|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
4th December 2013, 06:06 AM | #521 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
4th December 2013, 06:08 AM | #522 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
4th December 2013, 06:46 AM | #523 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
|
Well look at that, SoG finally returns. Of course he does not return with an answer to the big question posed to him many times and which he has been promising an answer for what, two months now? Rather he returns with a change of subject since he was getting has arse whooped on the previous topic. What a shock. But hey,... he's back.
Now SoG, as for feeding your inquisitive mind... It is becoming quite clear to me why you hold fast to so many bad ideas. You base them on very bad information. The 16-foot hole in the Pentagon was the exit hole on the inboard side of C-Ring, not the entry hole on the exterior of the E-Ring. The exit hole was created by the nose landing gear and a blast of high-velocity air since Flight 77 as an aircraft had by this point ceased to exist as anything more than millions of high-velocity fragments. For the size of the entry hole we can refer to page 35 of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE's) Pentagon Building Performance Report: "The width of the severe damage to the west facade of the Pentagon was approximately 120 ft. (from column lines 8 to 20)." Surely as a keen student of the 9/11 attacks you must have already read this however and be familiar with the data. I post this merely as a reminder. Just to be clear, here is the entry hole: http://truthalliance.net/Portals/0/A...Pentagon10.jpg (Note: bigger than 16-feet) Here is the 16-foot exit hole: http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notable...n/P200032.html And here they are together so you can make proper sense of their locations in relation to each other: http://911truth.tripod.com/hole1.jpg http://911review.com/errors/pentagon...3_grandes2.jpg Since conspiracy theorists love Youtube videos so much here is a computer animation that I think may help address any other un-resolved questions you may have on this matter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDd...layer_embedded I sincerely hope that helped. I a curious why you chose to concentrate on just one anomaly you could not understand rather than look at all of the available evidence of what happened at the Pentagon. Why for example do you not consider: Radar data which positively tracks Flight 77 from take-off to impact. FDR data recovered at the site which confirms the radar data. 136 witnesses who saw Flight 77 hit the Pentagon and importantly, zero witnesses who saw anything else. The remains of everyone aboard Flight 77 being recovered at the site. The admission by the airline and its insurers that it was Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon. The fact that Flight 77 took off that morning and neither the aircraft or anyone on board were ever seen alive again. The downed light poles, damaged tree and dislocated external diesel generator. The mountains of aircraft debris recovered at the site which came from Flight 77. The personal effects of passengers and crew from Flight 77 recovered at the Pentagon site. Now, having been provided with accurate data as to the size, source and location of the disputed holes, plus the overwhelming physical evidence do you still think this is a "ridiculous Pentagon lie"? If you don't think Flight 77 hit the Pentagon even after all of that would you care to explain what did and of course what happened to Flight 77 and everyone aboard in a way that explains all of the physical evidence? And most importantly, please explain how and why Larry Silverstein engineered the attack on the Pentagon as part of the cover-up for his insurance scam at 7 World Trade Center. I eagerly await the next long silence, followed by evasion and yet another change of subject. |
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts. |
|
4th December 2013, 10:03 AM | #524 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,258
|
|
4th December 2013, 10:04 AM | #525 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,258
|
.
This would make a nice sticky at the first page... a 'must read' for all posters. . A simulation/real world comparison... the comments are typically asinine. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8 |
4th December 2013, 10:12 AM | #526 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,712
|
|
4th December 2013, 10:34 AM | #527 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
|
Say, sparky, i noticed that some have already pointed out some of your more egregious errors, so I'll just mention that there were no structural "internal" walls on the first level of the pentagon where the plane hit. You are suffering from that same failure of research evidenced by SO many truthers, sport.
|
4th December 2013, 10:45 AM | #528 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
16 foot hole??
The photos of the Pentagon clearly show(before collapse) that ~100 feet of the ground floor wall is missing. There is a 20 foot diameter missing section of wall, mostly at the second floor level, that corresponds to the location where the fuselage would have entered. SoG, illustrating his ignorance yet again. |
4th December 2013, 11:17 AM | #529 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
|
By that measure we can also conclude he has conceded that Larry Silverstein did not order the FDNY to blow up 7 World Trade Center so he could lose millions of dollars in an insurance scam.
Since I am eagerly anticipating a dodge on the whole Pentagon issue shortly what does that leave us with? |
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts. |
|
4th December 2013, 11:37 AM | #530 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
What are you talking about?. Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, I have the RADAR data from several RADAR sites which prove it, and in the US we are able to ask for the data. We have all the DNA from the passengers except the small child you now make fun of by your own ignorance of science and making up silly vaporization of wings, and engines. Is this the best you have, silly talk? Where is your overwhelming evidence like the rest of 911 truth. 12 years of failure.
http://www.history.navy.mil/library/...tagon_9-11.htm What is your story, again? Details? Anything? How many people are in your fantasy cover-up run by PNAC, with the Dick Cheney army of one, a shotgun to shoot his friend...? LOL, you can see the wing tip makes on the Pentagon. The impact energy was bigger than a 1000 pound bomb. If you are saying there was no plane at the Pentagon, it puts you in the fantasy camp of woo branch of 911 truth lies and idiotic claims. I have been at aircraft crashes, I have "owned" the site after fire handed off the crash site; and I organized looking for parts, some ejected hundreds of feet, from inside the cockpit. You seem to have no idea what a crash site looks like, or how to do the math and physics to understand the damage. You have failed to study the scene. 12 years and it seem you have devoted an hour finding BS, and then unable to make up a story, you settle for spreading nonsense. A low speed crash, E=1/2mv2, run the numbers for a 180 mph crash vs a 483 KIAS crash at the Pentagon and learn why the tail was destroyed. Try to the to hard stuff, math and physics, and some critical thinking. A pilot tries to crash slow, better chance of life. Pentagon, high speed impact, not much of the plane retains the shape of a plane, more like a shotgun blast in the shape of a plane. oops, a landing gear part, did not vaporize, but it did knock a hole in the Pentagon because it was going 483 KIAS, FAST - getting in the way of a 483 knot stainless steel strut might be dangerous... Oops, Flight 77 was in the Pentagon because of speed, and E=1/2mv2, a mathematical model of the energy of impact... Got Physics? What? Is that a NO? Aircraft skin and shell melt in fire, quickly. Part ejected all over the Pentagon area. Tons of parts - did you miss this; is research too hard, like math and physics? There are thousands of part from 77 in this photo - verified from 77 by RADAR, or logic, or process of elimination. And, then checking the remains, the DNA matches the Passenger manifest. oops, evidence, tons of it, ignore by a fringe few to push lies and silly fantasy. oops, an image search of (flight 77 engine inside the pentagon), shows an engine from 77. oops - did not vaporize. Did you make up the vaporize stuff to make fun of me when you fail to make sense? https://www.google.com/search?q=flig...w=1536&bih=750 You could get your own set of RADAR data - thus your fantasy has to add everyone who collected the data, manned the RADAR sites, etc, to your fantasy. Then the people who collected the DNA, the Army, the Navy, Dod, etc. A fantasy is your story, one you can't explain or flesh out. What is your point? Why can't you support and back up any of the silly "24 hard facts" put together by a failed journalist who spreads nonsense? http://www.collective-evolution.com/...t-be-debunked/ Which silly one is your favorite? Which silly fantasy is your best evidence? How can a "journalist" be so ignorant? The living terrorists is a real winner. It comes down to how we research, and how to logically determine what happened based on facts. People who understand how to think and make logical decisions based on sound judgment (using reality based knowledge), are not fooled by nonsense like the "24 hard facts", which are delusional conclusions based on ignorance and faulty logic. https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7li...gonattackpage2 |
4th December 2013, 01:39 PM | #531 |
Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Central Jersey
Posts: 235
|
You know as well as I do that 911 Truthers prefer the much simpler method of copy-pasting endless amounts of woo from 911 kook sites and JAQing off to random CT videos on Youtube. It's funny when they talk about being "enlightened" and that we're all sheep, when literally 8 year olds could carry out their form of "research". They have been blissfully ignoring the fundamental aspects of physics, engineering and mathematics since day one.
Speaking of 8 year olds... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFVoencqfZw LOL! |
__________________
"Science is like sex: sometimes something useful comes out, but that is not the reason we are doing it." ― Richard Feynman |
|
4th December 2013, 01:41 PM | #532 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
It takes no effort to remain in ignorance. 911 truth nonsense is proof.
A skeptic forum is not the place to come when your bag of evidence is empty. The thread is about woo - http://www.collective-evolution.com/...t-be-debunked/ The woo is debunked with reality, logic, and science - https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7li...videncesummary |
4th December 2013, 05:48 PM | #533 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,202
|
|
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine "The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus |
|
4th December 2013, 05:51 PM | #534 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,202
|
|
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine "The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus |
|
4th December 2013, 10:18 PM | #535 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
|
Originally Posted by sonofgloin
You have yet to post anything not purloined from Truther websites. Things debunked for a decade already. Please feel free to provide a shred of original thought. |
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence." |
|
5th December 2013, 12:09 AM | #536 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
|
Language Justin no more ******* thanks. lol
Yes sport it is the Pentagon...fully equipped with anti aircraft batteries that will fire on any aircraft within range with the wrong transponder. The right transponder being the ones in US military aircraft....well they didn't fire at the commercial air liner...why? |
5th December 2013, 12:18 AM | #537 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,632
|
|
5th December 2013, 12:31 AM | #538 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
|
I ask again...where do you get your diatribe from?
I believe the youtube statement of the Janitor at the WTC, William Rodriguez, was awarded a bravery medal at the White House by GWB himself. But his testimony to the 9/11 commission was held in private....he told them of ongoing explosions at basement level....Those commissioners who were not on site at 9/11 threw his testimony out with the garbage.... so he has become a youtube witness. One minute he is honoured, the next he is scorned...he was there...you and I were not. His testimony and those of firefighters at the scene during the event all have explosions as their theme...ground and lower floor explosions....unless you can come up with an at the site at the time testimony to rebuff what they saw and heard I run with their experiences. I recall the day and the news links all discussing the ongoing explosions, and when the towers fell into their own footprint all of those around me accepted that the explosions that everybody, including Juliani spoke about was the cause....next day nope...no explosions...the bloody things just fell. |
5th December 2013, 12:51 AM | #539 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,214
|
|
5th December 2013, 01:03 AM | #540 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
|
Excellent name is Erwin, congratulations to your folks....anyway we are talking about the most protected air space on the globe mate.
The D56 airspace has protection zones...3...17....and 50 miles from the capital precinct, it has its own radar tracking system and its own military response protocol. Andrews is ten miles down the road....the flight controllers at Dulles were tracking the thing for heaven sake....and a handful of Arabs that couldn't fly a bleeding Cessna overcame the might of the American military....pull the other one, it plays jingle bells sport. |
5th December 2013, 01:07 AM | #541 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
|
|
5th December 2013, 03:13 AM | #542 |
Safely Ignored
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,392
|
Cool story, but can you flesh it out a bit? How about you describe the 'toasting' procedure which was in place before 9/11? Perhaps you could tell us about the chain of command or rules of engagement. Whose authority was required to, for example, shoot down a hijacked airliner? Whose job would it be to shoot it down and what weapons would they use?
|
5th December 2013, 04:15 AM | #543 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,632
|
|
5th December 2013, 04:30 AM | #544 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
|
|
5th December 2013, 04:40 AM | #545 |
Safely Ignored
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,392
|
Perhaps it would help if you explained how you 'know' this. I'm asking because I don't know. I mean, I very strongly suspect there was no agreed procedure in existence authorising shooting down a hijacked airliner if it strayed within a certain distance of the Pentagon. Maybe you know different. Maybe you just read a claim about it on some nutcase website. I don't know, so I'm asking. What have you got?
|
5th December 2013, 06:21 AM | #546 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
|
I am curious if you spend even a moment vetting any of the material you use or if you really think you can just sneak anything past the folks on a skeptics forum? I mean, this stuff may fly on Loose Change or Lets Roll but here?
Seriously? Tell us about these anti-aircraft batteries that will fire on any aircraft within range of the Pengaton. What sort of anti-aircraft batteries are they? Gun? Missile? What type and model? Who operates them? Air Force? Army? What unit are they from? How many of these batteries are there? Where are they located? Can you point them out on Google Maps? The likely candidate systems - MIM104 Patriot and MIM-23 Improved HAWK - both require large, very obvious battery sites to operate from. Should be no problem spotting them. Speaking of maps, have you looked at a map of Washington DC? What is effectively right next door to the Pentagon, just to the southeast? http://www.bing.com/maps/default.asp...7&sty=a&lvl=15 Are those runways? Is one of them pointing right at the Pentagon? Doesn't that mean that hundreds of commercial flights would be flying right over the Pentagon - at very low altitude - every single day as they come and go from Reagan International, all of them pinging incorrect non-military transponder signals? Are you saying every day thousands of civilians - or perhaps some foreign dignitaries - are splattered all over the DC landscape automatically? Why have we not heard about this? Would we shoot down a visiting Vladmir Putin if his aircraft pinged the wrong code? Global thermonuclear war anyone? Why in 2001 did the Pentagon and only the Pentagon require air defenses with such a loose ROE? And what threat were these phantom missile batteries there to defend against? Were we concerned Portugal was planning an attack? I only ask this because I went through all of my old editions of Jane's Land Based Air Defense going back to 1994 and I could not find a single reference to any air defense system of any kind protecting the Pentagon or even Washington DC. Reviewing satellite image of the entire DC area reveals no battery sites of any kind, excepting the broken up remains of old Nike Hercules sites decommissioned 40 years ago. So far you have been wrong about Larry Silverstein orchestrating 9/11 as part of a badly failed insurance scam. You were wrong about Flight 93. You have done everything possible to avoid trying to give a rational, coherent and comprehensive explanation as to what you think happened on 9/11. And now you are dead wrong about air defenses at the Pentagon. Does there come a point where you tally up everything you have been wrong about combined with your inability to provide any rational explanation for what you think really happened that day and decide that maybe, just maybe you have been wrong this whole time? Do you ever begin to reconsider your position? Or do you just forget any of that ever happened and move on to the next piece of obvious woo you wrongly think you can sneak past us? |
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts. |
|
5th December 2013, 09:18 AM | #547 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,712
|
No, you told us what you thought. You don't know that flying hijacked planes in that airspace is impossible, you think it is.
Now, tell me about the US air order of battle in the unrefueled range of the hijacked aircraft. How many fighter aircraft were on alert with a defensive counter air payload? What were those aircraft doing? |
5th December 2013, 10:22 AM | #548 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
Do you have examples of aircraft entering these zones and having been 'toasted'?
(please separate your list into pre and post 9/11 for comparison) I would expect that such a shootdown near a sensitive military installation would make the news yet I find nothing when I search. Obviously you have sources for this info that I am missing. Furthermore, while I am quite sure that many installations actually have AA and SAM batteries there has to be an ROE and SOP regarding their use and operation. Your propisition seems to be that ROE/SOP/ is "Shootdown any aircraft entering into a zone". In the case of the Pentagon that 'zone' would have to be within a few hundred yards of the structure since aircraft coming and going from Regan need to be allowed to do so. Making it any further out would effectively close that airport. |
5th December 2013, 10:44 AM | #549 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,258
|
50 years ago between semesters at college, I had a summer job with the Corps of Engineers in Wash DC, as a construction inspector. I visited several Nike Ajax sites around the DC area, but none were in it. ISTR going to a Nike Hercules site.. vaguely.. but it too was miles from DC.
And ISTR some "Skysweeper" AAA sites... one outside DC in MD. With all the news coverage of the Pentagon attack, not a one of them managed to get a photo of all the defenses in and around the Pentagon. In my mind, shooting the bad guy down miles from the target is better than having the flaming debris fall ON the target. Probably cause a traffic jam, at the very least. |
5th December 2013, 11:31 AM | #550 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
|
5th December 2013, 11:38 AM | #551 |
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 501
|
The soap opera involving Willy Boom Gonzales and white house officials was another episode to add smoke to accusations that white house was involved in 911 attacks. The accusations can not be valid since in reality no attacks on America happened that day. The explosions Willy heard were smoke machines releasing obscurants. It could be that some people heard these explosions, or they saw low level smoke coming out. The view on the towers would be still fair. Later they begun making guesses as to what was the purpose of explosions that could not have been initiated by the impact from the plane. So the guesses progressed and coincided with the first no planers beginning circling loops around the towers. The smartasses had no option but to come around with the nonsensical story with dr evil of white house Washington. It was so stupid that most people refused to bother with it and by extension with everything 911. Willies angle was aggressively marketed at the same time Loose Change and similar storylines appeared with the goal to introduce the so called truther to a big audience and make the audience go away. The truther has not been deactivated but hangs low these days. More of a simulation than the real deal.
|
__________________
There is no escape from truth.
|
|
5th December 2013, 12:19 PM | #552 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,159
|
You mean "P-56"? I've been teaching people to fly for a few years and never heard of a "D" designation.
Anyway, a civilian aircraft on a flight plan gets hijacked at a time when NO ONE had ever used them as weapons and the protocol was to sit back, wait to see what the hijackers wanted, and try to negotiate into a position where they could be captured or taken out without unduly risking innocents, why would it be surprising. Did it ever occur to you that everyone was just flat out stunned at the way this all played out? |
5th December 2013, 12:23 PM | #553 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,712
|
|
5th December 2013, 01:09 PM | #555 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
|
|
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts. |
|
5th December 2013, 03:55 PM | #556 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,097
|
|
5th December 2013, 04:09 PM | #557 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,202
|
|
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine "The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus |
|
5th December 2013, 04:14 PM | #558 |
Devilish Dictionarian
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
|
|
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles |
|
5th December 2013, 05:08 PM | #559 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
Odd thing about Will Rodriguez, he was interviewed by NIST as were many witnesses. His only testimony, his choice, was to complain about management's lax attitude wrt the cleanliness of the fire stairs, locked doors and similar.
|
5th December 2013, 06:41 PM | #560 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,202
|
|
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine "The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|