holocaust
deniers and other enemies of the United States. In a just world they would
be tried and hanged as the terrorists and traitors that they are.
>
>
> I differ with you somewhat here. The scenario you describe is
> dangerously similar not to a just but an intolerant world. We should do
> everything we can to preserve freedom of everything, speech included,
> so stifling a dissenting voice is no solution. The best way to beat
> such people down is with objective, irrefutable evidence although I
> agree it'd involve the precious time of many.
>
> Ramapriya

The only problem is that these folks are "true believers". There
is nothing you can give them as evidence that would dissuade them
from their "truth". They could be claiming the sky is fuscia and
even if you tape their eyelids open and force them to look at a
brilliant blue sky, they will find some way to say it's part of
the conspiracy and dismiss the evidence.

It's the whole science/pseudoscience problem. An interesting aspect
is that not only does the scientist know that the psuedoscientist
is wrong, but they even understand *WHY* the pseudoscientist thinks
the wrong things that they do!!!

Something I find amusing is these folks are always telling us to
"open our minds". Our minds are open. Their's are the closed ones.
They can't see that they are wrong, much less why. We can see both.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Gary Drescher]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> wrote in news:1147928450.364812.197730
> @j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>> cjcampbell wrote:
>>>
>>> As I said, most of these conspiracy buffs are a bunch of holocaust
>>> deniers and other enemies of the United States. In a just world they
>>> would be tried and hanged as the terrorists and traitors that they are.
>>
>> I differ with you somewhat here. The scenario you describe is
>> dangerously similar not to a just but an intolerant world. We should do
>> everything we can to preserve freedom of everything, speech included,
>> so stifling a dissenting voice is no solution. The best way to beat
>> such people down is with objective, irrefutable evidence although I
>> agree it'd involve the precious time of many.
>
> The only problem is that these folks are "true believers". There
> is nothing you can give them as evidence that would dissuade them
> from their "truth".

CJ is a true believer too, albeit in a different bizarre mythology than that
of the conspiracy theorists. But unlike the conspiracy theorists, CJ
literally wants to kill people for espousing nonsense that's in competition
with his own.

CJ rationalizes his bloodlust by asserting that his would-be victims
themselves harbor such homicidal desires (they're "terrorists"). But he
makes that claim without a shred of evidence, because true believers don't
need any.

--Gary

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Chris W > posted:

> Tom Conner wrote:
>
>> In the age of digital photography, and computer generated graphics,
>> no picture by itself can be believed. However, if eye witnesses
>> back up the picture then its accuracy becomes more reliable. Of
>> course, a good paranoid conspiracy believer will know that the eye
>> witnesses are really part of the clever diabolical plot by the
>> government to hide the truth.
>
>
> I have to agree, there is nothing that will convince the conspiracy
> morons. All the going to court to have this video released was just a
> wast of time and money.
>
I don't think so. There are other issues involved; for example, the
struggle between those that want to make everything a secret vs. those
that feel that information should be readily available if not to everyone,
then at least to appointed officials. I also don't quite understand the
Pentagon's publilcly stated reason for *not* releasing the various videos
of the incident.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Ol Shy & Bashful > posted:

> Having been onsite for quite a number of airplane crashes, numerous
> military aircraft, jets and piston, single and multi engine, the thing
> that struck me was the lack of aircraft wreckage and the bodies of
> occupants.
> Curious that the hole was round and showed no evidence of the wings or
> engines impacting the building. Large pieces of engines have been on
> every crash site I ever photographed as part of an accident
> investigation team.
> I know the conspiracy buffs want to go someplace with it. I'd like to
> know what in hell happened to all the aircraft parts and pieces? Even
> the space shuittle left a lot of wreckage and bodies that were
> identified from how big an explosion and how high?
>
I have to agree. I don't have any theories, conspiracy or otherwise, but I
would like to know what happened to all those parts that should have been
strewn over the vicinity.

Neil

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

Brian
High School classes and aircraft crash investigations? Wanking off?
Surely you jest? My post asked some questions. Do YOU have the
answers?
I HAVE NEVER been to an aircraft crash site, especially a jet aircraft,
that didn't leave big pieces of wreckage. The pieces that I saw in the
video were not impressive and hand held. The wreckage I am accustomed
to needed to be picked up by tow trucks and put on flat beds. Airspeeds
at time of impact varied but the only one I can think of off hand that
was really FAST is the space shuttle which was going how fast?
What is your contribution to making this country better? Talk is cheap.

[Matt Barrow]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> cjcampbell wrote:
>>
>> As I said, most of these conspiracy buffs are a bunch of holocaust
>> deniers and other enemies of >> the United States. In a just world they
>> would be tried and hanged as the terrorists and traitors that >> they
>> are.
>
>
> I differ with you somewhat here. The scenario you describe is
> dangerously similar not to a just but an intolerant world. We should do
> everything we can to preserve freedom of everything, speech included,
> so stifling a dissenting voice is no solution.



> The best way to beat
> such people down is with objective, irrefutable evidence although I
> agree it'd involve the precious time of many.

That would only convince a few on the margin. Conspiracy nuts are not
rational people. Some get a kick out of messing with peoples heads. Some are
just seeking attention like kids being obnoxious. Some are just basket
cases.

Rather than suppress them, the best way is to let them speak. The
overwhelming majority of the time they refute themselves. The trick is:
don't respond to them directly; instead address the audience in general.
Convince the rational, don't waste time with the irrational. Remember that
reason only works with reasonable people.

[Matt Barrow]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
>
> The only problem is that these folks are "true believers". There
> is nothing you can give them as evidence that would dissuade them
> from their "truth". They could be claiming the sky is fuscia and
> even if you tape their eyelids open and force them to look at a
> brilliant blue sky, they will find some way to say it's part of
> the conspiracy and dismiss the evidence.
>
> It's the whole science/pseudoscience problem.


What you just described is a good assessment of _faith_.

[Matt Barrow]

"Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Brian
> High School classes and aircraft crash investigations? Wanking off?
> Surely you jest? My post asked some questions. Do YOU have the
> answers?
> I HAVE NEVER been to an aircraft crash site, especially a jet aircraft,
> that didn't leave big pieces of wreckage.

Whoopie Doo!

The biggest piece of wreckage at the Stewart Payne site was about 4" in
size. There was no fire, in contrast with an aircraft loaded with thousands
of gallons of fuel.

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Thu, 18 May 2006 12:17:55 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> wrote:

>I have to agree. I don't have any theories, conspiracy or otherwise, but I
>would like to know what happened to all those parts that should have been
>strewn over the vicinity.
>
>Neil

I'm with ya there....

I helped recover the wreckage from an L-39 that hit the ground nearly
vertically going 500+ knots. Much of the vertical fin was still in
one piece. The impact crater was 10+ feet deep. The hot section of
the engine, though banged up, was very recognizable and we found it
50+ hundred yards away from the impact crater. We found a few smashed
instruments, a partial control stick, and lots of metal pieces the
size of your fist or smaller, some a little bigger (he biggest /
heaviest recognizable pieces were the landing gear assemblies).
It took us over a week to pick up all the bits and pieces, some of
which, ended up as far as a 1/4 of a mile away from the impact crater.


In a crash of this magnitude, you typically find small stuff literally
everywhere... like bits / lengths of wire for example... there are
miles of wire in an airliner...., bits and pieces of insulation,
plexiglas, etc. We found things you wouldn't think you'd find too,
like whole pages here and there out of an approach plate / book,
currency (coin & bill), the airframe data-plate, etc..

Bela P. Havasreti

[Matt Barrow]

On Thu, 18 May 2006 12:17:55 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> wrote:

>I have to agree. I don't have any theories, conspiracy or otherwise, but I
>would like to know what happened to all those parts that should have been
>strewn over the vicinity.
>

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=&c=y

[Private]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Skywise" > wrote in message
> ...
>> wrote in news:1147928450.364812.197730
>> @j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> cjcampbell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> As I said, most of these conspiracy buffs are a bunch of holocaust
>>>> deniers and other enemies of the United States. In a just world they
>>>> would be tried and hanged as the terrorists and traitors that they are.
>>>
>>> I differ with you somewhat here. The scenario you describe is
>>> dangerously similar not to a just but an intolerant world. We should do
>>> everything we can to preserve freedom of everything, speech included,
>>> so stifling a dissenting voice is no solution. The best way to beat
>>> such people down is with objective, irrefutable evidence although I
>>> agree it'd involve the precious time of many.
>>
>> The only problem is that these folks are "true believers". There
>> is nothing you can give them as evidence that would dissuade them
>> from their "truth".
>
> CJ is a true believer too, albeit in a different bizarre mythology than
> that of the conspiracy theorists. But unlike the conspiracy theorists, CJ
> literally wants to kill people for espousing nonsense that's in
> competition with his own.
>
> CJ rationalizes his bloodlust by asserting that his would-be victims
> themselves harbor such homicidal desires (they're "terrorists"). But he
> makes that claim without a shred of evidence, because true believers don't
> need any.
>
> --Gary

I appreciate your thoughts and your prose. I think you may appreciate this,
particularly the quotes of Shaw and Schopenhauer.

http://www.rense.com/general70/tjere.htm



In this issue there seems to be too many 'experts' refusing to answer valid
questions. These 'experts' attempt to use bluster and attacks on character
as a substitute for reason. IMHO many are afraid that at least some of the
answers may be uncomfortable to prior belief and force the reevaluation of
core values.



Socrates taught that the pursuit of truth can only begin once they start to
question and analyze every belief that they ever held dear. If a certain
belief passes the tests of evidence, deduction, and logic, it should be
kept. If it doesn't, the belief should not only be discarded, but the
thinker must also then question why he was led to believe the erroneous



The very use of the term 'conspiracy theorists' to denigrate those who dare
to question the 'approved' 'conspiracy theory of 19 Arabs with box cutters
is an attempt to discredit by attack on character to avoid talking about
truth which in this as in all wars is the first casualty.



"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we
don't believe in it at all." -Noam Chomsky

[A. Sinan Unur]

Skywise > wrote in
:

> "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote in
> ups.com:
>
>> Dean
>> What is the difference in size and payload between the F4 and Flight
>> 77?
>
> You need to go back to high school and sit in on the physics
> class on kinetic energy. This time, pay attention instead of
> wanking off over the cheerleader sitting in front of you.
>
> Damn. If I were rich, I would pay for a re-enactment of the
> Pentagon and Twin Towers crashes into re-creations of both

In the absence of copious amounts of money, would the following help?

http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase1/

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/projects/pentagon.htm

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/papers/popescu/popescuPentagonVIS2003.mpg

--
A. Sinan Unur >
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)

[Bob Noel]

In article <1Z4bg.174799$WI1.109727@pd7tw2no>, "Private" >
wrote:

> In this issue there seems to be too many 'experts' refusing to answer valid
> questions. These 'experts' attempt to use bluster and attacks on character
> as a substitute for reason. IMHO many are afraid that at least some of the
> answers may be uncomfortable to prior belief and force the reevaluation of
> core values.
[snipperoo]
> The very use of the term 'conspiracy theorists' to denigrate those who dare
> to question the 'approved' 'conspiracy theory of 19 Arabs with box cutters
> is an attempt to discredit by attack on character to avoid talking about
> truth which in this as in all wars is the first casualty.

like the use of term "experts"?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[A. Sinan Unur]

wrote in news:1147886939.141698.306060
@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

> This airplane hit a solid stone building at very high speed. The
> aluminum in the airframe was obliterated. Have you never seen the
> video of the F4 phantom slamming into the concrete barrier to test the
> containment vessel of a nuclear power plant? The F4 literally
> vaporizes. Nothing left but the wingtips that miss the outside edge of
> the concrete...
>
> Jay Honeck has this video on his website. Watch it and you will
> understand what happened to Flight 77.

http://www.sandia.gov/media/mov_mpg/

http://www.sandia.gov/media/mov_mpg/F-4%20Crash%20Tests.mpg

--
A. Sinan Unur >
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)

[Skywise]

"Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote in
oups.com:

> Brian
> High School classes and aircraft crash investigations? Wanking off?
> Surely you jest? My post asked some questions. Do YOU have the
> answers?

Have you seen the footage of the F4 crashing into the conrete wall?

QED

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Private]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article <1Z4bg.174799$WI1.109727@pd7tw2no>, "Private"
> >
> wrote:
>
>> In this issue there seems to be too many 'experts' refusing to answer
>> valid
>> questions. These 'experts' attempt to use bluster and attacks on
>> character
>> as a substitute for reason. IMHO many are afraid that at least some of
>> the
>> answers may be uncomfortable to prior belief and force the reevaluation
>> of
>> core values.
> [snipperoo]
>> The very use of the term 'conspiracy theorists' to denigrate those who
>> dare
>> to question the 'approved' 'conspiracy theory of 19 Arabs with box
>> cutters
>> is an attempt to discredit by attack on character to avoid talking about
>> truth which in this as in all wars is the first casualty.
>
> like the use of term "experts"?
>

touché - valid point

[[email protected]]

Doesn't matter. A pound of aluminum in and F-4 weighs the same as a
pound of aluminum in a 757. Energy = 1/2mV^2 At over 400 knots,
there is a lot of energy in every pound of aluminum.

It is not necessary to melt the aluminum either to make the airplane
indistinguishable. Ablation is a process in which the aluminum is
pulverized by impact with a solid object. It is essentially ground up.
If you look at the video of the F-4, you will see that he aluminum is
literally being ground up by the impact with the concrete barrier. The
Pentagon is a very substantial stone building, and the 757 still
managed to punch through several of its rings. I am not surprised that
there are not many distinguishable pieces left. Also remember that
there was a post crash fire, and aluminum does burn when it gets hot
enough.

Same thing with flight 93. It went straight into the ground at high
speed. This is unlike the U.S. Air 737 that crashed on approach due to
a rudder hard over. The airspeed at impact was much higher for these
intentional crashes than for the unintentional crashes due to starting
the dive from a much higher alitude, and going straight in in a clean
vs. dirty drag configuration...

Am I just casting my pearls here, or does this make sense to you?

Dean

[cjcampbell]

Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:
> Brian
> High School classes and aircraft crash investigations? Wanking off?
> Surely you jest? My post asked some questions. Do YOU have the
> answers?
> I HAVE NEVER been to an aircraft crash site, especially a jet aircraft,
> that didn't leave big pieces of wreckage. The pieces that I saw in the
> video were not impressive and hand held. The wreckage I am accustomed
> to needed to be picked up by tow trucks and put on flat beds. Airspeeds
> at time of impact varied but the only one I can think of off hand that
> was really FAST is the space shuttle which was going how fast?
> What is your contribution to making this country better? Talk is cheap.

The conspiracy web sites are very selective in which pictures they
show. There are plenty of pictures showing aircraft engines, landing
gear, and pieces taller than a man, but the conspiracy sites will not
show them. You can find them in any serious publication dealing with
the attacks, however.

[Morgans]

"cjcampbell" > wrote

> The conspiracy web sites are very selective in which pictures they
> show. There are plenty of pictures showing aircraft engines, landing
> gear, and pieces taller than a man, but the conspiracy sites will not
> show them. You can find them in any serious publication dealing with
> the attacks, however.

Why, I'm surprised at you, CJ. You know darn full well that all of those
big parts were trucked in there for those pictures! <bfg>
--
Jim in NC