Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
So your'e saying the "should" and "actual" pictures are exactly the same diminsionally. I didn't even point out the small fact that the contrast was spiked on the doctored photo.
|
I was speaking to the mistake of the person who made the first photo, and my mistake for posting it. I didn't mean that it was your mistake. Apologies if it seemed like I was directing that at you. I was trying to take responsibility for a mistake, that's all.
The rest of the post was about rectifying my mistake.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
The most glaring is the part about the tail. You're assuming the airplane remained solid and kept its shape throughout the entire crash. Airplanes look solid but they're really not. They're made out of aluminum - their skin is very THIN aluminum, to save weight. They're flying soda cans. The instant that plane's nose hit the reinforced concrete wall of the pentagon the entire plane started to crumple. By the time the tail got to the wall, who knows what position it was in. It could have been horizontal for all we know, and that's assuming it was still in the shape of a tail. The reason the planes did so much better against the WTC is because the WTC was not made of reinforced concrete. It was not designed to withstand an attack. The pentagon was.
|
No, I'm not making any assumptions about the tail at all. The pictures of the crash make it obvious where the tail WOULD have been, but my post above is about the size of the plane before it hit the wall. I'll argue about the crash itself after we settle this.
Again, my point from the post above is that the aircraft in the first picture is obviously not the same size as a Boeing 757-200, so there is a pretty substantial discrpency between the official story and the truth. If that isn't a Boeing 757-200, then it couldn't be the now infamous flight 77 that went missing.