Why wouldn't they be the best frames the Pentagon's got?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

No. I agree with what you say here - except that you appear to take for granted when something has been established as factual.
Your second pragraph I don't understand at all, it appears to be ungrammatical. Please re-state.

This is patronising. Note that I described the constructive discussion I had in mind as getting nearer to the truth - not nearer to the most supported opinion.
Don't tell me that scientific principles are established only in debating exercises only. Both sorts of exchanges may be useful at times. And are indeed both used.

So you want to discuss whether the claimed reason for withholding evidence was rational. Well, that's not a discussion about facts, but about whether the reason allegedly operative in government (or whoever) to withhold evidence answered certain normative requirements. That is not subject to objective examination.

Now you re-affirm what you said earlier... in a constructive discussion it's the ideas that matter, not who holds them. You're giving me far too much importance.

From what picture does that come? The pictures I saw had the white nose/smoke apparently more horizontal. Of course, that was in moving image so I did not have much time to judge the exact shape .

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

At this moment, I see only people discussing possibilities, something like exchanging ideas. I'm sure that if somebody want to have more certainty on what is aircraft and what is not, they'd do some research.

Note that we have not yet put up a bright red single page website with our ideas, presented as facts.

I do think the "fast, out of the hand" discussion up to now was interesting, as it brought up 3 possibilities of visible plane in 1 day. NOw we have laid out these possibliities, we can research them. It doesn't seem like a bad approach at all. Now if there had already been that bright red site, that would have been another thing...

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

And in that spirit:

picture 1

picture 2

One of the possibilities raised was that on picture 2 the dark thing on the right was the plane with its tail, the white thing was the smoke (or dust).

If we compare with picture 1, there would be less smoke, and the plane would be more into view (apparently pitched up). The question now is whether that contrast enhanced thing indeed is the aircraft. I will not put any money on the fact that we appear to see AA stripes in picture 1 .


*disclaimer: this is just exchanging ideas. No conclusions should be drawn from this brainstorming. Do not put up bright red all capital single page sites presenting these ideas as facts*

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

http://www.rense.com/general71/pentvi.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...reallylook.htm

Inconclusive.

Heh... The Prison Planet "video" shows the explosion happening when the nose of the aircraft hits the building, not when the wings do. A rough estimate on how they placed the airframe would have the plane going less than half the estimated speed.

__________________
Hanlon's Razor - "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Asimov's addition - "Or ignorance."

"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
-- Charles Babbage

I'm not sure if that's rhetorical or sarcastic or what in the limited context of the post. I will say that I see the nose of a 757 every night I work and have seen 757s hundreds of times, from every angle, up close and personal and I cannot see anything there that looks like a 757. While I profess expertise on very few things, on this I am certain, nobody can see a 757 in that image. All you can see is something.

EDIT: Ok I see something that could be a 757 but it could be a crop of rudabegas too. I'm only saying that these images are pretty much useless either way.

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

Fine, in the second paragraph I explain "why" something has been established as factual.

Take the laws of thermodynamics, do you know how many times those have been questioned? more than I can count and they are still questioned, and guess: everytime they have been shown to stand as factual. So with that in mind, any idea that requires that those laws be false is immediately thrown to the garbage bin. Period, too bad for the idea. And you want to know why? because it has been shown time and time and time again that those laws hold.

That's NOT what I said, I said that the process in which scientific principles are established is as cold and heartless as a debate where the strongest wins. There is no compromise. Again with the laws of thermodynamics you can deny them all you want, no matter what argument you bring they still hold. It is that simple. That's how science works. Period. And THAT process created the principles on which Cars,
Computers, Cell phones and the like rely to work as they do.

Editted for clarity

__________________
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi

Are you suggesting that conspiracist views require that laws of nature are false? Or that the views on 9/11 facts 'established' by the debunking community here are on a par with the laws of thermodynamics?
I don't really get it.

Sure, in the end there's no compromise in science. But the discussion to which you reacted in your post was about whether anything other than taking a position and sticking to it until the best debater wins amounts to no more than producing hot air. Your previous post suggested that you agreed with that; now you appear to leave room for what I called constructive discussion. Glad to hear that.

Are you suggesting that conspiracist views require that laws of nature are false?

Many conspiracist views do in fact require that certain laws of nature are false. Although this is especially true of moon hoax claims, it also applies to September 11 conspiracy theories to some extent.

Or that the views on 9/11 facts 'established' by the debunking community here are on a par with the laws of thermodynamics?

Some of them are--for example, the fact that FAA regulations in effect on September 11 prohibited supersonic flight over populated areas with no exceptions, or the fact that no missile or truck bomb could have created an 8-story fireball against the side of the Pentagon.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

Yes I am. Furthermore I am stating it

The conspiracist views among other things require that the steel in the core columns of the WTC towers won't lose it's structural integrity at 538° C, WHICH IT DOES.

Your paragraph SUGGESTS that I have changed my position, something which I haven't done.

If anything, despite what you claim your approach is, you are doing exactly what you claim Jay did, take a position and stick to it till the best debater wins.

Editted for clarity

__________________
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi

Well, y'all got me confused now for sure. But all this is off-topic by now.

Well here we go again, all the posts where facts are stated you ignore, yet you still claim the same argument, so are you not sticking to your position till whomever gets tired first loses?

__________________
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi

ehh? what is my claim, according to you?

Your claim according to me is that the views of conspiracy theorists are worth looking into IN A SCIENCE BOARD into despite the fact that the claims are from the point of view of science not worth even considering. And you still claim the same.

You have ignored all the hard evidence which shows that these claims are based in facts so innacurate that border into lies. You just simply re-state that claim over and over again.

You also claim that you are attempting to reach the truth by working from all points of view, yet the effect of your approach seems to be arguing till someone tires and loses by forefeit.


Editted for clarity

__________________
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi

And what are you expecting from security camera video?

You've previously expressed doubt that the towers would naturally fall the way they did. I'd say that view requires certain laws of nature to be false...

Interesting notion of "falling naturally"... No single account I've seen about 9/11 says they did.

I expressed doubts, yes, since I was - and remain - unsure of what exactly the relevant laws of nature would require in this case. So..?

Then why do you remain unconvinced when those who do have that knowledge say it is natural?

Because I have learnt to distrust expertise. And because I hear others who claim to have that knowledge saying the opposite.

So you believe those that say they have expertise if it supports your point of view(no matter how small their number) and disbelieve those who say they have expertise if it disagrees. Convenient!

__________________
Hanlon's Razor - "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Asimov's addition - "Or ignorance."

"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
-- Charles Babbage

Yet it has been shown they DON'T have that knowledge, yet you still argue that the CTs claim are worth listening to

__________________
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi

Because I have learnt to distrust expertise.

That's your problem. I have learned to distrust people who can't demonstrate an understanding of what they're talking about.

And because I hear others who claim to have that knowledge saying the opposite.

"Claim" being the operative word. When pressed, we discover that they really don't have the knowledge they claim to have. Steven Jones, case in point. Yes, he is a bona fide physicist, but he assumed his physics knowledge was an applicable and sufficient basis for his conclusions. Now he is rethinking that assumption and recognizing that he does not have as much understanding of the problem as he once claimed.

The real problem is that your beliefs are not based on anything for which expertise applies. Your conclusions are politically motivated, and you attempt (misguidedly) to argue that there is objective scientific support for them. Unfortunately scientific arguments do require expertise for validity, whether or not you personally trust it.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Although I hear you already complaining about the source of the following, I'd like to hear your thoughts about the contents:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...showtopic=4489

Brumson I have temporarily removed your post. Please show that the post is not copyright protected or that you have permission to post a personal email. If you cannot do this the post will be permantly removed and further action taken, see rules #4 and #5 here: Rules For Posting To This Board.

EDIT: I have restored Brunsen's post with the link added.

__________________
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

OK - well, I posted a letter which I was led to believe appeared on another public forum. Trying to trace the source now. I apologize if I have inadvertently violated any rules.
But anyway - I was trying to draw attention to the claims made by this guy, Seabhcan, on this forum. He comes to the conclusion (and provides evidence for it) that the video was originally in analog format, then digitized and manipulated, then converted back to analog again.
So, what do people here think about these claims?

BTW, as for claims to expertise: this appears to be his personal website. Judge for yourself.

How 'bout, "So?"

If the images were manipulated, but still show what they showed originally, big deal.

Is anyone claiming that the "manipulations" changed the substance of what is being shown?

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

For what other reason would it have been manipulated?
I mean - the judge ordered the release of this tape, under the FOIA. Isn't it reasonable to assume that this would mean: "release without alterations"? So if there are alterations, there must have been pretty strong reasons to make them.

I can think of at least one. Cannot you? If not, you have a poor imagination, in my mind.