ISF Logo   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 pentagon , popular mechanics

Reply
Old 17th March 2008, 09:08 PM   #201
TC329
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,453
Originally Posted by Pardalis View Post
No, it's you acting like a paranoid lunatic. One rational person asks for authentication without jumping to the most insane conclusion.

ETA:

Just look at your reaction to the picture:



You stated it was a hoax and then you asked for authentication.

Is that rational?
I stated it was a hoax because the first 2 years I started researching this stuff I focused solely on the Pentagon and nothing else.

I'm not new to this. I know the evidence. I have gone over it with a fine tooth comb.

The landing gear wasn't in any of the debris created at the C-Ring.
TC329 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 17th March 2008, 09:08 PM   #202
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,111
Originally Posted by TC329 View Post
Please show all the experiments where planes crash into buildings and disintegrate into circular balls of fire and leave nearly perfectly circular exit holes.
Here is how it works. You are making up false information about a lot of different 9/11 topics. Since you have no ability to understand KE and physics, you need to study up on some subjects so you can understand how this can happen, and stop making up false statements based on ignorance of physics and science. Hearsay and talk does not equal a good understanding of physics. Your debate is limited due to lack of understanding energy and lack of evidence.
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 17th March 2008, 09:11 PM   #203
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Originally Posted by TC329 View Post
I stated it was a hoax because the first 2 years I started researching this stuff I focused solely on the Pentagon and nothing else.

I'm not new to this. I know the evidence. I have gone over it with a fine tooth comb.

The landing gear wasn't in any of the debris created at the C-Ring.
Maybe it isn't part of the debris of the C-Ring, maybe it was pushed there by the cleaning operations. Nobody is claiming that this is proof that the landing gear caused the hole.

This doesn't mean it's a hoax or a fraud.

That's paranoid talk.
Pardalis 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 17th March 2008, 09:15 PM   #204
Totovader
Game Warden
 
Totovader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,321
Originally Posted by TC329 View Post
That's right the burden of proof.

As in I present something the burden of proof falls onto me.

If you present something than the burden of proof falls onto you.

I show a pic of UA93 debris and say "New Baltimore" I have to prove it.

You show a pic of AA77 debris and say "Exit Hole" and I have to disprove it.

YOU ARE DOING IT BACKWARDS.
Wrong. You are stating that the exit hole at the C-Ring could not have been caused by any part of a plane.

That claim requires an extraordinary amount of evidence- it has exactly none. The claim that the hole in the C-Ring was caused by the impact of a plane is well supported, and widely accepted in the scientific community- in fact, it's only a few nutjobs who refuse to accept the evidence.

Quote:
As for being a "troll" I'm the only one here really making a real case for what caused the hole in the Pentagon. Sorry if analogies confuse you, but they are often the best way of getting through a thickened skull.
You are not presenting analogies- you are derailing the discussion by taking something that is entirely unrelated and then attempting to shift the burden of proof.

Quote:
I am not "trolling" and I have never been accused of being a "troll". Everything about me is public information. I'm not some anonymous armchair researcher claiming to know what did or didn't happen at the Pentagon.
You can be a troll and not be anonymous. The point of addressing your behavior was to get it to stop. You are attempting to derail this thread to avoid the fact that several people have pointed out and will continue to point out: demanding some sort of definitive answer on what particular piece of unintelligible debris caused the damage to the C-Ring is irrelevant and pointless. It is no different- and just as useless- as attempting to identify exactly which sections of the plane damaged each individual column: it serves no other purpose but to ignore the evidence, claim a "hole" in the "theory" (read: the widely held scientific version of the events) and then insert a ridiculous and unsubstantiated claim to fill a void that isn't even there.

It's complete and total rubbish and you know it- that's why you need your non-sequitur "analogy" to avoid the actual issue.
__________________
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." --Jonathan Swift
Blog - Corrected By Reality. My debunking videos, and philosophy on YouTube


Totovader's 9/11 Conspiracy Challenge Still unanswered!
Totovader 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 17th March 2008, 09:23 PM   #205
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by twinstead View Post
Well, since to them it's a foregone conclusion of inside job, ALL this had to have been faked. No need to explain how, no need to even look at corroborating evidence that it indeed WASN'T faked.

Once a conclusion is made I suppose any evidence that contradicts it is irrelevant. This can present problems if that conclusion is made before any evidence at all is examined, but that's nothing that a good irrational conspiracy theorist can't overcome.
When a mind is sufficiently powerful all it takes is one fact to deduce the entire universe.
tsig 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 17th March 2008, 09:33 PM   #206
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,266
Originally Posted by TC329 View Post
Thank you for your honesty. It is a welcomed breath of fresh air. I know those of you not on my side of the argument would not accept such standards from me.

So I think we can all come to a general agreement that until this photo can be verified as authentic it should be dismissed from this argument.
No, that is not what I'm saying. Once again, I'm saying that we should not rest the burden of proving the entire Pentagon narrative on the landing gear image, or any of the other photos posted by Henry. I am saying that his images are a tantalizing indication of what may have caused the Ring C hole, but I also admit that the landing gear may have been put there after the fact in the course of either rescue or cleanup operations. Either way, I sure as heck am not trying to say "it should be dismissed from this argument". Far from it.

Originally Posted by TC329 View Post
There are many images available of the exit hole and none of them have this landing gear in it. I have a ton from the the Leo Titus collection I believe, I don't know if there are any uncommon ones in there but there's quite a few pics that have only become available to the American people because I obtained copies of them. I could check and post them. There are also many images available across the net.
Those would be valuable too.

Originally Posted by TC329 View Post
What if I presented a photo of a UFO and claimed someone from NASA sent it to me but no one was able to find out who he was or validate it as authentic. Would you accept that it is authentic as the default for that?
That's not really the same situation, though, is it? Most times, people claiming to have UFO images are trying to prove the whole concept by presenting a single image, or small collection of them ('Look, here's a picture of a flying saucer. From NASA even! It must be true!'...). And because it's swimming upstream against the current body of knowledge we have about aliens - or rather, the obvious lack of influence or even visitation from such (unless you buy into von Dšniken, but that's a whole other thread in a whole other forum) - it is merely logical to call into question the providence of such an image, especially when the claim is that such an image is from NASA. I'd expect to hear such news from NASA directly, not from someone in casual conversation, so from that alone, I'd suspect the claim of it being from NASA.

But in the case of the landing gear image, or the rest of Henry's pictures, that doesn't apply. Again, we're not trying to hang the whole narrative of the Pentagon on 9/11 on that single picture of the gear, so the only need that exists to validate it is due to fairness and oppositional request, not out of any conviction or indication that the image has zero value without such validation. That specific image fits and makes sense when considered against the established body of knowledge built from items that have nothing to do with the landing gear (the witness testimony you tried to rebut earlier, for example, or the ATC radar evidence... or the DNA evidence... etc.). That right there provides an indication that it and the others pictures of possible engine debris are legitimate. Add that to the fact that the collection is not a dramatic "smoking gun", like a UFO picture would be, but rather is a series of pictures documenting a relatively mundane activity - Cleaning up after the impact - and you have an argument that the images were not taken in order to fit some agenda or "prove" some issue, but rather were taken to document a scene without consideration to the uses they'd be put to.

Does that "validate" the images as in establishing who took the pictures as well as the location and date of their taking? No, of course not. But it does argue against them being a "hoax".
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus 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 17th March 2008, 09:34 PM   #207
Totovader
Game Warden
 
Totovader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,321
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
My position regarding what happened at the Pentagon is, "I don't know what happened, I would like to know what happened." Every explanation that I've heard can't seem to account for all the evidence, this goes for the standard explanation, and the fly-over theory. So there is no reason for me to draw conclusions when the evidence is ambiguous.
There is no reason for you to accept the evidence when it destroys your fantasy, you mean.

There is no such thing as evidence that is ambiguous- such a claim doesn't even make any sense and it shows a tremendous amount of desperation.

Quote:
Because we have to post a certain number of posts before we are allowed to post links. I wasn't sure if I had met that limit. Besides, I mentioned your website so what is the big deal?
You did not mention my website or the fact that I did answer your question- in fact, you said quite the opposite. The fact that you cannot post a direct link does not prevent you from mentioning where the discussion can be found. The fact that you had to take the entire discussion out of context shows just how fraudulent your claim is.

Quote:
Yes, all the conjectures for what caused the hole are mutually contradictory because they all can't be true and why is there no effort among the debunkers to resolve them?
There is no need to resolve them- as I pointed out in my answer to your claim. The "conjectures" are not the "official story" they are people discussing what could have specifically caused the event in a non-specific way- there is no need for specificity, and you are specifically looking in places where there would not be.

Quote:
Totovader wrote at his website regarding the controversy within the 9/11 Truth Movement, "They donít seem to understand that each of these theories contradict each other and any act to resolve those contradictions will lead to the conclusion they must avoid: that theyíre all horribly, horribly wrong." Yes, these theories do contradict each other and members of the 9/11 Truth Movement do understand this. That is why Steven Jones left Scholars for 9/11 Truth to found his own group.
Here- again- we can see you trying to obfuscate the issue. When I was discussing contradictions- and what you originally replied to claiming that contradictions exist within the "official story" was not this post.

The post you are referring to, here does not have any discussion from you, because your original claim of "a contradiction of the C-Ring" was posted, here, where I am talking about specific contradictions within claims themselves. You are trying your turn at an equivocation fallacy- instead of owning up to the concession you already made.

Quote:
What was your answer to what caused the hole in the C-Ring? If it was caused by the plane, then how was this hole created? Why is the hole the shape, size, it is etc? No, I didn't run off. You don't answer in questions so why should I waste my time. As well, my brother asked the same question over and over again on one of your youtube blogs and you never answered the question either. Please, tell me what I have lied about?
You lied when you said I did not answer your question.

That answer is well-documented, here, and you were not only notified about that reply, but you posted several comments within it avoiding the issue, I might add.

Your "brother" spoke exactly as you did, made the exact same claim you did, tried to revert back to JAQing off, and then has just been mindlessly repeating the same nonsense over and over. "He" made the same errors you made. Apparently, neither of you even read the post I made, and neither of you are capable of recognizing your errors.

Remember what I quoted: when you have arrived at a contradiction, check your premises; you will find that one of them is wrong.

You did not present a contradiction, you presented several uninformed people making guesses as to some things that did not require any greater amount of specificity. You then pretend as if that lack of specificity or consistency is evidence for something.

It is not.

Nor does it excuse you from providing evidence to support your absurd claim- something you and your "brother" absolutely refuse to do.
__________________
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." --Jonathan Swift
Blog - Corrected By Reality. My debunking videos, and philosophy on YouTube


Totovader's 9/11 Conspiracy Challenge Still unanswered!
Totovader 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 17th March 2008, 09:37 PM   #208
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
I'm sorry to be so blunt TC but the only way to get through to people like you is to tell it like it is. If you want to be taken seriously you have to let go of the paranoid shtick

You start from the conclusion that the government is guilty of the crime and work your way backwards from there, and every evidence or argument that comes and contradicts that belief is therefore dismissed as a fraud and part of the conspiracy.

That's nonsense because there is no reason to think so. A rational person usually does the opposite, it assumes there is no conspiracy until proof of one is found. If along the way contradicting evidence is shown, it only proves that you have more work to do to try and explain these events rationally. It doesn't mean that this new evidence is fraudulent and placed there to undermine you. To always suspect that there is something nefarious behind everything is just paranoia, it's unhealthy and counter-productive.

Last edited by Pardalis; 17th March 2008 at 09:39 PM.
Pardalis 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 17th March 2008, 09:49 PM   #209
Totovader
Game Warden
 
Totovader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,321
The summary here is this: The question of "What caused the hole in the C-Ring?" is a complex question fallacy because it is actually a statement in itself.

There is no reason whatsoever to doubt that the hole in the C-Ring- like all the other damage- was the result of a plane impact. To demand specifics (for no reason) is really to make the statement that the hole in the C-Ring is somehow anomalous- which, of course, it is not.

By committing this fallacy, conspiracists hope to feign healthy curiosity and replace it with outright lunacy- they claim that not knowing exactly what plane part caused the hole means that it must have been a missile or drone.

The claim that a lack of evidence is evidence for something is fallacious. They take it one step further: they make a claim that has absolutely no evidence whatsoever, and expect it to be taken seriously- and believe that this "anomaly" makes the mountain of evidence supporting a plane crash just suddenly disappear.

To conspiracists, it's not about recognizing the evidence, conceding to reality, and using critical thinking skills- it's about discrediting the idea by inventing absurd reasons to reject tiny portions of the evidence- often in the most ridiculous and nonsensical ways- in order to ignore all the evidence, and then insert a theory which has no evidence.

Conspiracists: you do not simply get to reject evidence you do not like for no reason. If you are attempting to claim that the hole in the C-Ring is entirely inconsistent with the impact of a plane, and could not have been caused by a plane- then you need to provide your evidence. Claiming that there is no evidence of a plane crash is absurd, and easily debunked.

The fact that this very obvious point continues to be ignored speaks volumes about the position about the so-called "Truth" Movement and it's entirely unscientific claims.

If you want to be taken seriously by the rest of the world, stop making claims you cannot support, and stop rejecting evidence just because you don't like it.
__________________
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." --Jonathan Swift
Blog - Corrected By Reality. My debunking videos, and philosophy on YouTube


Totovader's 9/11 Conspiracy Challenge Still unanswered!
Totovader 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 17th March 2008, 10:03 PM   #210
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,266
Oh, I missed this earlier. My apologies.

Originally Posted by TC329 View Post
PROOF?
The BTS site that you yourself presented earlier.

Originally Posted by TC329 View Post
Flight N644AA not scheduled to fly on 9/11 is alleged to have crashed right near where Flight N644AW landed a minute later.

Other than USA Today reporters eyewitness accounts of the plane vary although the majority appear to agree on the plane being white which is more consistent with the American West Flight than the American Airlines Flight.
Are you trying to say that America West FL98 might be what people saw? And are you building your argument strictly on the proximity that flight's scheduled landing time?

To be honest, that's a stretch, especially considering the proximity of times. Are we certain that it was also taking the approach that flies over the Pentagon? There are at least two different approaches to that airport (listed here; if there are others, I'll let pilots or other aviation-heads in this forum post about that), and you've provided no evidence that HPFL98 was taking an approach that would coincide with the path AAFL77 ended up taking.

ETA: I just tripped over this:
http://www.airnav.com/airport/KDCA

Under "IAPs - Instrument Approach Procedures", there are downloadable pdf's describing landing approaches for that airport, but I am not a pilot, and I am very lost in regards to understanding them. I must defer to any aviation junkie on this forum who understands such documents.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."

Last edited by ElMondoHummus; 17th March 2008 at 10:06 PM. Reason: Found more approach info for Reagan Intl.
ElMondoHummus 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 17th March 2008, 10:04 PM   #211
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
Originally Posted by A W Smith View Post
Oh Really? it is a hoax until its proven otherwise?
Of course. Conspiracy believers tend to work on the principle of "guilty until proven innocent." I've seen this tendancy a fair amount around the forum.
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."
Corsair 115 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 17th March 2008, 10:43 PM   #212
tanabear
Critical Thinker
 
tanabear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 286
Originally Posted by Totovader View Post
There is no reason for you to accept the evidence when it destroys your fantasy, you mean.
What is my fantasy? I stated I don't know everything that happened regarding the Pentagon attack and neither do you.

Quote:
There is no such thing as evidence that is ambiguous- such a claim doesn't even make any sense and it shows a tremendous amount of desperation.
The totality of the available evidence does not allow us to come to any firm conclusions regarding the Pentagon attack.

Quote:
You did not mention my website or the fact that I did answer your question- in fact, you said quite the opposite. The fact that you cannot post a direct link does not prevent you from mentioning where the discussion can be found. The fact that you had to take the entire discussion out of context shows just how fraudulent your claim is.
I wrote to you, "So let me ask a question. What caused the hole in the C-Ring of the Pentagon? p.s. Is this your final answer?"

You wrote, "Is that my final answer? No, I reserve the right to change my position- and in fact often do- based on the available evidence. Thatís what science is."

That is not an answer. Unless your answer is, I don't know.

Quote:
There is no need to resolve them- as I pointed out in my answer to your claim. The "conjectures" are not the "official story" they are people discussing what could have specifically caused the event in a non-specific way- there is no need for specificity, and you are specifically looking in places where there would not be.
So the government has no obligation to resolve the conflicts within the official story? Then who does? Then what is the official explanation for the hole in the C-Ring of the Pentagon?

Quote:
You lied when you said I did not answer your question.
You didn't. I asked you what caused the hole in the C-Ring then you gave a bunch of vague non-answers. So what is your answer?

Quote:
Your "brother" spoke exactly as you did, made the exact same claim you did, tried to revert back to JAQing off, and then has just been mindlessly repeating the same nonsense over and over. "He" made the same errors you made. Apparently, neither of you even read the post I made, and neither of you are capable of recognizing your errors.

Remember what I quoted: when you have arrived at a contradiction, check your premises; you will find that one of them is wrong.

You did not present a contradiction, you presented several uninformed people making guesses as to some things that did not require any greater amount of specificity. You then pretend as if that lack of specificity or consistency is evidence for something.

It is not.
I told him that no matter how many times you ask Totovader the question, "What caused the hole the C-ring, he is never going to answer that question." He set out to find out. Apparently, I was right. You even banned him for three days. All you had to do was answer a question. This you were not capable of doing, because you don't know the answer. Pretending that you do just makes you look silly.

What contradictions have I arrived at?
tanabear 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 17th March 2008, 11:08 PM   #213
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
[Q:] What is my fantasy? I stated I don't know everything that happened regarding the Pentagon attack and neither do you.

[A:] The totality of the available evidence does not allow us to come to any firm conclusions regarding the Pentagon attack.
I believe you just answered your own question.

Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
So the government has no obligation to resolve the conflicts within the official story? Then who does? Then what is the official explanation for the hole in the C-Ring of the Pentagon?
You seem to be really good at ignoring my answers in every thread.

The hole was caused by dynamic pressure. A mixture of debris, aircraft chunks, liquid fuel, building pieces, and deflagrating fuel hit the wall. Nobody knows or cares just what percentage was caused by large chunks, by small chunks, or whatever. The placement of the hole lines up exactly with the expected pressure caused by the aircraft impact.

That is the official explanation. Read the Pentagon BPR. It's several years old.
R.Mackey 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 17th March 2008, 11:44 PM   #214
Henry62
Student
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 34
Smile

Hi guys,
I didn't know you were discussing about the photo in the A-E Drive of the Pentagon building.

There are some important news:

- I identified the author of the photo: he is a member of a FEMA rescue team;

- I identified a man who was there when the photo was taken;

- the man is an eyewitness of that photo and the man was a member of FEMA rescue team too; from his message to me:

"I was there when the picture was taken and worked in the same area for multiple days. I was moving material with the skid steer in the picture."

- I know when the photo was taken.


The photo is not a fake.
I cannot tell you more, because I must protect my witnesses ' privacy.

I know you understand.

-------------------------------------------

Dear friends, I have a great surprise about WTC: now I cannot speak, but I ask you just to have patience


-------------------------------------------

Ciao from Italy,

Enrico - Henry62
Henry62 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 17th March 2008, 11:53 PM   #215
uk_dave
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,154
oooooooooo I love surprises!

So far we've had countless failures by the 'truth' movement, but where's the surprise in that?
uk_dave 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 18th March 2008, 12:11 AM   #216
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by TC329 View Post
my standard is not accepting fake/unproven evidence.

show me out of the 80+ videos AA77 on the Official Flight Path and I'll jump over to your side of the fence tomorrow.
Why would we care what side of the fence you are on? Careful there's a lot of bulls on your side. Step carefully.
tsig 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 18th March 2008, 12:23 AM   #217
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,111
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
What is my fantasy? I stated I don't know everything that happened regarding the Pentagon attack and neither do you.

The totality of the available evidence does not allow us to come to any firm conclusions regarding the Pentagon attack.

What contradictions have I arrived at?
You should state your fantasy. There is enough evidence to understand how the terrorist flew 77 into the Pentagon, unless you believe those from9/11 with no evidence and you like their hearsay, false information drawn conclusions.

Yes, the attack was a terrorist who took 77 and flew it into the Pentagon. That seems very complete except for people who do not have research capabilities, logic, and rational thinking. It is not hard to understand the damage to the Pentagon if you can calculate kinetic energy. The impact of 77 can be calculated, and as studies will back it up very close to 2000 pounds of TNT (equal energy, anyone can calculate this figure by using Energy is equal to one half the mass times the velocity squared. You see the velocity squared figure makes for a lot of energy when you use your head to think about it. The major problem in the 9/11 truth movement seems to be the lack of understanding of basic physics and comprehension. If someone applies a little logic and tries to learn, instead of blind faith in the 9/11 truth false information campaign of ignorance, they can understand all of 9/11 science issues. You seem to have no knowledge on this topic at hand. So how much energy did you calculate flight 77 had when it impacted the Pentagon?

Your inability to think rationally does not mean the evidence can be ignored so you can make up some story you fail to articulate, or support.

If you fail to state your position, how can anyone help you understand some terrorist took 77 and flew it into the Pentagon?
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 18th March 2008, 12:46 AM   #218
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by TC329 View Post
See how it works?

Now reverse it. The "debunkers" presented the evidence. Prove it is legitimate.

Who took the picture? (i.e. verify authenticity you must get confirmation from the source)

When did they take the picture? (i.e. was it taken on 9/11 or on 9/16 after being cleaned out of the Pentagon?)
We have photos of the aircraft and office debris sitting on top of a piece of sheet rock with smoke still coming out of the building right in front of the punch out. It was there immediately after the accident. It would have been difficult in the extreme to have knocked out that hole and planted the debris ahead of time, so don't even suggest that it was done. Someone would have noticed and would, by now, have come foward demanding the head of their idiot boss on a guidon for trying to kill them.
leftysergeant 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 18th March 2008, 01:22 AM   #219
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
 
jhunter1163's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes.
Posts: 25,097
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Why would we care what side of the fence you are on? Careful there's a lot of bulls on your side. Step carefully.
This word is three letters too short.
__________________
A mÝÝse Ýnce bit my sister
jhunter1163 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 18th March 2008, 02:20 AM   #220
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
So maybe this America West flight was what the witnesses at the Citgo saw when they thought that the aircraft making all the noise was passing to the wrong side of the station? The effects of sound baffling can be pretty disorienting at that range.
leftysergeant 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 18th March 2008, 04:00 AM   #221
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,689
Originally Posted by TC329 View Post
Flight N644AA not scheduled to fly on 9/11 is alleged to have crashed right near where Flight N644AW landed a minute later.

Other than USA Today reporters eyewitness accounts of the plane vary although the majority appear to agree on the plane being white which is more consistent with the American West Flight than the American Airlines Flight.
TC; How did you determine and verify this? Please don't say by the "on-time" data on the BTS site.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 18th March 2008 at 04:01 AM.
DGM 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 18th March 2008, 04:29 AM   #222
TC329
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,453
Originally Posted by Pardalis View Post
I'm sorry to be so blunt TC but the only way to get through to people like you is to tell it like it is. If you want to be taken seriously you have to let go of the paranoid shtick

You start from the conclusion that the government is guilty of the crime and work your way backwards from there, and every evidence or argument that comes and contradicts that belief is therefore dismissed as a fraud and part of the conspiracy.

That's nonsense because there is no reason to think so. A rational person usually does the opposite, it assumes there is no conspiracy until proof of one is found. If along the way contradicting evidence is shown, it only proves that you have more work to do to try and explain these events rationally. It doesn't mean that this new evidence is fraudulent and placed there to undermine you. To always suspect that there is something nefarious behind everything is just paranoia, it's unhealthy and counter-productive.
I voted for GWB in 2004 and use to attack anyone who said 9/11 was an inside job.

You don't know me.

Don't tell me I start off with conclusion A and work backwards. You couldn't be further from the truth.
TC329 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 18th March 2008, 06:16 AM   #223
Totovader
Game Warden
 
Totovader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,321
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
What is my fantasy? I stated I don't know everything that happened regarding the Pentagon attack and neither do you.
That is precisely your fantasy- to claim that it is a requirement that "everything" be known, otherwise you can insert any number of ridiculous claims regarding your own position on the attack: IIRC that was the Global Hawk for you.

Quote:
The totality of the available evidence does not allow us to come to any firm conclusions regarding the Pentagon attack.
That statement is entirely absurd.

Quote:
I wrote to you, "So let me ask a question. What caused the hole in the C-Ring of the Pentagon? p.s. Is this your final answer?"

You wrote, "Is that my final answer? No, I reserve the right to change my position- and in fact often do- based on the available evidence. Thatís what science is."

That is not an answer. Unless your answer is, I don't know.
That is certainly an answer- it's just an answer you don't like. You want someone to commit to an answer so that you can reject the claim that "we know"- because you need to know an absurd level of specificity. As if that was not ridiculous enough, you want to try and claim that a lack of specifics in something meaningless means that it must be an anomaly.

Quote:
So the government has no obligation to resolve the conflicts within the official story? Then who does? Then what is the official explanation for the hole in the C-Ring of the Pentagon?
You're repeating yourself- and contradicting yourself. You already conceded this is not a contradiction within the official story. Are you now changing your mind, again?

Quote:
You didn't. I asked you what caused the hole in the C-Ring then you gave a bunch of vague non-answers. So what is your answer?
I will not continue to repeat myself on this. You had a whole new post as your answer- you know it's there because I have not only pointed it out several times, but you posted in it.

Quote:
I told him that no matter how many times you ask Totovader the question, "What caused the hole the C-ring, he is never going to answer that question." He set out to find out. Apparently, I was right. You even banned him for three days. All you had to do was answer a question. This you were not capable of doing, because you don't know the answer. Pretending that you do just makes you look silly.
That makes no sense.

Quote:
What contradictions have I arrived at?
Read what I wrote again.
__________________
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." --Jonathan Swift
Blog - Corrected By Reality. My debunking videos, and philosophy on YouTube


Totovader's 9/11 Conspiracy Challenge Still unanswered!
Totovader 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 18th March 2008, 06:18 AM   #224
Totovader
Game Warden
 
Totovader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,321
tanabear - Maybe you or your "brother" could answer the following question and clear some of this nonsense up:

If you are asking what specific piece of the plane caused the hole in the C-Ring, WHAT DOES IT MATTER?

We all know the answer to this, of course- but you have been dodging this for quite some time. You claim to be JAQ, but that doesn't make any sense. As I pointed out above your question is fallacious- my blog entry addresses that.
__________________
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." --Jonathan Swift
Blog - Corrected By Reality. My debunking videos, and philosophy on YouTube


Totovader's 9/11 Conspiracy Challenge Still unanswered!
Totovader 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 18th March 2008, 06:38 AM   #225
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
If many explanations have been given, then that means you don't know how the hole was created. There might be many plausible explanations for what happened to Jimmy Hoffa, but they can't all be right. If someone offers many explanations, then that is another way of saying that you are uncertain. There should be one explanation for how this hole was created. Until this explanation is forthcoming it is entirely appropriate to keep asking questions. The explanations put forth by the defenders of the official story are done to end the questioning around the events of 9/11.



My position regarding what happened at the Pentagon is, "I don't know what happened, I would like to know what happened." Every explanation that I've heard can't seem to account for all the evidence, this goes for the standard explanation, and the fly-over theory. So there is no reason for me to draw conclusions when the evidence is ambiguous.
There was a time when I would give "Question Seekers" arriving here the benefit of the doubt. That time has passed. Blame your lunatic obnoxious associates within the TM for that. You are a truther, IMO, until I find sufficient proof in your posts to show otherwise.

Your infantile assumption that there should be ONE explanation for such an anomaly says enough. THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH FACTS KNOWN to make a ONE EXPLANATION, the explanation. Too many variables with unknown values. The investigation, as a whole, was thorough and detailed, but that does not mean that they were able to collect enough evidence, to reach a ONE AND ONLY conclusion concerning the C-Ring.

Besides, it is only important to CT WING NUTS. From the perspective of the investigators, who used logic and common sense, along with the facts to determine that an airliner hijacked by arab jihadists caused the Pentagon crash, the relevance of the C-Ring hole is MINIMAL at best. As a result, i am sure they did not give it the detailed (ad infinitum) investigation YOU and YOUR TM MORON FRIENDS would have loved. They were spending their valuable time collecting DNA, Plane parts, etc...

To most SANE, RATIONAL people in this world, there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence pointing to passenger Jet Airliners hijacked by Arab Jihadists causing the 9/11 attacks. You have noone to blame but yourself, and your inability to comprehend, combined with paranoia, if you do not see this.

TAM
T.A.M. 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 18th March 2008, 06:39 AM   #226
Totovader
Game Warden
 
Totovader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,321
Here's what your "brother" said on the topic yesterday- admitting what his fantasy is on the issue:

Originally Posted by Ewilds
My claim is that I don't know what caused the hole in the C ring. Your claim is that you do know what caused the hole in the C Ring, but yet refuse to provide a specific answer. Why can't you provide a specific and definitive answer? Because you don't know either.

Therefore, it makes perfect sense to continue to investigate the "incident" at the Pentagon because the full story is yet to be told.
(from my youtube video)

We can see that my statements above regarding your claims are entirely correct (along with my blog entry). By claiming "we can't know", you can insert any number of ridiculous claims to take the place of that void you have invented. In this case by ignoring all of the evidence, pretending as if there is some sort of question as to what hit the Pentagon, and then rejecting all of the answers- you can insert the claim that there needs to be "more investigation". That, of course, is not your complete answer- because you want that investigation to uncover a drone or missile.

It's simply absurd to claim that we don't know what hit the Pentagon- it's a pathetic tactic used by those who are just barely smart enough to recognize that claiming that it was a missile or drone outright is easily debunked, but living in the world of the ambiguous and uncertain means that anything goes. You don't need evidence- you don't even need to make a claim- just as long as you keep rejecting the knowledge and evidence that the rest of the world accepts.

Complete nonsense- and we can see this by the fact that neither of you can answer the following: what would it take for you to admit that a plane hit the Pentagon?

Apparently witnesses, flight path damage, video of the impact, plane debris, serial numbers, DNA and personal items from the victims, the recorded events of the day, etc are not enough and leave some sort of ambiguity or uncertainty in your minds... well, then what would it take?
__________________
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." --Jonathan Swift
Blog - Corrected By Reality. My debunking videos, and philosophy on YouTube


Totovader's 9/11 Conspiracy Challenge Still unanswered!
Totovader 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 18th March 2008, 06:41 AM   #227
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by Totovader View Post
It's simply absurd to claim that we don't know what hit the Pentagon- it's a pathetic tactic used by those who are just barely smart enough to recognize that claiming that it was a missile or drone outright is easily debunked, but living in the world of the ambiguous and uncertain means that anything goes. You don't need evidence- you don't even need to make a claim- just as long as you keep rejecting the knowledge and evidence that the rest of the world accepts.
very well said, and very true.

TAM
T.A.M. 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 18th March 2008, 11:00 AM   #228
TC329
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,453
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Here is how it works. You are making up false information about a lot of different 9/11 topics. Since you have no ability to understand KE and physics, you need to study up on some subjects so you can understand how this can happen, and stop making up false statements based on ignorance of physics and science. Hearsay and talk does not equal a good understanding of physics. Your debate is limited due to lack of understanding energy and lack of evidence.

Heres how it works.

A hypothesis is formed. If A and B happens then the result is C. Said hypothesis is tested and results equal C. It is tested again and results equal C. Everytime the experiment is tested the result equals C.

I understand KE and physics. Since you are in disagreement with me then you believe a 757 hit the Pentagon and "turned/disintegrated/evaporated or whatever" into a circular ball of fire that punched out the C-Ring hole.

Now can you link me to experiments where passenger planes crash and disintegrate into circular balls of fire?

Do you believe if a 757 strikes another structure built like the Pentagon we will get the same results as seen in at the C-Ring? Yes or No will be sufficient.
TC329 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 18th March 2008, 11:14 AM   #229
Totovader
Game Warden
 
Totovader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,321
Originally Posted by TC329 View Post
Heres how it works.

A hypothesis is formed. If A and B happens then the result is C. Said hypothesis is tested and results equal C. It is tested again and results equal C. Everytime the experiment is tested the result equals C.

I understand KE and physics. Since you are in disagreement with me then you believe a 757 hit the Pentagon and "turned/disintegrated/evaporated or whatever" into a circular ball of fire that punched out the C-Ring hole.

Now can you link me to experiments where passenger planes crash and disintegrate into circular balls of fire?

Do you believe if a 757 strikes another structure built like the Pentagon we will get the same results as seen in at the C-Ring? Yes or No will be sufficient.
No, we see an event and then look at the likely causes. You do not simply get to ignore that a plane impacted the Pentagon because you don't like that idea.

You do not get to pretend that a lack of similar examples means that it could not have been a plane.

A lack of similar examples (at least to the ridiculous degree you require) does not mean the evidence for a plane crash disappears.

Not only do we have a very unique and chaotic event happening, here- but you are ignoring the scientific method to arrive at your question (read: conclusion).

Your "question"- therefore- is fallacious. The answer is mu.
__________________
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." --Jonathan Swift
Blog - Corrected By Reality. My debunking videos, and philosophy on YouTube


Totovader's 9/11 Conspiracy Challenge Still unanswered!
Totovader 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 18th March 2008, 11:21 AM   #230
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,689
Originally Posted by TC329 View Post
Heres how it works.

A hypothesis is formed. If A and B happens then the result is C. Said hypothesis is tested and results equal C. It is tested again and results equal C. Everytime the experiment is tested the result equals C.

I understand KE and physics. Since you are in disagreement with me then you believe a 757 hit the Pentagon and "turned/disintegrated/evaporated or whatever" into a circular ball of fire that punched out the C-Ring hole.

Now can you link me to experiments where passenger planes crash and disintegrate into circular balls of fire?

Do you believe if a 757 strikes another structure built like the Pentagon we will get the same results as seen in at the C-Ring? Yes or No will be sufficient.
The point really is, after you examine all (physical) of the evidence the hole is only a curiosity that really has no bearing on the events of the day (thus no exhaustive study).
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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 18th March 2008, 11:23 AM   #231
Totovader
Game Warden
 
Totovader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,321
Using the conspiracists twisted form of logic (similar to the "never happened before" claim with the collapse of the towers):

The driver of a car has a heart attack while he's on the road and loses control of the car. The car swerves all over the road leaving skid marks before crashing into a Burger King. The car is engulfed in flames and the driver is killed instantly, but the frame of the car is clearly visible. Hundreds of witnesses view the event.

From the conspiracists perspective- the claim is that this is the first time in history that a driver- after suffering a heart attack- has crashed into this Burger King and it- therefore- could not have been a car crash. The remains of the driver and the car, the witnesses, the skidmarks- every shred of evidence confirming what actually happened- just magically disappears.

Instead, we are left with some sort of stupid question- which has no real relevance to the issue, and does nothing to support any kind of an argument. The conspiracist would ask "why is this chair on the other side of the room? do you have any other examples of where a chair would be tossed to the other side of the room after being impacted by a 'car' where the driver suffered a heart attack and then crashed into a Burger King? No! You don't! Therefore, it was a missile."

It's just plain stupidity.
__________________
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." --Jonathan Swift
Blog - Corrected By Reality. My debunking videos, and philosophy on YouTube


Totovader's 9/11 Conspiracy Challenge Still unanswered!
Totovader 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 18th March 2008, 11:55 AM   #232
Sabrina
Wicked Lovely
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,810
Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus View Post
Oh, I missed this earlier. My apologies.



The BTS site that you yourself presented earlier.



Are you trying to say that America West FL98 might be what people saw? And are you building your argument strictly on the proximity that flight's scheduled landing time?

To be honest, that's a stretch, especially considering the proximity of times. Are we certain that it was also taking the approach that flies over the Pentagon? There are at least two different approaches to that airport (listed here; if there are others, I'll let pilots or other aviation-heads in this forum post about that), and you've provided no evidence that HPFL98 was taking an approach that would coincide with the path AAFL77 ended up taking.

ETA: I just tripped over this:
http://www.airnav.com/airport/KDCA

Under "IAPs - Instrument Approach Procedures", there are downloadable pdf's describing landing approaches for that airport, but I am not a pilot, and I am very lost in regards to understanding them. I must defer to any aviation junkie on this forum who understands such documents.
Huh, what do you know.

That looks like six potential approaches to me, given that each of those runways could be used in either direction if I'm not mistaken (and please, any airline people, I beg you; correct me if I'm wrong). Anyone know which of those is the runway you'd fly near the Pentagon with?

And by the way, anyone wanting my phone number is going to have a job finding it; I don't have a land line, and my cell phone number isn't given out to just anyone. So good luck with that.
Sabrina 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 18th March 2008, 12:41 PM   #233
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,111
Originally Posted by Sabrina View Post
Huh, what do you know.

That looks like six potential approaches to me, given that each of those runways could be used in either direction if I'm not mistaken (and please, any airline people, I beg you; correct me if I'm wrong). Anyone know which of those is the runway you'd fly near the Pentagon with?

And by the way, anyone wanting my phone number is going to have a job finding it; I don't have a land line, and my cell phone number isn't given out to just anyone. So good luck with that.
I have looked at the approach plate for runway 15. That approach goes right next to the front of the Pentagon, and if the plane had problems, it could easily hit the Pentagon. This is why the Pentagon exercise for mass casualty involved airplanes crashing into the building. However, a normal crash would impart 10 times less energy in an impact, but would still be a big fire, but usually less fuel landing.

Planes could fly over the Pentagon landing at other runways, and all planes are not allowed to maneuver north east of the Pentagon (white house, capital). Plane use visual patterns like a rectangular pattern depending on where the plane is approaching from.

All planes approaching the airport would usually have a 3 degree approach profile. This is low, the planes are low on the horizon, with respect to the runways, unless they pass over you.

It would take more study to see what local procedures are like. Runway 15 is not as long as other runways, and most jets would prefer the longer runways. Darn, the runways are all too short for the KC-135 I flew. Those are all short runways.
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 18th March 2008, 02:12 PM   #234
MIKILLINI
Incromulent Logic
 
MIKILLINI's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,979
Originally Posted by TC329 View Post
Heres how it works.

A hypothesis is formed. If A and B happens then the result is C. Said hypothesis is tested and results equal C. It is tested again and results equal C. Everytime the experiment is tested the result equals C.

I understand KE and physics. Since you are in disagreement with me then you believe a 757 hit the Pentagon and "turned/disintegrated/evaporated or whatever" into a circular ball of fire that punched out the C-Ring hole.

Now can you link me to experiments where passenger planes crash and disintegrate into circular balls of fire?

Do you believe if a 757 strikes another structure built like the Pentagon we will get the same results as seen in at the C-Ring? Yes or No will be sufficient.
TC, here's a perspective that many truthers use: What it looks like..

Truthers make the assumption of the C-ring hole as being caused by a missile because it is almost perfectly round and there is no way a smashed up plane can do that.
Now if I apply the same logic to the debris I see just outside the hole, then I would come to the conclusion that it doesn't appear to be a missile hit on the ring wall, because it looks like the hole was punched through instead of blasted out.

Now, does a person stop there and presume something is amiss and can only come to the conclusion of a conspiracy?
__________________
Attempting to build a case without evidence is just another day spent with no use of common sense.-Me

The conspiracist is not merely illogical: he assaults logic.~ Pomeroo

Last edited by MIKILLINI; 18th March 2008 at 02:14 PM.
MIKILLINI 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 18th March 2008, 03:23 PM   #235
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by jhunter1163 View Post
This word is three letters too short.
I'll tag 'em you bag 'em.
tsig 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 18th March 2008, 03:53 PM   #236
TC329
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,453
Originally Posted by Totovader View Post
No, we see an event and then look at the likely causes. You do not simply get to ignore that a plane impacted the Pentagon because you don't like that idea.
I didn't ignore your plane impact theory. I believed it for a long time. It was only when I started researching the event and the witnesses to the event that I stopped believing in your impact theory. And while I'm not sure how the few scraps of alleged plane debris ended up scattered outside the Pentagon I have read Operation Northwoods and come to the conclusion that the government is more than willing to plant evidence to set someone else up to justify an unwanted war by the American people.

Quote:
You do not get to pretend that a lack of similar examples means that it could not have been a plane.

A lack of similar examples (at least to the ridiculous degree you require) does not mean the evidence for a plane crash disappears.


My claims are that in repeated experiments you will never get the C-Ring exit hole without a Wall Breaching Kit. Airplanes do not disintegrate into circular balls of fire. In all the images available except one highly questionable unverified one, there is no plane debris outside the exit hole.
Quote:
Not only do we have a very unique and chaotic event happening, here- but you are ignoring the scientific method to arrive at your question (read: conclusion).

Your "question"- therefore- is fallacious. The answer is mu.
Please, since you insistant that this hole was created by a plane which turned into a circular fireball, show me the scientific method used to arrive to your conclusion.

I have a feeling that your method is :

Plane hits.
Exit hole is created.
Plane creates exit hole.
See Pop Mech.
TC329 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 18th March 2008, 03:57 PM   #237
TC329
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,453
Originally Posted by Sabrina View Post
Huh, what do you know.

That looks like six potential approaches to me, given that each of those runways could be used in either direction if I'm not mistaken (and please, any airline people, I beg you; correct me if I'm wrong). Anyone know which of those is the runway you'd fly near the Pentagon with?

And by the way, anyone wanting my phone number is going to have a job finding it; I don't have a land line, and my cell phone number isn't given out to just anyone. So good luck with that.
What "that looks like" to you is irrelevant. There are 2 approaches for Reagan International. There is the DRA & the URA and both are dependent on the weather.

I don't want your phone number either, I'm a happily married man with a beautiful family. I was pointing out that you made an unsubstantiated and uncorroborated claim and I'm supposed to accept it even though I have no way to verify you're really not living in Wyoming.

There's so much spin at this forum it's enough to leave you sick for days.........
TC329 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 18th March 2008, 04:03 PM   #238
TC329
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,453
Originally Posted by MIKILLINI View Post
TC, here's a perspective that many truthers use: What it looks like..
Usually seeing is believing. And when you can compare similar events and find similiarities.......




Quote:
Truthers make the assumption of the C-ring hole as being caused by a missile because it is almost perfectly round and there is no way a smashed up plane can do that.
I never once said "missile". The video I linked 4 pages ago made no mention of a "missile" and I don't believe a "missile" hit the Pentagon.


Quote:
Now if I apply the same logic to the debris I see just outside the hole, then I would come to the conclusion that it doesn't appear to be a missile hit on the ring wall, because it looks like the hole was punched through instead of blasted out.
While I agree it doesn't have the appearance of a "missile" strike I disagree with your reasoning on why.

Quote:
Now, does a person stop there and presume something is amiss and can only come to the conclusion of a conspiracy?
Oh, I'm sure people stood there looking at that hole and either wondered what the hell created it. To assume they didn't is a poor assumption on your part.
TC329 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 18th March 2008, 04:18 PM   #239
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by TC329 View Post
Usually seeing is believing. And when you can compare similar events and find similiarities.......


How did an explosive charge placed on the wall result in debris from inside the Pentagon outside the wall?
__________________
Vive la libertť!
WildCat 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 18th March 2008, 04:21 PM   #240
MIKILLINI
Incromulent Logic
 
MIKILLINI's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,979
Originally Posted by TC329 View Post
I didn't ignore your plane impact theory. I believed it for a long time. It was only when I started researching the event and the witnesses to the event that I stopped believing in your impact theory. And while I'm not sure how the few scraps of alleged plane debris ended up scattered outside the Pentagon I have read Operation Northwoods and come to the conclusion that the government is more than willing to plant evidence to set someone else up to justify an unwanted war by the American people.



[/i]My claims are that in repeated experiments you will never get the C-Ring exit hole without a Wall Breaching Kit. Airplanes do not disintegrate into circular balls of fire. In all the images available except one highly questionable unverified one, there is no plane debris outside the exit hole.


Please, since you insistant that this hole was created by a plane which turned into a circular fireball, show me the scientific method used to arrive to your conclusion.

I have a feeling that your method is :

Plane hits.
Exit hole is created.
Plane creates exit hole.
See Pop Mech.
Operation Northwoods is enough for you to believe 9/11 is an inside job because....Some people will go to great lengths to plant evidence to wage war?
This operation Northwoods has brought you to assume that a potential false flag operation in the past had become a reality because of the uncanny similarity and events that subsequently developed from 9/11?

Can you tell Me what JFK thought of this idea and what happened to the person who came up with the idea?
__________________
Attempting to build a case without evidence is just another day spent with no use of common sense.-Me

The conspiracist is not merely illogical: he assaults logic.~ Pomeroo
MIKILLINI 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 03:44 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.