posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 04:57 AM
Thanks for the thoughts, Nick.
Yeah, video tampering is way too easy. They could be covering something up or just adding noise to the system, or just made to look low quality, again
demonstrating Rumsfeld’s concerns that the military was under-funded etc while also obscuring the issue. Or totally legit. I’ve generally taken
them that way, but I dunno.
The tailfin – jeez - near the right height, but the rest of the plane, if a 757, is too far small if it’s as close to the camera as I thin. As for
the trig of the area, that’s what I’m working on now. A lot of steps, a lot of “ranges.” Field of view, angle of attack, and I’ll need to
find a way to correct for the fisheye effect. I don’t know how to do that. Wait, yeah I do. Maybe.
The fires have no good explanation I can see in the official story – they’re admitted and talked about but never explained. Only 2 good poss. I
1) On-site sabotage for whatever reason. I like your explanation and it actually seems half-feasible. Security is breached, we're under attack, dump
the documents. Nah, they'd probably have a better system than that, but it's an interesting thought. It'd have to be something more sinister to
hid, like all the "Able Danger" files.
2) The plane hitting the building in many, scattering, flaming pieces, scattering especially to the north (as the attack angle velocity would urge).
This raises new questions on the impact damage which is consistent with a relatively intact 757, and has only partial corroboration in the eyewitness
accounts. Why it blew up first, if it did, is another story, but could have something to with the cordite smell.