- Status
Nemesis 1
Lifer
- Dec 30, 2006
- 11,366
- 2
- 0
Now on the pentigon crash . Facts ya should look up . how close can a plane that size fly to the ground at that speed and angle of decent. 500 mph . I think not pyhsics says its not possiable look it up figure it out . A 757 can not go 500 mph at 200 feet above ground . Small jets yes large ones no way.
Still haven't seen that secomd hole in building 300 feet from were plane hit /Only 1 hole and that were the engine is . LOL I know what part that was and its to SMALL. Dedunking was a laugh on that one . The ring itself is the wrong design as rolls has explained already.
Still haven't seen that secomd hole in building 300 feet from were plane hit /Only 1 hole and that were the engine is . LOL I know what part that was and its to SMALL. Dedunking was a laugh on that one . The ring itself is the wrong design as rolls has explained already.
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
What fake claim? I offered you far more substantial evidence that the vast majority of engineers throughout the world agree with what happened on 911? You have yet to show me a shred of proof that I'm wrong. I can point to organizations with thousands of members, international credited magazines, publications, and journals, and I can point to two scientific studies of the events of 911 as support for the plane-hit-the-towers theory.
Your entire argument in this thread rests on the belief that something is wrong with the WTC 7 analysis. As just about everyone has admitted here, the WTC 7 collapse is certainly shrouded in the greatest mystery. Without digging into the nitty gritty of what you've said (that's been covered), the question comes back to one simple thing.
Here it is.
If you're right, what does that mean? If I were to concede right now and tell you that I believed everything you've said, you'd still lack an argument.
What you've managed to do here is ignore every single shred of evidence that points one way and focus on the one thing you believe points the other. If there was something shady about the WTC 7 collapse, we have no evidence that there was any wrong-doing, we have no evidence for explosives or thermite or thermate or termites or anything. We have no visual or chemical evidence that explosives were ever planted.
What we do have is a detailed report that covers about 99% of the collapse with such detail and accuracy it can't really be disputed. We have some funky things that happened that are still open to questioning. In fact, many engineers DO question what happened on 911, but they do so within the framework of the planes hitting the towers.
You have a sharp tongue, but unfortunately lack the logical capacity or wit to understand that what I presented to you in the previous post is a mountain of evidence that there is near-universal support for the NIST report. I've showed you that thousands and thousands of engineers are supportive of this story.
Again, I've listed thousands of people that support the NIST, you've listed nobody who doesn't support it.
If you're going to be a child and refuse to engage in any discussion, let's just straighten out what you've failed to answer.
1) You've failed to prove that there is anything wrong with the NIST account of what happened. You keep clinging to the belief you have, but realize that the vast majority of the posters in this thread don't believe you're correct. Even the other people who believe in a 911 conspiracy have not agreed with you. You have not proven anything. I'm not just being a jerk about this point, but you continually claim that your facts are "irrefutable" yet I do not believe a single person has actually agreed with what you've said.
Again, you've basically continued to scream "I'm right!" in the face of pretty damning evidence that you're not.
You haven't convinced ANYONE in this thread.
2) You've failed to address the contextual questions about 911.
You cannot tell me how or why explosives were placed, or even who placed them.
You cannot explain why the government hijacked planes AND planted explosives.
You can't tell me why there isn't a single soul who saw anybody rigging explosives to the building.
You can't tell me why the NIST's report agrees with the planes bringing down the towers and leaves no margin of error on that.
You cannot tell me why there is no circumstantial evidence for explosives.
You cannot tell me why WTC 7 was bombed but not hit by a plane.
You can't even provide a motive for why anybody would do this.
You refuse to commit to the reality that your conspiracy implicates thousands of people, while the true story contains, at most, 50 people.
You cannot tell me if the buildings were brought down with thermite (which truthers claim there is evidence for) or brought down with traditional explosives.
You can't tell me why they used thermite and not a real explosives that, you know, blows up.
Because of the previous two points, you can't tell me why those videos you (I believe it was you) posted about "squibs" would back up your point. Thermite doesn't explode, so those explosions can't be caused by it.
3) Your systematic denial of the reality that guys like Prof Jones are in the small, small minority.
Just to reiterate my point I have cited professional organizations, peer-reviewed journals, and peer-reviewed magazines as proof that nobody in this field agrees with you. The NIST report alone is evidence that thousands of engineers are in agreement. The global silence is further confirmation of these facts. There is not one single peer-reviewed article that takes up your side of the story in a meaningful way. Unless ALL of these people are in on it, you have no support at the top of the field.
Even the evil insurance companies raised no stink about what happened, despite the fact that billions of dollars of their money was at stake.
4) Who was responsible. I covered this briefly earlier, but I'd like to point out that despite your claims to the contrary, any conspiracy you put forth immediately implicates thousands of people, many of whom aren't government employees or anything like that.
So, feel free to ignore me. After all, it's a free country, but just remember what I said earlier:
If your evidence is so irrefutable, why have you failed to convince a single solitary person that you're right?
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
Page 21. Figure 5.16.
Page 8. Figure 1.3.
The second figure is the crash on the outside of the building, the first is the hole made by one of the engines 300 feet to the interior of the building.
Here's a fact you should look up -- a plane can theoretically hit its top speed 6 inches off the ground. Your point is retarded.
If a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, oh holy one, then what did? Jesus?
Nemesis 1
Lifer
- Dec 30, 2006
- 11,366
- 2
- 0
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
I thought I was seeing things reading about a 747 hitting the Pentagon...
Anyhow, evidence for my hypothesis. seeing a fire ball out side the building suggests the plane's fuel was ignited outside the building? The 'angle of attack' would put the aircraft at an angle to the building causing both wings to be sheard off by earth and the building apon contact with both.
1. Not necessarily. This wouldn't have been the first time the CIA blocked investigations by other branches, like the FBI or local authorities. For example, there are reports that the CIA interfered with the 1990 murder investigation of Meir Kahane, and promoted a false theory, as descried here:
Text
Although that doesn't prove or disprove 9/11 either way, the assumption that federal agencies would work together in uncovering the truth is rather naive.
2. The correct answer is that there is no proof of melted titanium pieces, but there are a few solid pieces of an engine found. That does not support the "vaporization" hypothesis. The very notion of any metal pieces of a plane being vaporized on impact or in a jet fuel fire sounds implausible.
3. Doesn't sound like common sense to me. If there was a 3000C fireball which instantly vaporized metal, it would leave no trace of human remains behind.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
The video is a lie. Photoshop! Nobody saw anything, all the eye witnesses were liars, rah rah rah!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12818225/
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
There are like a few different hypothesis bouncing about. Why not just list the hypothesis and the evidence that supports it and then see if there is any evidence that invalidates it.
Finding DNA and matching it to known alleged passengers that were thought to have boarded that aircraft tends to put them at the scene of the crime? It is circumstantial evidence... Usually the strongest kind..
Is there evidence that the DNA was incorrect? Failing that the hypothesis stands...
You cannot say someone coulda faked it.. you need evidence [not proof] that leads a reasonable and prudent person to conclude one way or another... [they accept the evidence as proof or not]
ATM, there is compelling evidence not refuted that a 757 took off from an airport and flew to the pentagon and crashed into it. Can anyone bring evidence that relates to this that may invalidate that hypothesis?
You may have evidence that another hypothesis is possible but that goes to that hypothesis and only goes to this one if it invalidates it or some of the evidence contained in it or augments it.
Finding DNA and matching it to known alleged passengers that were thought to have boarded that aircraft tends to put them at the scene of the crime? It is circumstantial evidence... Usually the strongest kind..
Is there evidence that the DNA was incorrect? Failing that the hypothesis stands...
You cannot say someone coulda faked it.. you need evidence [not proof] that leads a reasonable and prudent person to conclude one way or another... [they accept the evidence as proof or not]
ATM, there is compelling evidence not refuted that a 757 took off from an airport and flew to the pentagon and crashed into it. Can anyone bring evidence that relates to this that may invalidate that hypothesis?
You may have evidence that another hypothesis is possible but that goes to that hypothesis and only goes to this one if it invalidates it or some of the evidence contained in it or augments it.
You didn't address any issues I mentioned. Also, you left out the part how the CIA confiscated any third-party video surveillance footage of the scene shortly after the incident. Nobody even mentioned recovering the black boxes that should have survived the impact.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Well, they have a hypothesis that differs from the one I put forth. IF the evidence is strong enough and there is another hypothesis that is not invalidated then we have two possible scenarios.
Everything is subject to each person viewing the evidence and as 'finder of fact' determines for them selves what is true... fact... However off the wall it may be..
End of the day... we have included everything and then we apply the reasonable and prudent standard...
NO ONE is going to convince me that the 9/11 crash into the pentagon was anything but the Aircraft that had passengers on board... without evidence to the contrary. The evidence is overwhelming! But, I'd agree there is evidence that some other scenario occurred as well. So something is wrong [sounds like Henry Lee] with someone's evidence if they can't mutually exist.
That evidence is the talent to fly the plane unaided by auto pilot for some 6 to 9 minutes and doing what I know to be a manuever requiring extreme talent... the banking at 35 degree attack loop... that is difficult for any pilot to do and to hit the target. One has to visually adjust the degree of bank at the point of the initial attack or they'd be all over the place.. it was smooth as I saw depicted from sources I've forgotten now but accepted as reliable way back then.
Did the terrorist have that kind of talent??
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
You still haven't addressed my two last posts about the eyewitnesses. The reason I didn't address your points is because they are irrelevent until you can refute the threshold question raised by the eyewitnesses. All evidence is not equal. Your layman opinion about the minutae of a crash site doesn't stand against eyewitness testimony of the crash itself from dozens of verified sources. We've established you have no ability to weigh evidence or judge credibility or authority.
2 dozen people witness a car drive straight into a tree, and you want to argue that in your opinion there isn't enough damage on the tree to support what they saw.
I even condescended to respond to your ambiguous WTC eyewitness accounts. What's your explanation for the unambiguous pentagon eyewitnesses? (for the 5th time...)
So says you... you have no proof that your witness testimony is more valid than the one I mentioned. And don't bother replying to my posts with diversions.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
All evidence that is evidence is. How compelling or not that evidence is is determined by the finder of fact. Each of us are finders of fact... Not all of us use the same standard. I use the reasonable and prudent person standard...
Think about a legal case... a bit of evidence indicates with 70 % assurance that person X committed the crime... To the finder of fact it remains 70% but once that finder proclaims guilt or non guilt that accused is either 100% guilty or not guilty... The evidence is determined to have convinced beyond the threshold of doubt or not.
We are speaking to a legal case here. A crime HAS been committed. We have an accused and the defense is hoping to create an alternative accused.
The Judge has said you must qualify Expert witnesses... Direct evidence is like eyeballs on the scene. Circumstantial is like DNA.
If you want to introduce an engine and claim it to be of a sort that a 757 could not use it.. fine, introduce the expert to so testify to that.
Think about a legal case... a bit of evidence indicates with 70 % assurance that person X committed the crime... To the finder of fact it remains 70% but once that finder proclaims guilt or non guilt that accused is either 100% guilty or not guilty... The evidence is determined to have convinced beyond the threshold of doubt or not.
We are speaking to a legal case here. A crime HAS been committed. We have an accused and the defense is hoping to create an alternative accused.
The Judge has said you must qualify Expert witnesses... Direct evidence is like eyeballs on the scene. Circumstantial is like DNA.
If you want to introduce an engine and claim it to be of a sort that a 757 could not use it.. fine, introduce the expert to so testify to that.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,402
- 8,574
- 126
not only that but the people interviewed "as they were told" haven't recanted their accounts. and he ignores the difference between an anchor or a reporter sitting somewhere and an eye witness corroborated by a lot of others whose stories haven't changed or been recanted.
well what's that then?
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter