Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Missing Frames in Pentagon Video
You should also.
The more you feed him, the more bs he generates. You should know better, drunk or sober. You're welcome to attack me all you want, but contributing to a cross posting troll is stupid. "Capt. Mooron" wrote in message ... "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message | Didn't notice really. You really should pay more attention Bertie! |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Missing Frames in Pentagon Video
I don't get it. You claim that I should butt out after suggesting
I'm full of it, then you post basically the same thing and claim it's your idea. I find it incredible that you would contribute to this nonsense. "Capt. Mooron" wrote in message ... Read the post in reply from the Bunyip and you'll realize it's Bertie X-posting every reply. Yours are on several groups like alt.flame... etc. You should see how many posts 'donal" has supposedly written. It's amazing! He's on at least 10 other groups and that's not including the people who posted under his sig never mind the whackos that have it out for him now! I'm doing rather well by comparison. ;-) You've got a choice... bite your tongue or suffer Bertie's x-posts. My tongue is bleeding and I don't have half the publicity you do. It's got to the point that the posters on alt.flame are crying because of the x-posts from the Bunyip. Damned if you do..... Damned if you don't... it's a catch 22. For the group's integrity... I'll stop replying to the Bunyip or any Xposted submissions. We don't need the extra downloads... despite the kill file. ... and now to further deflect blame.... it was Oz1 that opened the invitation to begin with..... ;-D CM "Scott Vernon" wrote in message ... | You really should stop x-posting, Mooron. | | Sv | | "Capt. Mooron" wrote in message | ... | | "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message | | Didn't notice really. | | You really should pay more attention Bertie! | | | | | | |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Missing Frames in Pentagon Video
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in
: You should also. The more you feed him, the more bs he generates. You should know better, drunk or sober. I'm quite sober and you're pathetic attempt to get my rate up is doomed, fjuckwit. But feel free to try! Bertie You're welcome to attack me all you want, but contributing to a cross posting troll is stupid. "Capt. Mooron" wrote in message ... "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message | Didn't notice really. You really should pay more attention Bertie! |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Missing Frames in Pentagon Video
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in
: I don't get it. You claim that I should butt out after suggesting I'm full of it, then you post basically the same thing and claim it's your idea. I find it incredible that you would contribute to this nonsense. I don't. you're both pretty dim, actually. Bertie "Capt. Mooron" wrote in message ... Read the post in reply from the Bunyip and you'll realize it's Bertie X-posting every reply. Yours are on several groups like alt.flame... etc. You should see how many posts 'donal" has supposedly written. It's amazing! He's on at least 10 other groups and that's not including the people who posted under his sig never mind the whackos that have it out for him now! I'm doing rather well by comparison. ;-) You've got a choice... bite your tongue or suffer Bertie's x-posts. My tongue is bleeding and I don't have half the publicity you do. It's got to the point that the posters on alt.flame are crying because of the x-posts from the Bunyip. Damned if you do..... Damned if you don't... it's a catch 22. For the group's integrity... I'll stop replying to the Bunyip or any Xposted submissions. We don't need the extra downloads... despite the kill file. ... and now to further deflect blame.... it was Oz1 that opened the invitation to begin with..... ;-D CM "Scott Vernon" wrote in message ... | You really should stop x-posting, Mooron. | | Sv | | "Capt. Mooron" wrote in message | ... | | "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message | | Didn't notice really. | | You really should pay more attention Bertie! | | | | | | |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Missing Frames in Pentagon Video
Mine or Mooron's? :-)
"JL Grasso" wrote in message ... On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:13:36 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in alt.sailing.asa: I don't get it. You claim that I should butt out after suggesting I'm full of it, then you post basically the same thing and claim it's your idea. I find it incredible that you would contribute to this nonsense. Ahhh! A chink in the gelcoat! Jerry |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Missing Frames in Pentagon Video
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in
: Mine or Mooron's? :-) Does it matter? Bertei "JL Grasso" wrote in message ... On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:13:36 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in alt.sailing.asa: I don't get it. You claim that I should butt out after suggesting I'm full of it, then you post basically the same thing and claim it's your idea. I find it incredible that you would contribute to this nonsense. Ahhh! A chink in the gelcoat! Jerry |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Missing Frames in Pentagon Video
In this thread we have Ralph saying of picture #1 of the 5 sequential
pictures released by the DoD: " Due coloration/contrast of background the fuselage blends into the background while for the same reason the vertical stablizer is visible as a "Blur"." But the shape of the tail fin is clearly visible. Also the missile plume is unmistakable trailing to the right at just the right level below the tail fin to correspond with missile fired by an F-16. You know that planes cannot penetrate walls like the Pentagon, not Boeings and not F-16s -- a missile was needed to soften the wall so that the small plane would enter without leaving telltale debris on the grass. In this thread we have also seen Fox news quoted on the subject of what is in the first picture of the sequence: The first photo shows a small, blurry white object near the upper right corner — possibly the plane just a few feet above the ground. Clearly they mistook the smoke trail of the air-to-ground missile for the plane, and missed spotting the tail fin completely. And we have MSNBC reporting: NBC?s Jim Miklaszewski explains that the sequence of five photos, taken from a Department of Defense security camera, shows the Boeing 757 hitting the ground an instant before it plows into the building and explodes in a deadly fireball. Clearly the smoke of the missile was misinterpreted by many as the plane hitting the ground and raising smoke. But we know that the planes trajectory was level and we know that the grass at this location was unharmed. In this thread we have someone remark: Now explain to me the eyewitnesses who saw the plane and jumped from ttheir cars as it took down lightpoles. But the fact is that none of the witnesses saw the Boeing take down the poles -- in every case a deduction is made after the fact, based on their assumption that the Boeing did it -- but I have talked to witnesses who prove that the Boeing was nowhere near the poles, that the Boeing came over the Annex, they it flew by Lagasse from west to east to the north of him, when the poles were slightly south of him from his postion at the Gulf gas station. BUT WHAT BRINGS ME HERE IS TO TELL YOU ALL ONCE AND FOR ALL The American Society of Civil Engineers Pentagon Building Performance Report backs up small-plane finding --- DISPROVES A BOEING CRASH Again and again on this thread I see statements like this: Well, the whole thing is painstakingly documented in the ASCE report. Of course, the retards don't want to read it, since it instantly debunks every single one of their rants. Except that the ASCE does nothing of the kind. In fact, as I show you below, the ASCE report supports the small-plane thesis and discredits the official ( frameup/coverup) story. Let's look at it together: The American Society of Civil Engineers in their Pentagon Building Performance Report which reports the different levels of damage done to the pillars in the first story of the crash region presents information that supports the photo evidence showing that NO STARBOARD WING ENGINE OF A BOEING 575 ENTERED THE PENTAGON. As you read the report and examin the diagrams and simulations keep this color code of levels of damage to columns in mind (note: "Spalling" means that chips have been knocked off the pillar.) Pink squares: In collapsed area. Presumed to have significant inpairment Red squares: Missing, broken, disconnected, or otherwise without remaining function Blue squares: Impacted with large deformation and significant impairment of function Green squares: Heavy cracking and spalling with some impairment of function Yellow squares: Cracking and spalling with no significant impairment of function. https://www.asce.org/pdf/illustrations.pdf (Be sure to use the zoom feature of your Adobe Acrobat etc. to read the legends of these diagrams) Let us examin this graphical summary of the engineers' findings. Illustration A -- A cut-away simulation showing the arrangement of pillars , numbered 1 through 34 across the outer wall and rows AA (outer wall), A, B, C ... through O (15 rows) on the first floor as you go back 220 ft. to the wall of the C-ring exit hole which is between pillars 5-0 and 7-0 (there being only odd number pillars behind the first row on the outer wall, i.e., twice as many) The nose of the killer jet hit pillar 14-AA on the outer wall. The distance from pillar 14-AA in the outer wall (E-ring) to exit hole between columns 5-O and 7-0 in the C-ring wall is 310 feet. But what do the engineers tell us about the damage to the Pentagon? All the investigators did was enter the crash site for one day of observations AFTER THE BUILDING HAD COLLAPSED OVER THE ORIGINAL CRASH HOLE, examining each of the pillars and checking off its condition according to this checklist: Pink squares: In collapsed area. Presumed to have significant inpairment Red squares: Missing, broken, disconnected, or otherwise without remaining function Green squares: Heavy cracking and spalling with some impairment of function Yellow squares: Cracking and spalling with no significant impairment of function. The fact is that whereas the small-plane explaination is supported by photos of the outer wall crash hole, pre-collapse, as having interior wall still standing to the right of the hole where the fuselage entered, the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance report DOES IN FACT SUPPORT THE SMALL-PLANE PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE BY INDICATING THAT THE PILLARS TO THE RIGHT OF THE NOSE-ENTRY WERE STILL STANDING. They are shown leaning out, indicating that they were not knocked down -- (they are drawn in the diagram as leaning, indicating that they were "disconnected or broken" but not missing or knocked down (missing pillars are marked by a red spot, knocked down pillars are shown lying on their sides in the diagram). And as for the damage alone the 310 feet from AA 14 to the missing columns (red spots) are extremely close to the center line of the path. MOST NOTABLE IS THE FACT THAT DOUBLE COLUMN 11-D WHICH IS AN INTERIOR COLUMN HOLDING UP THE INTERIOR BACK WALL OF E-RING JUST TO THE RIGHT OF WHERE THE FUSELAGE PASSED (ACCORDING TO THE ENGINEER'S DOTTED LINE FROM AA-14 TO THE HOLE IN C-RING) That column is not knocked down or missing, but only is deformed with significant impairment of function. And on the starboard side of the fuselage no more pillars are knocked down, whereas in the path of the fuselage and to the port side from center there are seven more red-marked pillars that are damaged (missing, broken, disconnected). (See Illustration B) But this is totally consistent with the fact that the engine popped out between pillars 5-O and 7-O -- it is totally consistent with the fact that the killer jet was a single-engine, engine-in-fuselage aircraft. So we see that on the starboard side -- where we have -p[hotos of the interior walls still standing before the collapse -- indicating that there was no starboard wing engine -- we now also can point to the structural report of the American Society of Civil Engineers, who show that the exterior pillars were not downed to the right of the hole made by the fuselage -- and that the engineers could make no determination of which of the second and third rows of pillars (rows A and B after the exterior row AA) were damaged or not, because of the subsequent collapse that destroyed this evidence. BUT THE EVIDENCE THE ENGINEERS WERE ABLE TO PRESENT IS ENTIRELY SUPPORTIVE OF THE SMALL PLANE THESIS, AND INCONSISTENT WITH THE OFFICIAL STORY THAT AN AIRLINER WITH A MASSIVE STARBOARD WING ENGINE ENDERED THE BUILDING -- IT WAS DEFINITELY A SINGLE ENGINE PLANE AS ALL THE OTHER HARD EVIDENCE IS ALSO INDICATING. And here is other relevant information: What BB does not want you to learn is that 9-11 was a mass-murder frameup and that the evidence showing that an F-16 that fired a missile into the target ahead of its own crash and that the Boeing 757 at the same moment overflew the Pentagon banked right over the 14th street bridge on the Potomac and landed at Reagan National only one mile from the crash. The flash and subsequent smoke and fire aided the Boeing in moving away without detection. And before the noise of the crash could reach the Washington monumnet, the Boeing was closer to Reagan National than to the attack scene. At this time all planes were being called down. The Boeing merely hit the tarmac and taxied to a hanger where, doubtless, in the following weeks while the airport was shut down, the plane met the same fate as BMWs that are stolen by international car theives. The Fi16 approached at such terrific speed (some heard a sonic boom before the crash) and so low (ground hugging aircraft are very difficult to see against a busy background of buildings -- the killer jet may have been dark so it would resemble the shadow of an aircraft from the sky. At any rate, all eyes were on the Boeing as it flew over the Naval Annex, so that people missed the smaller jet in its stealth approach from the southwest. All of the above, with all of the details that I have left out, may be found at the following sites: Dick Eastman 30 evidence articles (photos, diagrams, ATC reports, witness accounts etc.) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-d...ameup/messages ANd here is another statement of the same thesis: Eastman-APFN: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman1.htm http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman2.htm http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman3.htm Other investigators fill in other aspects of this mass-murder by Administration neo-con zionists in the Defense Department http://www.freedomfiles.org/war (Neils Groenveld et al.) http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm http://www.911dossier.co.uk/ (Ian Henshaw et al.) http://www.ifrance.fr/silentbutdeadly/ http://www.the-movement.com/Hijackers/Agents.htm (Frank Levin) http://www.communitycurrency.org/pi.html http://www.waronfreedom.mediamonitors.net/index.html http://www.911timeline.net/ http://amigaphil.planetinternet.be/PentagonCrash.html http://www.tomflocco.com/bush_may_invoke_9.htm http://disc.server.com/Indices/149495.html http://www.etherzone.com http://www.antiwar.com http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.html#preface http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/ http://digipressetmp4.teaser.fr/site....php?dosnum=60 http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero....htmhttp://www. http://asile.org/citoyens/numero13/i...gone/index.htm http://alberta.indymedia.org/news/2002/10/4578.php http://hamilton.indymedia.org/front....&group=webcast http://buffalo.indymedia.org/display...rticle_id=3265 ======================== Also something new: From a French investigator I got these questions: Are you sure that Sgt Lagasse is able to make the difference beetween "port" and "starboard". As I teach sailing, I can tell you lot of people get confused with that... And Lagasse doesn't work in the navy Other question : Lagasse says he was fueling his car near "barraks K". Would it be somewhere else than Citgo gas station N 9.5 E 17.5 ? For example N 4.1 E 9.4 He did. He called me on the phone after the interview. He said he saw the plane from the starboard side as it passed by him. I checked his knowlege of starboard and port and he convinced me that he knew the difference and that he has flown aircraft. After he saw the actual Boeing pass by him, he dived in his car and grabbed the police radio -- But then, after looking up again, he saw the the crash of the killer jet (he says it was still the Boeing he was seeing -- but now from behind the plane and at an angle so that he could just see narrowly the "port side" -- and I checked it on the map and this is exactly what he should have seen of the killer plane as it hit goiving his location at the gas station. I conclude that he saw the Boeing pass him -- saw its starboard (right) side, but then, when he looked away and looked back, he saw the killer jet hitting exactly as we know it did hit and exactly as it should have looked from his position at the gas station. He also said that the plane passed him going from left to right, indicating that he was looking at the starboard -- had he viewed the known path of the killer jet from the gas station he would have seen it pass from right to left and seen the port side. He explains this by saying that the plane yawed, that it flew not pointing straight ahead, which he ascribes to the tail rudder being turned extremely to one side. I believe that this is his mind attemping to reconcile the impossible transition of observed orientation of aircraft -- seeing first the Boeing from one position, and then the killer for a split second, at a completely different angle. When Lagasse phoned I took my American Automobile Association road map out and, checking street names against his story located, with him, the gas station as inside the curve to the north made by the columbia pike after it passes the Annex, that he was at the gas station inside that curve in the road, exactly where the gulf station is. The gas stations are one and the same -- |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Defeating the Bunyip
"Scott Vernon" wrote in news:bfu5qk$i817c$1@ID-
154502.news.uni-berlin.de: no can do, I have it Kill filed. good thinking bertie "Capt. Mooron" wrote in message ... Read the post in reply from the Bunyip and you'll realize it's Bertie X-posting every reply. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Defeating the Bunyip
"Uncle John" wrote in message .. . "Scott Vernon" wrote in news:bfu5qk$i817c$1@ID- 154502.news.uni-berlin.de: no can do, I have it Kill filed. good thinking So Bertie, who are our new friends? bertie "Capt. Mooron" wrote in message ... Read the post in reply from the Bunyip and you'll realize it's Bertie X-posting every reply. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Defeating the Bunyip
"Rolly The Pervert" wrote in
: "Uncle John" wrote in message .. . "Scott Vernon" wrote in news:bfu5qk$i817c$1@ID- 154502.news.uni-berlin.de: no can do, I have it Kill filed. good thinking So Bertie, who are our new friends? A rather dim lot, truth be told, slow on the uptake and with extremely questionable sexual appetites, but amusing with it. Bit like one of those Cheesy Brit sex-comedy movies from the '60s. Bertie bertie "Capt. Mooron" wrote in message ... Read the post in reply from the Bunyip and you'll realize it's Bertie X-posting every reply. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
( OT )_The new Pentagon papers | General | |||
Video Tutorial, Tying a Fisherman's Bend | General | |||
Video Tutorial, Tying a Fisherman's Bend | Cruising |