Third tape of Pentagon strike released today.

[illeagle]

Interesting analysis of the pixels from the tapes.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting analysis of the pixels from the tapes.


[/ QUOTE ]

It amazes me that people spend their time trying to document this kind of convoluted crap.

It just took me 5 minutes (speaking of wasting time) to find that the unmanned plane is a Global Hawk. It is a surveillance and reconnaissance plane, it is 44 feet long and weighs 25,000 lbs fully fueled. The 757 is 155 feet long and weighs about 250,000 lbs fully loaded. I can see how they could be easily confused.

It is also clear from the pictures that "A" follows the top of the drone exactly, while "B" wanders all over the plane.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting analysis of the pixels from the tapes.


[/ QUOTE ]

It amazes me that people spend their time trying to document this kind of convoluted crap.

It just took me 5 minutes (speaking of wasting time) to find that the unmanned plane is a Global Hawk. It is a surveillance and reconnaissance plane, it is 44 feet long and weighs 25,000 lbs fully fueled. The 757 is 155 feet long and weighs about 250,000 lbs fully loaded. I can see how they could be easily confused.

[/ QUOTE ]

And b*tch and moan that the surveillance pictures dont reveal anything, then try and use the same pictures with outlines that cant possibly be accurately overlaid (overlain?) to justify their ludicrous beliefs.

I also love the claims about "6 of the hijackers are alive". Ive seen claims of more than 6, and dont know which six are supposed to be alive, but Atta was one originally claimed to be alive. There are numerous people with the same name in the Arab world, just as there are in the rest of the world. That someone can be found alive with the same name (which was clearly the case with Atta, who couldnt any more clearly be one of the hijackers) doesnt mean jack sh*t.

As I said in another post, you arent a zombie just because someone dead has the same name.

[NobodysFreak]

hah, just realized I f'd your name up. Sorry about that, Mr.Mon.

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
Mr. Mom,

While I don't agree with the theories about missiles and what-have-you, but I think we'd have to take into account more than just the warhead size of the missile. From what I can tell (and I'm no expert) a missile is basically a large rocket with an explosive tip. Is it possible that there is a missile whose fuel/warhead/momentum could generate the force you mentioned?

Again, I'm just curious and it seems like you've done your homework on the subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's an interesting thought, but I don't think the masses are there. If you had a low mass at sufficent speed, of course you could generate the energy, but the speed would just be too high to be realistic. I haven't dug through the Internet to get an estimate of the yield of the Pentagon explosion, I've been using UA175, but assuming they are roughly equivalent, we're talking about a yield of 200,000 lbs of TNT. If a missile warhead is 2,000 lbs, is there even really a point in searching? That's a factor of 100, a lot to make up for. Not to mention that if we were walking about simply a speed collision to make up the energy involved, wouldn't we see an entirely different type of explosion, not one that is a fireball?

Now, before we get the usual reply from the usual crowd that I'm making assmumptions, I've got missing data, etc., where is any data from the conspiracy crowd at all? All they do is throw up dirt and and say, "It's not X, but I don't know what it REALLY is." They don't even attempt to disprove my calculations, they just say it's not good enough. Sorry, science doesn't work that way, you have to make some sort of proposal as to an alternative theory or show an error in my calculations. The answer, "But the military has things we don't know about" doesn't really work either. Sure, they have things but even the U.S. Air Force can't violate the laws of physics.

Here's something else that doesn't follow, something the "Where's the plane?" crowd never seems to be unable to answer. If AA77 didn't collide with the Pentagon, where is it? Where are the passengers? If it's a missile that hit, what was it doing there in the first place? Are you saying the planes that hit in New York didn't really hit, or were they real, and the U.S. government just happened to have all the assets in place to attack the Pentagon on a moments notice? And why attack the Pentagon at all if this were the case. Wouldn't attacking the WTC be enough? Why add on? The Pentagon attack is relatively minor compared to the WTC attack, it really accomplished very little. It makes no sense.

The thing that does make sense is from the conspiracy nut perspective. Attack the weak link. If you're trying to claim a giant conspiracy about 9/11, don't attack what there is ample evidence for, the attacks in New York, attack what there is only forensic evidence for, the Pentagon and UA93. But you need to view the entire scenario, not those incidents in isolation.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
That's almost amusing coming from the gal that made this useless, inflammatory post:
[ QUOTE ]
Yeesh...do you post as "Sharkey" in SMP? If not, you must be his long-lost twin.

[/ QUOTE ]
In fact, you've done nothing but troll and flamebait in this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
*** You are ignoring this user ***

[/ QUOTE ]
Welcome to the club Hopey, membership: mons and you.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is only the second person who has ever ignored me. Sharkey was the first. Coincidence? I think not.