IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


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.
Tags cit , craig ranke , lloyd england

Reply
Old 5th July 2019, 07:42 PM   #241
rubygray
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 407
Originally Posted by CompusMentus View Post
Ruby, did you read the short study report I linked to in a previous post (#189)?

Reliability of Eyewitness Reports to a Major Aviation Accident

(International Journal of Aviation, Aeronautics, and Aerospace
Volume 1 | Issue 4 Article 9 11-14-2014)

The final sentence of that document concludes thus:-
...
What say you on the validity of the conclusion above?

Compus
I say that 4 independent videos showing Lloyde England's cab beside the cemetery at 9:41 a.m., and being transported to the bridge scene by 9:45 a.m., and a decoy cab vacating the bridge scene just as the tow truck arrived, and Rumsfeld keenly watching all this as it happened, and then despatching his own BODYGUARD in that brown Jeep to find Lloyde and take him back to his relocated cab, where they were all photographed together at 9:55 a.m., is empirical evidence of some heavy-duty malarkey in the highest echelons of government.
rubygray is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2019, 07:47 PM   #242
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,852
non-pilot fooled by 9/11 liar pilots

Originally Posted by rubygray View Post
...
Obviously, a jet speeding at VNE could not possibly have made this manoeuvre.
Any pilot knows that.
757 has no Vne, you debunked yourself again.

Oh, you are a pilot? You are spreading another false claim, a lie, and don't know it because you are repeating a lie made up by 9/11 truth liars, aka paranoid anti-american conspiracy theorists who you blindly believe and repeat lies. You have now plagiarized another lie.

Oops, I am a pilot, you are up to how many lies now?

The 757/767 were flight tested to be flutter free up to 1.2Vd. Was 77 over Vd? Did you try to do any first hand research? 77 impacted the Pentagon at 483.5 knots, and should be flutter free up to 510 knots so if a pilot has an "upset", like a high speed dive, the pilot can save lives! If you believe your Vne lie, stop flying, the planes are not safe! And I am a pilot since 73, have thousands of hours in heavy jets, and investigated aircraft accident, trained as an investigator, and served on boards to investigate, and was board president. Your pilots lied to you, or you got hearsay lies.

The 757 does not have Vne, rational pilots know this because they and I would look it up in the data sheet for certification.

77 was only over Vmo for less than 30 seconds - I have flown a Boeing jet over Vmo, it behaved perfect, excellent control, you have posted another lie.

Better ask a pilot who is not a fantasy believer next time you adopt lies unknowingly.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2019, 07:48 PM   #243
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 17,631
Originally Posted by rubygray View Post
I say that 4 independent videos showing Lloyde England's cab beside the cemetery at 9:41 a.m., and being transported to the bridge scene by 9:45 a.m., and a decoy cab vacating the bridge scene just as the tow truck arrived, and Rumsfeld keenly watching all this as it happened, and then despatching his own BODYGUARD in that brown Jeep to find Lloyde and take him back to his relocated cab, where they were all photographed together at 9:55 a.m., is empirical evidence of some heavy-duty malarkey in the highest echelons of government.

Please name, quote and reference your "witnesses who saw the cab being transported from beside the cemetery at 9:41 a.m, to the bridge scene by 9:45 a.m. and the decoy cab departing the scene just as the tow truck arrived" with their locations plotted on overhead maps, the cab and tow truck movements they witnessed drawn in and signed and dated by their own hands in indelible ink, while recorded on video.
__________________
A z°mbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2019, 07:52 PM   #244
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,852
Originally Posted by rubygray View Post
Your rantings are so dementedly, pointlessly repetitive and vacuous.

Like I said, please name, quote and reference your "Southside eyewitnesses" with their locations plotted on overhead maps, the Flight Paths they witnessed drawn in and signed and dated by their own hands in indelible ink, while recorded on video.

Also include photos and videos of them in those positions within 10 minutes post impact.
And add in their witness statements recorded by official agencies immediately after 9/11.
Projecting again.

What, you can't look up the hundreds of witnesses who debunk your lies.

You lied, said moderate bank angles - the witnesses can't help your flight path you can't draw, or define.

Witnesses can't draw god like flight paths from the ground - they are worthless. You failed again.

FDR, proves all your claims are BS. And you call me demented, as you spread lies about the military and 9/11, mocking the murder of thousands on 9/11.

Your witnesses are pointing to the FDR flight path.

Where is your flight path?

Hundreds of witnesses debunk your claims, and you can't find them. Good job.

you fail to take all witnesses as you cherry pick a few who are pointing to the FDR flight path.
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7li...videncesummary
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7li...gonattackpage2
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 5th July 2019 at 07:53 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2019, 08:06 PM   #245
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,852
Originally Posted by rubygray View Post
...
YOU said he would easily be able to see the tail at that height AGL and distance from the Pentagon.

COMPUTER SAYS NO!!!
Now you are spreading lies about me. I showed you a tail of a Boeing jet from 6000 feet away, and said he would be able to clearly see the tail from 6000 feet. You made up the lie I said he did see it. I never said he did see it, you said he did. I explained clearly with a photo I took from 1NM behind a KC-135, proving it is possible to see a tail from a distance. I never said Smith would be able to see the tail. You should ask me first - I got you to do something, which is more than you have done to come up with lies like the military shot the pole, NoC flight path. if you applied the same research to all witnesses and data, then you would not be spreading lies about 77.

Then I gave you the rope, and you claim he can't see the tail. Then you can't explain which part of the tail he saw, and you don't care. Thus you don't have a witness of anything. What day did Smith make the statement? Who did he make it to?

No clue what part of the tail he saw, so I included a video of a Flyover. Can't see the vertical tail, but you can see the horizontal stab. Which is it? If you can't resolve this issue, you have no witness for an overflight.

So which part of the tail did Smith see? Got a clue, or what?

This is my photo, either I took it cross cockpit or the "copilot" shot it for me. Good chance it is cross cockpit, makes it easier for the co to fly with the aircraft on his side. Who was your pilot who said you can't do less than 8 degrees of bank over Vmo and crash?


You better get some new pilots to advise you, your pilots are spreading lies based on ignorance. We were above Vmo, refueling the SR-71 at the end of refueling. How did we maneuver? lol, you are full of lies and false information.

Got Doppler? Can you explain it yet?
FDR, do you have evidence it is false? Do you know how many hours of flight time the FDR has for 77?
Radar, do you have evidence it is false? No.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 5th July 2019 at 08:08 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2019, 08:09 PM   #246
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
TJM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 21,663
Originally Posted by AJM8125 View Post
then what's your point?
Originally Posted by rubygray View Post
That is the conundrum you need to work out for yourself.
Hang on. Your point is "the conundrum you need to work out for"... Myself?


Really?
__________________


Laughing my ass off as Trump's brown shirts are rounded up, one by one.
TJM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2019, 08:36 PM   #247
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,007
Originally Posted by rubygray View Post
Please name the Southside witnesses.

Also, kindly include signed maps with their locations plotted in, and their sketches of the flightpath as they witnessed it from their positions, and quote their statements made both on or near 9/11, as well as transcriptions of any interviews given since.

Independent video footage and timestamped photographs of these eye witnesses taken within 5 - 10 minutes of impact at those locations would be helpful, even definitýve and inarguable.

I have been looking for these references, with no joy.

Apart from Mike Walter, who stated by midday on 9/11 that he witnessed the plane hit Light Pole #1 on top of the bridge, and that he witnessed the impact - but retracted his story within hours - and has told a variety of conflicting tales ever since.

Also Peter Kopf, whose account to Jeff Hill was totally incoherent.
I mean, if you were willing to put forth such a bold theory, I was hoping you would have most of that information in your own folder.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2019, 09:47 PM   #248
waypastvne
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 538
Quick question Ruby.

When you were studying that photo taken at the Pentagon.




Did you happen to notice this?


waypastvne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 01:25 AM   #249
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 4,025
Originally Posted by rubygray View Post

Apart from Mike Walter, who stated by midday on 9/11 that he witnessed the plane hit Light Pole #1 on top of the bridge, and that he witnessed the impact - but retracted his story within hours - and has told a variety of conflicting tales ever since.
Mike Walter seems quite clear about what he saw. Can you provide any evidence for your claim that he has 'told a variety of conflicting tales'?

https://undicisettembre.blogspot.com...yewitness.html
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 01:38 AM   #250
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 4,025
Originally Posted by rubygray View Post

Also Peter Kopf, whose account to Jeff Hill was totally incoherent.
I have just listened to that interivew, and it was perfectly coherent to me.
I can help you, if you want. Please let me know which parts you're having trouble with, and I'll explain it to you.
He's quite clear what he saw, which was a plane hitting the Pentagon.
http://checktheevidencecom.ipage.com...Jan%202011.mp3
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 01:43 AM   #251
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 32,765
Originally Posted by rubygray View Post
As beachnut stated, sound travels at 1100 fps through air, give or take a few feet dependent on altitude, air pressure, etc.

I used beachnut's own figures for altitude of the terrain + tail of the jet, and distances (which as he has demonstrated, he does not even begin to comprehend).

I placed the jet at 3200 feet from the western face of the building, and the observer at the farthest opposite side of the courtyard, another 900 feet away to the east.
A total of 4,300 feet.

It would take very nearly 4 seconds for the sound of the plane to reach the observer from that distance.

This means that the observer could not hear a plane AT 4,300 FEET DISTANCE, until 4 seconds later.

This is the DOPPLER EFFECT.

Not, as beachnut put it, the "Dopple effect".

That would mean the aircraft engines weren't making any noise until that moment. You do realise that the sound of the engines is continuous and the sound of the aircraft arrived long before it did itself?

This is not doppler effect

Last edited by Captain_Swoop; 6th July 2019 at 01:46 AM.
Captain_Swoop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 01:48 AM   #252
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 32,765
What happened to the aircraft after it flew over?

Why wasn't it seen flying away at such a low altitude and making so much noise?

Where did it land?

What happened to it after that?

What happened to the passengers and crew?

Were they killed when the aircraft landed or were they taken elsewhere and murdered?

WHo butchered their corpses and planted them at the Pentagon?
Captain_Swoop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 01:52 AM   #253
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 4,025
Originally Posted by rubygray View Post
That is the conundrum you need to work out for yourself.

Either many witnesses were lying, or mistaken, or exaggerating,, or many people have misconstrued their testimonies to support the Southside Flight Path.
It's your choice what you believe.

Sgt Chadwick Brooks stated,
"Anything is possible"
when presented with the suggestion that he may have been deceived by a psy-op.

Sgt William Lagasse stated,
"Did I see what the plane did when it got to the Pentagon? NO!

Robert Turcios stated that he could not see the actual impact, because the impact site was lower than the ascending Route 27 between him and the Pentagon.

"MY VIEW WAS ... I COULD NOT TOTALLY SEE WHEN IT HIT THE PENTAGON. ALL I SAW WAS IT HEADED STRAIGHT TO IT. AND AH ... THEN THE BIG EXPLOSION, JUST THE FIREBQLL, AND LOTS OF SMOKE." National Security Alert, 23:10.

He also testified that the plane
"LIFTED UP A LITTLE BIT TO GET OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE BRIDGE HERE ... WHERE YOU SEE THAT DO NOT ENTER SIGN". National Security Alert, 22:40.

But Turcios never said the plane dropped back down again to be low and level with the ground in the 220 yards between the overhead sign and the wall, as seen on the Gatecam videos.

At the claimed speed the jet was flying, it would have covered this distance across the highway and the lawn in just 3/4 of a second.

Obviously, a jet speeding at VNE could not possibly have made this manoeuvre.
Any pilot knows that.
Please link to the complete transcripts of these interviews. Without them, it is impossible to get the context, and thus the full meaning, of these partial and incomplete quotes.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 01:55 AM   #254
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Usk, Wales
Posts: 26,546
Originally Posted by rubygray View Post
I placed the jet at 3200 feet from the western face of the building, and the observer at the farthest opposite side of the courtyard, another 900 feet away to the east.
A total of 4,300 feet.

It would take very nearly 4 seconds for the sound of the plane to reach the observer from that distance.

This means that the observer could not hear a plane AT 4,300 FEET DISTANCE, until 4 seconds later.

This is the DOPPLER EFFECT.
Nope. The Doppler effect pertains to the perceived frequency of a wave form, in this case sound.

Meanwhile ...

The NoC path would require a bank angle of some 80 degrees. A flyover would put a roaring airliner, close to the ground, in plain view of thousands of witnesses in and around DC with their attention drawn to that area by a massive explosion at the Pentagon. Neither happened.

Add the radar FDR, the bodies and DNA found in the building and other physical evidence and your nitpicking about locations counts for diddly.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut

Last edited by GlennB; 6th July 2019 at 02:25 AM.
GlennB is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 02:48 AM   #255
rubygray
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 407
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
That would mean the aircraft engines weren't making any noise until that moment. You do realise that the sound of the engines is continuous and the sound of the aircraft arrived long before it did itself?

This is not doppler effect
You have completely missed the point.
rubygray is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 02:52 AM   #256
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
TJM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 21,663
Originally Posted by rubygray View Post
You have completely missed the point.
Lol

Which is.... ?
__________________


Laughing my ass off as Trump's brown shirts are rounded up, one by one.
TJM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 02:58 AM   #257
rubygray
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 407
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
What happened to the aircraft after it flew over?

Why wasn't it seen flying away at such a low altitude and making so much noise?

Where did it land?

What happened to it after that?

What happened to the passengers and crew?

Were they killed when the aircraft landed or were they taken elsewhere and murdered?

WHo butchered their corpses and planted them at the Pentagon?
That is outside the topic of this thread.
Not my subject.
rubygray is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 03:02 AM   #258
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Usk, Wales
Posts: 26,546
Originally Posted by rubygray View Post
That is outside the topic of this thread.
Not my subject.
Translation: I can't answer those questions as they totally destroy my 'theory', so I'm forced to ignore them.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 04:14 AM   #259
CompusMentus
Waiting for the Worms
 
CompusMentus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Swansea UK
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by rubygray View Post
Are you calling Dennis Smith a liar, then?

I am unfamiliar with Dennis Smith. I believe I have never mentioned him in any post in my time at this forum. He is not quoted in the paper referred to. Why do you single him out and insinuate I call him (or any other witness) a liar? This is a very disingenuous, baseless retort.

Did you not read and digest any of the given report/study paper?

I repeat, the paper concludes with the sentence:-

Originally Posted by ERAU
But the current reported practice by accident investigators of placing low value to eyewitness accounts of aircraft crashes is supported by the empirical evidence.

My bold

You have turned this conclusion on it's head!

Do you not agree with the findings of the report/study?

By the way, plenty of other (free) different articles are available about the reliability (or otherwise) of eyewitnesses to traumatic events. I suggest you read some.


Compus
__________________
Tongue-tied and twisted just an earth-bound misfit
CompusMentus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 04:38 AM   #260
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 32,765
Originally Posted by rubygray View Post
You have completely missed the point.
What point have I missed?
Captain_Swoop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 04:39 AM   #261
CompusMentus
Waiting for the Worms
 
CompusMentus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Swansea UK
Posts: 1,672
BTW Ruby.

Can you please link to your sources of the testimony of Dennis Smith?

I want to learn more of what he says happened to him that day at the pentagon.

Compus
__________________
Tongue-tied and twisted just an earth-bound misfit
CompusMentus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 04:42 AM   #262
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 32,765
Originally Posted by rubygray View Post
That is outside the topic of this thread.
Not my subject.
It is basic to your topic and subject.

You pick away at details while ignoring the main point.

What happened to the passengers and crew?
They were real people on a real aircraft.
Where did it go after it flew over the Pentagon?
How did the dead bodies and remains of the passengers and crew get in to the Pentagon?

Everything else is detail.
Captain_Swoop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 04:46 AM   #263
rubygray
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 407
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
That would mean the aircraft engines weren't making any noise until that moment. You do realise that the sound of the engines is continuous and the sound of the aircraft arrived long before it did itself?
That is not what I am saying here.
I point out that when a sound is made 4,300 feet away, it is going to take 4 seconds to reach the observer. The sound made at that point will not alert the observer to look for the object in that position. By the time the noise is heard, the plane has already moved much further. The sound of the approaching plane increases in pitch; the sound of the departing plane decreases in pitch.

The point is that an observer in the courtyard could not see the tail of the plane approaching on the official trajectory. He could not see the top, the underside, the back, the front. The tail of the plane is hundreds of feet below the observer's field of view at 3,200 feet from the wall of the Pentagon.

The only way he could have seen the plane is if it was hundreds of feet higher, much too high to hit the Pentagon.

If Dennis Smith was correct, that he did see the tail of the plane, then the plane cannot have hit the Pentagon.
rubygray is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 04:50 AM   #264
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 32,765
Originally Posted by rubygray View Post
That is not what I am saying here.
I point out that when a sound is made 4,300 feet away, it is going to take 4 seconds to reach the observer. The sound made at that point will not alert the observer to look for the object in that position. By the time the noise is heard, the plane has already moved much further. The sound of the approaching plane increases in pitch; the sound of the departing plane decreases in pitch.

The point is that an observer in the courtyard could not see the tail of the plane approaching on the official trajectory. He could not see the top, the underside, the back, the front. The tail of the plane is hundreds of feet below the observer's field of view at 3,200 feet from the wall of the Pentagon.

The only way he could have seen the plane is if it was hundreds of feet higher, much too high to hit the Pentagon.

If Dennis Smith was correct, that he did see the tail of the plane, then the plane cannot have hit the Pentagon.
So, where did it go? did the sound ofthe engines just stop as it flew over the building?
Did it become invisible?
What did all the other witnesses see hit the Pentagon?
Captain_Swoop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 04:54 AM   #265
CompusMentus
Waiting for the Worms
 
CompusMentus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Swansea UK
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
What happened to the aircraft after it flew over?
Why wasn't it seen flying away at such a low altitude and making so much noise?
Where did it land?
What happened to it after that?
What happened to the passengers and crew?
Were they killed when the aircraft landed or were they taken elsewhere and murdered?
WHo butchered their corpses and planted them at the Pentagon?

Originally Posted by rubygray View Post
That is outside the topic of this thread.
Not my subject.

The subject of Captain Swoop is very much inside the topic of this thread.

You insist the aircraft flew over the Pentagon. It is then pertinent and inevitable to ask such questions the Captain puts forward. Your reluctance to answer indicates an element of cognitive dissonance.

Compus
__________________
Tongue-tied and twisted just an earth-bound misfit
CompusMentus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 05:06 AM   #266
rubygray
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 407
Originally Posted by CompusMentus View Post
BTW Ruby.

Can you please link to your sources of the testimony of Dennis Smith?

I want to learn more of what he says happened to him that day at the pentagon.

Compus
Don't we all want to know more, but alas we are doomed to disappointment.

There is no way to reconcile this testimony with the FDR and radar data, and the plane hitting the Pentagon at ground level as shown in the Gatecam videos.

But I am sure Mr Smith would be offended if his testimony was disbelieved.

His statement from 10/01/01 was apparently recorded in the Government Executive Magazine. This short paragraph is all I am aware of, on the 911research.wtc7.net site.

"Dennis Smith, a building inspector and former Marine, was smoking a cigarette in the center courtyard when he heard the roar of engines and looked up in time to see the tail of a plane seconds before it exploded into the building."
rubygray is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 05:37 AM   #267
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,693
Originally Posted by rubygray View Post
"Dennis Smith, a building inspector and former Marine, was smoking a cigarette in the center courtyard when he heard the roar of engines and looked up in time to see the tail of a plane seconds before it exploded into the building."
So, you take half of the supposed quote from him and turn that into a flyover even tho he says it exploded into the building? Lady, this is so stupid there is no way to fix the thought or non-thought it takes to come up with such nonsense. It's actually so harmless it doesn't even need anyone here to debunk it. It is self debunking.
__________________
[Noc]

Last edited by Reheat; 6th July 2019 at 05:54 AM.
Reheat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 06:37 AM   #268
CompusMentus
Waiting for the Worms
 
CompusMentus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Swansea UK
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by rubygray View Post
"Dennis Smith, a building inspector and former Marine, was smoking a cigarette in the center courtyard when he heard the roar of engines and looked up in time to see the tail of a plane seconds before it exploded into the building."

And from this very brief statement you decide this is evidence that the plane must have flown over the building!?

I just did a short Google search of Dennis Smith. I found a transcript of an interview with the man. It's in the form of a .gif file (which makes it harder to block quote) ETA it's a .pdf file but I can't edit or copy paste from it.

Which can be viewed in full here:-

Pentagon Attack. Interview with Dennis Smith October 29 2001

Here are some short pertinent excerpts from Dennis Smith's statement:-

(Page numbers in quotes)

Originally Posted by Pages #2-3
Putney Could you talk about what you were doing on September 11, just prior to the crash, and how you heard about it?

Smith I was inspecting work and had to come back to the office to do paper work. I noticed everyone was coming into the conference room that we are in now. There is a big screen TV that is always on to important news. I saw the planes hit the World Trade Center. Like everyone else, I felt that sadness in my heart. I went outside and was talking to some contractors. All of a sudden we heard engines, not the normal sound for the planes overhead. When I was in the Marines I was in the Air Wing and I am used to the sound of the engines. This one had the pedal to the metal and was coming in fast. We turned around and saw the upright part of the tail, and then it hit. The concussion came into the center court with a bang. There was a big, giant ball of fire, red and black, and the heat hit us like from a barn fire. Then Parts started flying out of the sky.

Smith then describes aircraft parts at the scene:-


Originally Posted by Page 3
I noticed that the nose gear of the plane had gone through the wall on the A&E drive and a tire and part of the front stem of the plane were sitting there.

He then describes his efforts to rescue survivors and elaborates about what he saw and his position at the time of the crash:-


Originally Posted by Page 6
Putney Where did you enter?

Smith Here, on the 3rd and 4th Corridor apex. When it happened, I was standing at the 1 and 2 Corridor apex, which gave me a clear view. That's when we heard the engines come up, saw the tail come up, and an instantaneous flash. I gave this assessment when it happened.

Notice anything interesting in the quotes above Ruby?

Compus
__________________
Tongue-tied and twisted just an earth-bound misfit

Last edited by CompusMentus; 6th July 2019 at 06:50 AM. Reason: Clarity. Correction.
CompusMentus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 06:51 AM   #269
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,644
Originally Posted by rubygray View Post
If Dennis Smith was correct, that he did see the tail of the plane, then the plane cannot have hit the Pentagon.
Originally Posted by rubygray View Post
Are you calling Dennis Smith a liar, then?
Between "correct" and "liar" there's "wrong".

Humans are known to be wrong sometimes. You can't presume that every witness is either lying or correct. Lying requires saying false statements intentionally. In an event that took everyone by surprise and lasted something in the order of 2 seconds, it's quite normal to be wrong.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 07:05 AM   #270
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,380
Originally Posted by CompusMentus View Post
And from this very brief statement you decide this is evidence that the plane must have flown over the building!?

I just did a short Google search of Dennis Smith. I found a transcript of an interview with the man. It's in the form of a .gif file (which makes it harder to block quote) ETA it's a .pdf file but I can't edit or copy paste from it.

Which can be viewed in full here:-

Pentagon Attack. Interview with Dennis Smith October 29 2001

Here are some short pertinent excerpts from Dennis Smith's statement:-

(Page numbers in quotes)




Smith then describes aircraft parts at the scene:-





He then describes his efforts to rescue survivors and elaborates about what he saw and his position at the time of the crash:-





Notice anything interesting in the quotes above Ruby?

Compus
What I noticed in the report from him:
Quote:
I went over toward where the plane hit--went into 3/4 Corridor
So regardless of whether he saw the tail or not he knew it crashed into the building, not flew over the building. rubygray fails on this and every other attempt to find another "truth" on everything concerning the Pentagon attack.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 07:11 AM   #271
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,982
<edit: i missed a couple of posts quoting Smith directly> It seems like that report of Dennis Smith's experience is somewhat removed from being a first hand account. For a start it's written in the 3rd person, and attributed to a magazine article. Do we have any indication of when it was written?

I'm not going to dispute that Smith could not have both seen the plane's tail and heard it crash into the building. That kind of anomaly doesn't surprise me in a witness report into a crash, though. He may indeed genuinely think he saw part of the plane.

The claim that he could not have heard it makes no sense though. The plane would have been audible right through its approach. The time delay in the noise arriving (not the doppler effect) does not mean nothing could be heard, only that at any point in its approach a listener at the Pentagon would have heard the sound it emitted when it was further away.

Last edited by Jack by the hedge; 6th July 2019 at 07:14 AM.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 09:51 AM   #272
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,852
Radar and FDR, valid evidence, hearsay fails again

Originally Posted by rubygray View Post
Don't we all want to know more, but alas we are doomed to disappointment.

There is no way to reconcile this testimony with the FDR and radar data, and the plane hitting the Pentagon at ground level as shown in the Gatecam videos.

But I am sure Mr Smith would be offended if his testimony was disbelieved.

His statement from 10/01/01 was apparently recorded in the Government Executive Magazine. This short paragraph is all I am aware of, on the 911research.wtc7.net site.

"Dennis Smith, a building inspector and former Marine, was smoking a cigarette in the center courtyard when he heard the roar of engines and looked up in time to see the tail of a plane seconds before it exploded into the building."
This is not a quote from Dennis Smith, it is hearsay. Therefore it is not valid evidence. FDR, real evidence, your quote from a reporter, hearsay. You lost this round, better move on to Bigfoot, you can use the same evidence, Wild Speculation.

It was not his testimony, it was an article in a magazine or such. Thus you have hearsay, and you are failing to recognize the FDR is real, not hearsay.

Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon, in a dive, from higher terrain. You have not looked at the FDR? No wonder you are so gullible, you don't have any skills or training in research relative to aircraft and reality.

Radar is valid evidence, and as an American, as a USAF officer, I find your claims to be an insult to all Americans, and myself. Your sick claims based on fantasy.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 10:41 AM   #273
CompusMentus
Waiting for the Worms
 
CompusMentus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Swansea UK
Posts: 1,672
From that Dennis Smith transcript I presented (see post #268)

Originally Posted by Dennis Smith Oral History
I noticed that the nose gear of the plane had gone through the wall on the A&E drive and a tire and part of the front stem of the plane were sitting there.

Ruby, how did these remnants of an aircraft get to where Smith saw them? Within a very short time of the plane crashing?

Have you read that transcript? Do you have any further thoughts on this mans testimony there?


Compus
__________________
Tongue-tied and twisted just an earth-bound misfit
CompusMentus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 10:48 AM   #274
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,380
Originally Posted by CompusMentus View Post
From that Dennis Smith transcript I presented (see post #268)


Ruby, how did these remnants of an aircraft get to where Smith saw them? Within a very short time of the plane crashing?

Have you read that transcript? Do you have any further thoughts on this mans testimony there?


Compus
She quit reading at the sentence where he saw the tail.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 12:25 PM   #275
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,959
Originally Posted by CompusMentus View Post
And from this very brief statement you decide this is evidence that the plane must have flown over the building!?

I just did a short Google search of Dennis Smith. I found a transcript of an interview with the man. It's in the form of a .gif file (which makes it harder to block quote) ETA it's a .pdf file but I can't edit or copy paste from it.

Which can be viewed in full here:-

Pentagon Attack. Interview with Dennis Smith October 29 2001
Thanks for posting that. Not just because it shoots rubygray down in spectacular fashion, but because it's a dramatic reminder of what really happened at the Pentagon on 9-11.

Typical CTist move, misread a quote from a witness whose full, and accurate testimony destroys the CTist's claims.

What else do we have?

"The plane pulled up over the bridge."...There is no bridge, just an overpass, and it's level, lacking an arch.

"The cab was parked near the cemetery."...That cemetery is Arlington, once traffic stopped EVERYONE was parked by the cemetery.

Let's not forget the cab on a tow truck. I could be wrong but I suspect there might be more than one Taxi cab in Washington D.C.

I mean there's low hanging fruit and then there's whatever this silliness is.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 06:23 PM   #276
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,852
Smith is a witness for 77's impact, and rubygray has no clue

Originally Posted by rubygray View Post
That is not what I am saying here.
I point out that when a sound is made 4,300 feet away, it is going to take 4 seconds to reach the observer. The sound made at that point will not alert the observer to look for the object in that position. By the time the noise is heard, the plane has already moved much further. The sound of the approaching plane increases in pitch; the sound of the departing plane decreases in pitch.
oops, you failed to use Google Earth, or what?
At 3200 feet, flight 77 would be at most 4042.13 feet away from the furthest observer. Thus it would take 77 about 4 seconds to hit the Pentagon, and the sound from 3200 feet would arrive before 3.67 seconds. But the sound is continuous, not from one point in time. From the courtyard you would look up if you heard a 757 at full throttle that close, it is the closest you have ever been to a full throttle jet in your entire life (for most people).

IT does not matter how you twist hearsay of what Smith might of said, the FDR and Radar are real evidence.

BTW, your required flight path would take more time to arrive at the Pentagon, with over 80 degrees of bank on a curved flight path pulling high g force.

Originally Posted by rubygray View Post
The point is that an observer in the courtyard could not see the tail of the plane approaching on the official trajectory. He could not see the top, the underside, the back, the front. The tail of the plane is hundreds of feet below the observer's field of view at 3,200 feet from the wall of the Pentagon.
Are you sure. What about when 77 was 6000 feet away at 3000 feet? Or did he see debris which looked like a tail ejected over the wall at the impact zone. Did you see the debris from impact flying up in view of the CourtYard? You failed to see it? I saw it.


Originally Posted by rubygray View Post
The only way he could have seen the plane is if it was hundreds of feet higher, much too high to hit the Pentagon.
Thus your witness is a liar? In the court yard he could see debris flying over the Pentagon. To be a flyover witness he would see the entire plane.

You can't tell anyone which part of the tail he saw, and refuse to find out. Thus you don't have a witness, you have an article from a magazine. The FDR wins this one.

Originally Posted by rubygray View Post
If Dennis Smith was correct, that he did see the tail of the plane, then the plane cannot have hit the Pentagon.
For the fantasy flyover, all in the courtyard would see a giant 757 flying at a few feet above the Pentagon. This is the ultimate failed cherry picking of witnesses. Using one witness, ignore hundreds, and the FDR, and Radar.

Wrong logic, he could have seen debris ejected from the impact, which would match human perception reaction time.

You have hearsay, we have Radar, and FDR, real evidence you can't refute, and never will. Bigfoot is more suited for your wild fantasy speculation.

What is moderate bank angle?
Where is your flight path?
Witnesses on the ground below the flight path can't draw a flight path, by using those flight paths you prove no skill at flight related investigations.

When will you post your flight path, which of those flight path drawn by witness will you pick, they are all fake, not what an aircraft does, and beyond the ability of any witness to be accurate.

If you want the real flight path, it is in the Radar data, and FDR. If you want wild speculation based on failed interpretation of hearsay, go with Bigfoot.


NOTE: BTW, Smith saw the vertical fin, or if you prefer vertical stabilizer and rudder. Thus you are not much of a researcher, and more of a spreader of absurd lies. Lies void of evidence.


Originally Posted by rubygray View Post
... There is no way to reconcile this testimony with the FDR and radar data, and the plane hitting the Pentagon at ground level as shown in the Gatecam videos. ...
WHAT? You never tried to reconcile his testimony with the FDR and Radar data. Another lie. You never tried! Never tired to reconcile any testimony with the FDR, and Radar, to include simple things like hearing the terrorists push up the throttles to Full Throttle. You never tried, and instead you make up lies of my fellow soldiers in the USA shooting a pole into a cab. (note - the gate camera has fisheye lens)

On a great note, you might of missed, you have possibly proved Smith was not in the courtyard, and saw the tail (in this case the vertical stabilizer) while he was talking with people where he could see the vertical stabilizer go by. Why did not figure what part of the tail he saw? Faulty investigation? or what?
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 6th July 2019 at 07:14 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2019, 11:24 PM   #277
The Common Potato
Critical Thinker
 
The Common Potato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: The Scunthorpe Problem
Posts: 410
The CIT team (arggh) and rubygray maintain that witnesses who see a plane, an explosion, but not the actual impact can be discounted. Earlier today I took a quick pic from my sofa - had to force myself to stop watching the excellent television programme.

My living room has three windows. Now and again a delivery van drives past. My view of the van is obscured for a fraction of a second by the walls between the windows. Using CIT / rubygray logic it is quite unreasonable of me to assume that my views of the van through windows 1, 2 and 3 are in fact of the same van.

It that simple enough or should I consider that BT, Morrisons, etc are all part of the delivery Illuminati?

Last edited by The Common Potato; 8th July 2019 at 01:22 AM. Reason: typo
The Common Potato is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2019, 01:52 AM   #278
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 32,424
Originally Posted by rubygray View Post
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
That would mean the aircraft engines weren't making any noise until that moment. You do realise that the sound of the engines is continuous and the sound of the aircraft arrived long before it did itself?

This is not doppler effect
You have completely missed the point.


If your aim here is to demonstrate to everyone that you're not only shockingly ignorant but also arrogant enough to believe that you don't even need to check whether you might have got anything wrong, you're doing a great job. However, that's not a particularly effective way to establish the credibility of your deductions.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2019, 01:57 AM   #279
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 32,424
Originally Posted by rubygray View Post
I point out that when a sound is made 4,300 feet away, it is going to take 4 seconds to reach the observer. The sound made at that point will not alert the observer to look for the object in that position. By the time the noise is heard, the plane has already moved much further.
An observer does not look at a position; he looks in a direction. Given that the plane was flying more or less directly towards Smith, looking in the direction of the point the plane was at 4 seconds previously must have been the same direction as that of the point the plane was at when he looked. So your whole "Doppler effect" line of argument is as nonsensical as it is scientifically inept.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2019, 09:36 AM   #280
carlitos
"mßs divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 22,863
Originally Posted by The Common Potato View Post
The CIT team (arggh) and rubygray maintain that witnesses who see a plane, an explosion, but not the actual impact can be discounted. Earlier today I took a quick pic from my sofa - had to force myself to stop watching the excellent television programme.

My living room has three windows. Now and again a delivery van drives past. My view of the van is obscured for a fraction of a second by the walls between the windows. Using CIT / rubygray logic it is quite unreasonable of me to assume that my views of the van through windows 1, 2 and 3 are in fact of the same van.

It that simple enough or should I consider that BT, Morrisons, etc are all part of the delivery Illuminati?
If the van was moving through windows 1 and 2, but disappeared before you saw it in window 3, and you simultaneously heard, saw and felt a giant explosion, then the only logical conclusion is that the van flew over your home.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:51 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.