• 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.

Clear evidence that 9/11 was an inside job

FatFreddy88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You keep saying there are "plausible" explanations for this and that. Your problem is that there is no consistent plausible explanation for the entire event other than the "official story".

That and your idea of what is plausible is rather different from mine :eye-poppi

Prior to posting further in response to any of your claims, I should like to ascertain whether you also subscribe to the "vicsim" claims?
 
am I using enough scare quotes?

Dave Rogers said:
No, there was a genuine witness account that claimed that the wings folded back as the fuselage broke through the wall. Of course, they'd have had to hit the walls to make them fold back, so we'd expect extensive damage to the walls anyway. Since there's photographic evidence that the wings damaged the walls, and a 90 foot section of the facade collapsed (indicating that the truther lie about a neat 16-foot circular hole and no other damage is just that, a lie), none of this is particularly anomalous or implausible.

Dave
Click to expand...
well I guess "CIT" cant say this particular witness was "tricked" by a "smoke and mirrors" "special effect" "shock and awe" explosion preceding a "flyover", now can they?
 
FatFreddy88 said:
The difference in the length of two sides of a triangle can be found with trig, and by just measuring the sides. Tell us why just measuring the sides and comparing the lengths isn't valid.

I simply measured the lengths to get the difference. Why did you come up with completely different numbers? Why don't you just measure them and tell us what you come up with just to check your calcs?
Click to expand...

FatFreddy, I will reply to this later, when I have some time.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
I think that the proof that 9/11 was an inside job and that the Apollo moon missions were faked in a studio is so clear ...
Click to expand...
Clearly insane claims made due to ignorance. You have no evidence, and you are science free. You make up lies out of ignorance.

You like fantasy, making up delusions about Apollo and 911.

The FDR proves your claims are delusional.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/local_links.php?catid=18 You could study up before you expose the fact you fall for the dumbest lies made up about 911.
 
Fat Freddy, I have a challenge for you. I'd like you to acquire a copy of and watch the Movie "All The President's Men". It's about two reporters named Woodward and Bernstein and their investigation into the Watergate Break-ins. What I would like you to take particular notice of is the discipline and rigor they applied to their investigation and the amount of work and effort they went to. Notice the way Ben Bradley and Harry Rosenfeld (publisher and editor) hold their reporters' feet to the fire and make them be rigorous.

Now can you tell us here that you've applied the same discipline, rigor and effort as these two people who busted open a real conspiracy? Your cheap approximation of effort just doesn't measure up.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
I think that the proof that 9/11 was an inside job and that the Apollo moon missions were faked in a studio is so clear that it's impossible to convince people otherwise once they've seen it. I don't think your attempts to obfuscate the proof have much effect on objective people.

.........
Click to expand...

Over the past decades I daresay I have seen all of the supposed proof of an Apollo Hoax and more recently , 911 as an inside job. I can state unequivocably that your statement hilited above is patently in error.

I do believe that I have seen every Apollo hoax claim, even read "Dark Moon" cover to cover (time I will never get back) and found all such 'proofs' to run the spectrum of gross misrepresentation, to outright lies, from Una's 'coke bottle' hilarity to lies about radiation and the Van Allen Belts.

The supposed 'proofs' of 911 as an inside job are equally bad, from the continued use of the term 'free fall speed' to the outright lies of the CiT and PfT and continuing to the insanity that is Judy Wood/Morgan Reynolds.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
In that image, the angle between line of sight and flight path is 145°, not 140°. So the apparent length of the plane would not get shortened by (1 - sin(140°)=36% but by (1 - sin(145°)=43% - that's even further from your erroneous estimate of 20%.
Click to expand...
The difference in the length of two sides of a triangle can be found with trig, and by just measuring the sides. Tell us why just measuring the sides and comparing the lengths isn't valid.

I simply measured the lengths to get the difference. Why did you come up with completely different numbers? Why don't you just measure them and tell us what you come up with just to check your calcs?
Click to expand...

You require three measurements to determine other unknowns.
Just knowing only the length of two sides will not allow you to determine the length of the third side.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
You "actually enjoy" doing something you are extremely incompetent at? Hmm.
Click to expand...

A lot of people do. Golf, bowling, billiards, debate. All things you can be terrible at yet still enjoy. Of course alcohol makes them more enjoyable; I wonder if FatFreddy is posting drunk.
 
You require three measurements to determine other unknowns.
Just knowing only the length of two sides will not allow you to determine the length of the third side.
Click to expand...
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.
 
EventHorizon said:
A lot of people do. Golf, bowling, billiards, debate. All things you can be terrible at yet still enjoy. Of course alcohol makes them more enjoyable; I wonder if FatFreddy is posting drunk.
Click to expand...

Hey, if posting drunk is wrong, I don't want to be right.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hey FatFreddy,

I have added a few lines and labelled a few points. Let me see if I get what you are doing:



To explain:

Points:
A = camera position
B = impact point
D = point where yellow line (sight line) and red line (flight path) intersect
C = a perpendicular projection of D on the Pentagon wall
E = far corner of the protruding part of the Pentagon wall
F = (I'll explain below)
G = Far corner of Pentagon face
H, I = (I'll explain below)

Lines:
Yellow: original, line of sight from camera to plane
Red: original, flight path
Green: The B757-223. It's 47.3m long, or 16.8% of the length of the Pentagon wall. The Pentagon wall on my screen measures 168mm, so I drew the plane 168mm * 16.8% = 28mm long, with the center on point D.
Dark blue, C-D: That line is at a right angle to the Pentagon wall, and goes through D, where yellow and red lines meet. Is that the first line that you referred to?
Light blue, A-E-F: This is a sight line from the camera through the protruding corner to the non-protruding part of the Pentagon wall. Point F is much closer to C than to E.

Your first 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") is D-C?
Your second line ("red line from the point where it touches the yellow line to the wall") is D-B?
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%. You said 27%. Of course we both draw and measure our lines imprecisely, but at least we are in the same ballpark.
Now what does that difference mean?
 
(continued)

Here are some of my measurements:
1. A-E (Camera to protruding corner) is 131mm
2. A-D (camera to center of plane) is 146mm
-> An object that has an apparent size of 100% at point E would appear at size (131/146)% = 89.7%
3. Length of plane is 28mm
4. Length of I-H (projection of both ends of plane into the distance of D) is 16mm
-> The plane appears (16/28) = 57% of it's 100% size due to it flying at an angle.

If the plane were at point E, and at 90° to the sight line, we could directly compare it to the height of the Pentagon. Let's define the apparent length of the plane at that point as 100, then at point D (where it really was), its apparent length would shrink to 89.7% because it's farther away, and to another 57% due to its angle.
Multiply both: 89.7% * 57% = 51%.

The Pentagon is 23m tall, a 757 is 47.3m long. It would appear (47.3/23)=2,1 times longer than the Pentagon at E is high, but because the plane is farther away and at an angle, it really would appear only 2.1 * 51% 1.05 times as long as the Pentagon is high at that point.

In this image:

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
 
Oystein... this is really great stuff. Are the aspect ratios the same for you and FatFreddy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom