911 pentagon - Page 32

David C · #**931** (**permalink**) 18-December-2006, 04:25 PM

Quote:

I allege that you are an alien from the planet Moba, sent to Earth to spread hate among humans, so that the Mobas can more easily invade our planet. It is as meaningful as your allegations. You now have to prove me wrong.

You gave no explanation. Explanations have evidence and some basis in reality. There are no magic hidden military basis on the Eastern Seaboard of the US where these evil people do this stuff. Stacking together a bunch of made up stories is not an eplanation.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...dodvideos.html
The object on the right of the top right picture ain't no 757. What the video says is a plausible theory and I don't rule it out. I doubt that Barbara Olsen was killed though.

Swift · #**932** (**permalink**) 18-December-2006, 04:31 PM

I'm not going to slug through these videos; even if I wanted to with my dial-up connection. But you don't understand the term "theory". At best you have a hypothesis, a thought, a notion, an idea, a conjecture. But you have NO EVIDENCE that Barbar Olsen is alive or any of your other ideas. Therefore, it is not a theory. It is also not plausible by any definition of that term that I am aware of. But if you don't want to rule it out, have fun.

Meanwhile, you still have not disproven my "theory" that you are an alien. I await your evidence.

David C · #**933** (**permalink**) 18-December-2006, 04:46 PM

This is not the nose of a 757.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...dodvideos.html
Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. The passengers are gone. It's a perfectly plausible hypothesis, or theory, or possibility. Ruling it out would be silly. Of course I can only speculate about Barbara Olsen. I doubt they would kill one of their own. There are several plausible scenerios about that. I have no way of knowing which one is true.

R.A.F. · #**934** (**permalink**) 18-December-2006, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David C

Steven Jones is nobody to sneeze at.

Ah-CHOO.

Pardon me, I'm allergic to ignorance.

phunk · #**935** (**permalink**) 18-December-2006, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David C

I took that into account. It's still too short.

I've said what I thought of this video several times.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8
Look at the 2 min. 19 sec. mark. The plane is too short to be a 757 in this simulation too.
Look at the 3 min. 58 sec. mark. The damage shown in the video is inconsistent with this picture.
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...pic=4223&st=30
That video is an attempt at damage-control by the people who planned and carried out 9/11. They hire public relations companies to think this stuff up. They probably have their own public relations department too.

He released the source solidworks files so you could verify the measurements and render the animation yourself, which has been done. The plane is the right size.

Quote:

If I look at the first picture in this link the flight angle looks like it's about 40 degrees from the perpendicular.
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index1.htm
I don't have any drafting equipment but just trying different angles on a sheet of paper it looks like the plane is shortened by about 30 percent at most. That means the craft should look about 108 feet long in this picture.
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm
Judging from the height of the Pentagon at the perpendicular to the location of the craft, it looks like it's about 70 feet long at most.
Try using the height of the Pentagon instead of the box to do the calculations and tell me what you come up with.

Drafting equipment? Didn't you take trig in HS? The answer is 23.4% shorter for 40 degrees, but I think it's closer to 50 degrees, which would be 35.7% shorter. But I think the mistake you're making is comparing it to a point on the pentagon that is closer than the plane, don't forget that it is approaching at an angle, not perpendicular to the camera, the impact point is 150ft or so closer to the camera than the plane is when it passes behind the box.

Can you use photoshop or ms paint or anything to show us the measurements you're using?

Quote:

Show something you consider to be proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon and we can talk about whether or not it's proof. So far I've seen only mere plausibilities with other explanations--no proof.
This picture is not blurry. It's clear as a bell.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...dodvideos.html
I don't see how anybody can say it's blurry with a straight face.

I don't see how anybody can say it's clear with a straight face.

David C · #**936** (**permalink**) 18-December-2006, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Drafting equipment? Didn't you take trig in HS? The answer is 23.4% shorter for 40 degrees, but I think it's closer to 50 degrees, which would be 35.7% shorter. But I think the mistake you're making is comparing it to a point on the pentagon that is closer than the plane, don't forget that it is approaching at an angle, not perpendicular to the camera, the impact point is 150ft or so closer to the camera than the plane is when it passes behind the box.

Can you use photoshop or ms paint or anything to show us the measurements you're using?

I took trig but it was so long ago that I harldy remember anything. I'm just doing a visual comparison between the height of the wall at a place perpendicular to the location of the plane in the first picture in this link.
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm
If you double the height of the wall at that point you can see how long 150 feet is at the location of the craft. You can see the tail. If you compare double the height of the wall at that point to the length between the tail and the front of the box, the plane looks like it can't be more than about 70 feet long. If it were a hundred feet long, the nose would be visible.

Quote:

Show something you consider to be proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon and we can talk about whether or not it's proof. So far I've seen only mere plausibilities with other explanations--no proof.
This picture is not blurry. It's clear as a bell.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...dodvideos.html
I don't see how anybody can say it's blurry with a straight face.

I don't see how anybody can say it's clear with a straight face.

There's that tactic again. When cornered, deny the obvious with a scornful patronizing attitude. You are not an objective person who simply wants to get at the truth. Why that is, I can only speculate.

Kesh · #**937** (**permalink**) 18-December-2006, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David C

There's that tactic again. When cornered, deny the obvious with a scornful patronizing attitude. You are not an objective person who simply wants to get at the truth. Why that is, I can only speculate.

Pot, meet kettle.

Face it, David C, you've given us no evidence whatsoever. Yet, you expect us to believe your version, which flies in the face of all the actual evidence gathered to date. If your entire argument is based on "they could be lying," you're not going to get anywhere here. You've come into this forum with a preconceived notion that you are unwilling to be dissuaded from, even in the face of mounds of evidence.

David C · #**938** (**permalink**) 18-December-2006, 06:03 PM

Quote:

There's that tactic again. When cornered, deny the obvious with a scornful patronizing attitude. You are not an objective person who simply wants to get at the truth. Why that is, I can only speculate.
Pot, meet kettle.

Face it, David C, you've given us no evidence whatsoever. Yet, you expect us to believe your version, which flies in the face of all the actual evidence gathered to date. If your entire argument is based on "they could be lying," you're not going to get anywhere here. You've come into this forum with a preconceived notion that you are unwilling to be dissuaded from, even in the face of mounds of evidence.

As I said before--you guys have presented nothing but mere plausibilities that have other explanations. Show something you consider proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon and we can talk about whether it's proof, or a mere plausibility.

So you consider this picture "No evidence whatsoever".
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...dodvideos.html
Now you're doing it--when cornered, deny the obvious with a patronizing attitude. Your position is laughable.
That picture blows official version out of the water. It's the nose of a craft that isn't a 757. It's not blurry. It's not smoke.
This is smoke.
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm
I know you guys can't adimit that 9/11 was an inside job so I can understand why you take the positions you're taking but saying that the picture in the first link is smoke or, "Too blurry to make out" is laughable. You'd do a lot better if you tried to say it was doctored to look too pointed to be a 757.

Again I say--show something you consider proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon and we can talk about whether or not it's proof. If it didn't happen, there is no proof--only evidence. That's why you can't come up with anything--it didn't happen.

Jim · #**939** (**permalink**) 18-December-2006, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David C

You guys maintain that the object on the right in the upper right picture is smoke and you say I'm entertaining?

Well, yes... frustrating, but entertaining. You are able to hold to your opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence, and you never let logical thinking sway you.

Quote:

I don't have any drafting equipment but just trying different angles on a sheet of paper it looks like the plane is shortened by about 30 percent at most. That means the craft should look about 108 feet long in this picture.

Judging from the height of the Pentagon at the perpendicular to the location of the craft, it looks like it's about 70 feet long at most.

Have you even considered that you are looking at a frame showing a fast moving plane in the background from a video camera that was meant to record slow moving traffic in the foreground? Have you investigated interlacing at all?

Quote:

Steven Jones is nobody to sneeze at.

Yeah, a waste of good germs. Steven Young is a physicist who wants to be taken seriously on his opinion in structural engineering. He has been debunked rather thouroughly on this site. Use the Search function.

Quote:

How did you come up with this? Is this something you thought of? Are you an authority on this? Show your sources please.

I think this is refering to WTC7. If so, have you even bothered to look for evidence, or do you simply trust the CT sites?

From the NIST progress report Dec 12, 2006:

��An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;
��Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and
��Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Appro...ary12Dec06.pdf

There are other preliminary reports out there. Google is your friend.

Quote:

According to the ducumentaries I've been watching if the pancake theory were correct, it would have left the core. The core wouldn't have collapsed too. Watch the video.

No, it would not have left the core. But, then, the towers' failure wasn't a pure pancake either. There are many, many reports from highly experienced and reputable people and organizations available. Get away from YouTube for awhile and find them. Unfortunately, you will have to read rather than play them, but that's the price of learning.

Here' I'll get you started:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html
Oh, I should mention that this guy's a professor of engineering, not a physicist.

Quote:

Show something you consider to be proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon and we can talk about whether or not it's proof. So far I've seen only mere plausibilities with other explanations--no proof.

See, this is frustrating and entertaining! You have been offered all sorts of evidence, but you won't let it get in the way of one lousy (and blurry) video camera frame.

Quote:

This picture is not blurry. It's clear as a bell.

No, it's blurry, David. Which is what you'd expect from an interlacing video camera trying to image a fast moving object well out of its focal range and using a fisheye lens.

Quote:

I don't see how anybody can say it's blurry with a straight face.

Trust me, David, I am not smiling.

Jim · #**940** (**permalink**) 18-December-2006, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David C

They probably released the second video because of public pressure. I can't see why they released such an inciminating video that gives them away either. Only people who navigate seem to have gotten a good look at it though.

But, why did they release it at all if it clearly shows something other than a 757 hitting the building? That's like deciding to post naked photos of your mom on the Internet instead of publishing them in Playboy because the audience is smaller.

Quote:

There was a big fireball outside the building. That would account for the scorch marks. Maybe a piece of the rear of the plane hit the wall and maybe pressure from the explosion on the inside knocked off some of the facade.

And all this just coincidentally led to damage that looks like wing impact? Wasn't that convenient?

Quote:

I gave my explanation for the passengers. ... It alleges that the plane landed at some military base and the passengers were killed by the conspirators. Then they did what was necessary to make the bodies look like they'd been in a crash and sent them to the morgue. Of course it couldn't have been a typical military base where there were people who were not in on the conspiracy watching.

Actually, you gave conflicting versions/opinions about this. According to you, one passenger at least went into some sort of witness protection program. Now you claim they all were murdered.

Quote:

That's plausible but it's also plausible that it's bright because of explosives.
Watch this.

Again with the YouTube! Get away from there, David! YouTube isn't all there is. For instance, I gave you several photos of chemical/fuel explosions that look very similar to the Pentagon one. Did you look at them at all?

Nicolas · #**941** (**permalink**) 18-December-2006, 06:44 PM

Quote:

I know you guys can't adimit that 9/11 was an inside job

Are you hinting at us being disinfo agents?

Wow, never knew I was so popular. Being 9/11 AND Apollo disinfo agent. From this point on, I'll always be awaiting the double paycheck and always be on the look for the polonium threat...

If you meant swomething else, please explain what you meant with that remark.

David C · #**942** (**permalink**) 18-December-2006, 06:58 PM

Sorry but these two pictures blow the official version out of the water.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...dodvideos.html
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm

You guys are good though. I guess you learned some psychology when you were learning how to deal with being cornered.
Yes I know there are people with PH.Ds who support the government version. People with PH.Ds can lie. When shown photos like the ones above and a Ph.D saying building 7 fell because of fire, obviousy the PH.D is dishonest.
You guys can analyze Steven Jones and then consider him debunked but he is only debunked to your satisfaction--not to the satisfaction of objective people.
If the government released those two pictures and we know they aren't doctored, the whole case is closed.

Quote:

And all this just coincidentally led to damage that looks like wing impact? Wasn't that convenient?

It doesn't look like it to me.
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...pic=4223&st=30

Quote:

You are able to hold to your opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence, and you never let logical thinking sway you.

As I've said before--you guys haven't come up with anything substantial. It all has other explanations. If those two plane pictures aren't doctored, there is no other explanation. A scornful attitude with now substance behind it isn't going to impress a normal person.

Quote:

Have you even considered that you are looking at a frame showing a fast moving plane in the background from a video camera that was meant to record slow moving traffic in the foreground? Have you investigated interlacing at all?

I don't have to--the picture is too clear. There's also the other picture that picked up the tail. It had very clear smoke behind it--very different in apearance from the picture of the nose.

Quote:

I think this is refering to WTC7. If so, have you even bothered to look for evidence, or do you simply trust the CT sites?

From the NIST progress report Dec 12, 2006:

��An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;
��Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and
��Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

Of course I've looked at other stuff. There's a lot of bogus stuff out there as the government is engaging in damage-control. I can find a lot of analyses that support the government version and a lot that support the inside-job version. The inside job-version makes much more sense and also has proof such as those two pictures of the plane.

Quote:

See, this is frustrating and entertaining! You have been offered all sorts of evidence, but you won't let it get in the way of one lousy (and blurry) video camera frame.

As I keep saying--it all has alternative explanations. It's mere evidence--not proof.
I'll say it again--show something that you consider to be proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon and we can discuss whether it's proof, or mere evidence with other possible explanations.
Those two pictures at the top of the post close the whole case if they haven't been doctored and a patronizing attitude isn't going to change that--even if there are twenty of you.

nomuse · #**943** (**permalink**) 18-December-2006, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David C

Only people who navigate seem to have gotten a good look at it though. People who just read newpapers and watch TV generally believe the official vesion according to what I've been reading.

"Navigate?" Do you truly believe this video is only available to those who know how to use YouTube?

And, right...workers at the Pentagon, who had lost co-workers in the incident, will be satisfied with watching TV to find out what happened. People who lost loved ones in the aircraft will pick up a newspaper, read one front page article and sigh, knowing they have the full and complete story.

Bu******

Really, since there is so much conspiracy theorist frothing on YouTube, pride in the ability to navigate that system is a fairly good indicator of stupid, sheep-like belief in whatever story you are told.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David C

...Then they did what was necessary to make the bodies look like they'd been in a crash and sent them to the morgue. Of course it couldn't have been a typical military base where there were people who were not in on the conspiracy watching.

Ah, yes...like a sphere that isn't round, or water that isn't wet. This is a _special_ military base where everyone is....is what?

DavidC, when you join the military you don't check your humanity at the door. It was ordinary GI's who came forward about Abu Ghraib, about the recent killing and frame-up. What about 24-year old Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson at My Lai, who basically said "Move away from the villagers or my door gunners will waste your platoon?"

Be that as it may. Assume you manage to collect enough cross-trained folk here to be able to land aircraft, handle bodies, mimic injuries, and who aren't going to say a word about killing fellow citizens, lying to America, and violating the Constitution.

(I'd tell you what vows you take when you join up, but I can't see you understanding just what a hold they have on the average GI.)

((And how exactly DO you mimic the injuries of a high-speed crash? Fire the bodies out of a large air cannon? And where are you getting the 757 parts to strew about, again? Hey, I know....we'll take the bodies out to a desert airbase, strap them into a de-commissioned 757, and catapult it into a concrete wall at 200 KPH. Then we'll bag all the parts and fly them back to Arlington...........))

Okay, let's assume you can get all the skills you need while staying within uniformed personnel. Harder task to find only line doggie mentality; most of those technical skills consider themselves, well, technicians. They get up in the morning, drive into work, do their eight hours, then go home to family. You are looking for more like Delta's -- and even they don't sleep in a foxhole with a rifle cradled in their arms, dreaming dreams of killing gooks. I know, I know; from outside all you see is uniforms. Inside, though, there is a real division between the people you'd send out on a super-secret kill or get killed yourself, and the people you'd want to pull maintenance on an aircraft.

And we still got the henchman problem to worry about. These may be trained killers you've found, willing to get armpit deep in the gory details of your fantastic scenario. But it's got to be going though their minds that once it's done, THEY are even more disposable than the passengers were.

All in all a fantastically complex scenario, and one that founders over and over on the basic humanity (and self-interest) of most people, military or not.

Jim · #**944** (**permalink**) 18-December-2006, 07:16 PM

David, your compulsion to believe in some sort of government conspiracy is actually a bit worrisome.

Yes, you can split hairs and call everything we've presented to you "alternatives" if it makes you feel better. But, don't forget, your being an alien from the planet Moba is also an alternative, with as much evidence going for it as your claim about that video frame.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David C

Those two pictures at the top of the post close the whole case if they haven't been doctored ...

There is another possibility... that you are interpreting the image wrong.

Nicolas · #**945** (**permalink**) 18-December-2006, 07:47 PM

I repeat and expand my question:

Quote:

I know you guys can't adimit that 9/11 was an inside job so I can understand why you take the positions you're taking

Quote:

You guys are good though. I guess you learned some psychology when you were learning how to deal with being cornered.

David C, Are you hinting at us being disinfo agents?

If you meant something else, please explain what you meant with that remark.

twinstead · #**946** (**permalink**) 18-December-2006, 08:00 PM

As a CT, shouldn't claiming your opponent is a government agent invoke some kind of Godwinesque debate loss?

I mean, it is a desperate last attempt when the chips are down, right?

Gillianren · #**947** (**permalink**) 18-December-2006, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David C

Steven Jones is nobody to sneeze at.

Ye gods. You don't know anything about that man, do you?

Quote:

Show something you consider to be proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon and we can talk about whether or not it's proof. So far I've seen only mere plausibilities with other explanations--no proof.

Sigh. Let me try, again, to explain the scientific concept of proof to you.

No one piece of evidence is complete proof of anything. Truth is built from hundreds, even thousands, of tiny pieces of evidence strung together. There is never a single smoking gun. Science simply doesn't work that way and never has, at least since it could be called science by modern standards. Each item is examined and placed in context. If enough pieces of evidence, when placed in context, point a certain way, that's a preponderance of evidence, and we start accepting that something happened that way, though other pieces of evidence may come along to show that things happened a different way. Anomalous items are actually expected, because the world is a strange and complicated place.

However, what we have here is not a preponderance of evidence; it's beyond a reasonable doubt, the same standards that apply in a court of law. Let me list a few--just a few!--of the pieces of evidence that go toward it.

1. Literally hundreds of eyewitnesses. Now, it is true that eyewitness testimony is not the best evidence--if I were on trial, I'd far rather have nothing but eyewitness testimony than nothing but circumstantial evidence. However, when such an overwhelming majority of the testimony is in agreement, that is strongly presumptive that they're right, and do you know, most of those eyewitnesses say, "Hey, that looks like a big frickin' plane hitting the Pentagon!"

Oh, I know. "They could be lying." "They could be planted." But unless you have evidence that they're lying or planted, it is not a reasonable doubt, because that is, again, literally hundreds of people either lying or planted.

2. Quite a lot of 757 bits both inside and outside the Pentagon. Individually, they may not weigh much--though I understand that isn't universally true--but if you add them all together, that would be awfully heavy, not to mention awfully time-consuming to plant.

Oh, but they could have been. That's what you're going to say, right? But you again have no evidence that they were, and given our aforementioned eyewitnesses, you should, and therefore, you have no reasonable doubt.

3. Corpses, and lots of 'em. Tested with DNA evidence. Showing physical signs of having been in a plane crash and a Big Frickin' Fire.

They could have been planted? No evidence, no reasonable doubt.

4. Rescue workers, and lots of 'em. These are the people who came across the unlikely-to-be-planted plane bits and the unlikely-to-be-planted corpses. This is, again, hundreds of people crawling all over the evidence. True, most of them are really unlikely to be experts at what a Big Frickin' Plane crashing into a building would look like, but these are the people who found the plane bits and corpses, and surely, they would have noticed other people crawling around putting them there first.

They could have been paid off? How much would that take? Where did that money come from? Why have none of them come forward? No evidence, no reasonable doubt.

5. The video in question itself. This is more an exercise in logic than an actual piece of evidence, but bear with me, here. The Evil Government (TM) had the footage for years. They knew, during that time, that the story they were giving out was that a Big Frickin' Plane hit the building. They have photo doctoring equipment, and if they don't, they can bloody well buy Photoshop like everyone else. There is absolutely no reason that they would release video that looked like anything but a BFP hitting the Pentagon if they had anything to hide.

To believe otherwise is not reasonable, and therefore there is no reasonable doubt.

6. Basic human nature.

6a. People talk; it's what they do. Given the literally thousands of people who would be in on something of this scope, there are literally thousands of people who, in the last five years ago, would have had to have kept silent. There is literally no conspiracy of this scope in history, regardless of whether it was kept or not. Far smaller conspiracies come out much, much faster. Somewhere around here is the analysis I did on Watergate and Iran-Contra, showing how very quickly both of those were revealed. There is no reasonable belief that twenty or thirty times or more as many people would keep secret for more than twice as long.

6b. The families are either grieving or in on it, according to you. If there were the slightest hint of genuine suspicion, the families would be all over it if they were genuinely grieving. If they aren't, see 6a. It's unreasonable, especially given the number of people who would logically know they were still alive--and let's not forget that the guy who created Fraser was on one of the planes, too.

I could go on, but I'm not sure why I should, since you won't believe this much.

Quote:

This picture is not blurry. It's clear as a bell.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...dodvideos.html
I don't see how anybody can say it's blurry with a straight face.

Yes. That's wilfull ignorance on your part, as it's been explained to you, over and over again, why it is physically impossible for it to be as clear as you think it is.

Grand_Lunar · #**948** (**permalink**) 18-December-2006, 08:44 PM

*sigh*

David C, I've said something like this once before, and I'll say it again.

You are so convinced that the govt pulled off 9/11 that you'll ignore anything to the contrary.

You want that white object to be a plane. You want it to be clear.
You want the object that hit the Pentagon to be anything but a 757.
I could go on, but the point is that you are so inclined to believe the conspiracy theory that you jump toward anything that you believe supports your view, and ignore anything else that shows the contrary.

We provide maths and calculations, as well as explainations to how traffic cams work.
You claim otherwise, because it contridicts your views.
We provide photos of the debris, explain findings of DNA evidence of the passengers. You claim it to be planted, but without any evidence to support your claim.
Again, I could go on.

Its easy for you to claim that we are disinfo agents, or that evidence that contradicts your view is damage control or disinformation.
It's another thing for you to back up your claims.

I have to say that you are showing definate signs of paranoia.

SolusLupus · #**949** (**permalink**) 18-December-2006, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by twinstead

As a CT, shouldn't claiming your opponent is a government agent invoke some kind of Godwinesque debate loss?

I mean, it is a desperate last attempt when the chips are down, right?

Oh, sure. That's what the NAZIS would say.

But you're not a nazi, are ya?!

phunk · #**950** (**permalink**) 18-December-2006, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David C

I took trig but it was so long ago that I harldy remember anything. I'm just doing a visual comparison between the height of the wall at a place perpendicular to the location of the plane in the first picture in this link.
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm
If you double the height of the wall at that point you can see how long 150 feet is at the location of the craft. You can see the tail. If you compare double the height of the wall at that point to the length between the tail and the front of the box, the plane looks like it can't be more than about 70 feet long. If it were a hundred feet long, the nose would be visible.

Again, can you use an image editor to point out the spot on the pentagon that you believe is the same distance from the camera as the plane? Even if you can't post the image, even if you just gave me pixel coordinates that would help.

Saying 'a place perpendicular to the location of the plane' doesn't help, I want to know exactly what place you think is 'perpendicular'. If you did the measurements you're talking about, you have this info already.

Eta C · #**951** (**permalink**) 18-December-2006, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David C

As I said before--you guys have presented nothing but mere plausibilities that have other explanations. Show something you consider proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon and we can talk about whether it's proof, or a mere plausibility.

So you consider this picture "No evidence whatsoever".
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...dodvideos.html
Now you're doing it--when cornered, deny the obvious with a patronizing attitude. Your position is laughable.
That picture blows official version out of the water. It's the nose of a craft that isn't a 757. It's not blurry. It's not smoke.
This is smoke.
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm
I know you guys can't adimit that 9/11 was an inside job so I can understand why you take the positions you're taking but saying that the picture in the first link is smoke or, "Too blurry to make out" is laughable. You'd do a lot better if you tried to say it was doctored to look too pointed to be a 757.

Again I say--show something you consider proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon and we can talk about whether or not it's proof. If it didn't happen, there is no proof--only evidence. That's why you can't come up with anything--it didn't happen.

Sorry, Dave, you have once again shown that you deserve nothing but ridicule. Are you so dense that you cannot see how ridiculous you sound? You say we present "mere plausibility" and then go on with the "coulda, mighta, shoulda, maybe, perhaps" speculations you parrot from CT sites. Can you see the internal contradiction? I guess not. Face it, your CT argument style won't hack it here. You can post till you're fingers wear out but until you give evidence to back up your assertions (secret bases, secret debris distrbutors, etc) you will get and deserve nothing but derision.

jaydeehess · #**952** (**permalink**) 18-December-2006, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gillianren

Ye gods. You don't know anything about that man, do you?

Sigh. Let me try, again, to explain the scientific concept of proof to you.

No one piece of evidence is complete proof of anything. Truth is built from hundreds, even thousands, of tiny pieces of evidence strung together. There is never a single smoking gun. Science simply doesn't work that way and never has, at least since it could be called science by modern standards. Each item is examined and placed in context. If enough pieces of evidence, when placed in context, point a certain way, that's a preponderance of evidence, and we start accepting that something happened that way, though other pieces of evidence may come along to show that things happened a different way. Anomalous items are actually expected, because the world is a strange and complicated place.

However, what we have here is not a preponderance of evidence; it's beyond a reasonable doubt, the same standards that apply in a court of law. Let me list a few--just a few!--of the pieces of evidence that go toward it.

1. Literally hundreds of eyewitnesses. Now, it is true that eyewitness testimony is not the best evidence--if I were on trial, I'd far rather have nothing but eyewitness testimony than nothing but circumstantial evidence. However, when such an overwhelming majority of the testimony is in agreement, that is strongly presumptive that they're right, and do you know, most of those eyewitnesses say, "Hey, that looks like a big frickin' plane hitting the Pentagon!"

Oh, I know. "They could be lying." "They could be planted." But unless you have evidence that they're lying or planted, it is not a reasonable doubt, because that is, again, literally hundreds of people either lying or planted.

2. Quite a lot of 757 bits both inside and outside the Pentagon. Individually, they may not weigh much--though I understand that isn't universally true--but if you add them all together, that would be awfully heavy, not to mention awfully time-consuming to plant.

Oh, but they could have been. That's what you're going to say, right? But you again have no evidence that they were, and given our aforementioned eyewitnesses, you should, and therefore, you have no reasonable doubt.

3. Corpses, and lots of 'em. Tested with DNA evidence. Showing physical signs of having been in a plane crash and a Big Frickin' Fire.

They could have been planted? No evidence, no reasonable doubt.

4. Rescue workers, and lots of 'em. These are the people who came across the unlikely-to-be-planted plane bits and the unlikely-to-be-planted corpses. This is, again, hundreds of people crawling all over the evidence. True, most of them are really unlikely to be experts at what a Big Frickin' Plane crashing into a building would look like, but these are the people who found the plane bits and corpses, and surely, they would have noticed other people crawling around putting them there first.

They could have been paid off? How much would that take? Where did that money come from? Why have none of them come forward? No evidence, no reasonable doubt.

5. The video in question itself. This is more an exercise in logic than an actual piece of evidence, but bear with me, here. The Evil Government (TM) had the footage for years. They knew, during that time, that the story they were giving out was that a Big Frickin' Plane hit the building. They have photo doctoring equipment, and if they don't, they can bloody well buy Photoshop like everyone else. There is absolutely no reason that they would release video that looked like anything but a BFP hitting the Pentagon if they had anything to hide.

To believe otherwise is not reasonable, and therefore there is no reasonable doubt.

6. Basic human nature.

6a. People talk; it's what they do. Given the literally thousands of people who would be in on something of this scope, there are literally thousands of people who, in the last five years ago, would have had to have kept silent. There is literally no conspiracy of this scope in history, regardless of whether it was kept or not. Far smaller conspiracies come out much, much faster. Somewhere around here is the analysis I did on Watergate and Iran-Contra, showing how very quickly both of those were revealed. There is no reasonable belief that twenty or thirty times or more as many people would keep secret for more than twice as long.

6b. The families are either grieving or in on it, according to you. If there were the slightest hint of genuine suspicion, the families would be all over it if they were genuinely grieving. If they aren't, see 6a. It's unreasonable, especially given the number of people who would logically know they were still alive--and let's not forget that the guy who created Fraser was on one of the planes, too.

I could go on, but I'm not sure why I should, since you won't believe this much.

Yes. That's wilfull ignorance on your part, as it's been explained to you, over and over again, why it is physically impossible for it to be as clear as you think it is.

That is as good a summation as I have ever seen.

Followed quickly be ETA's

Quote:

You say we present "mere plausibility" and then go on with the "coulda, mighta, shoulda, maybe, perhaps" speculations you parrot from CT sites.

I was quite taken aback by DavidC's statement that all that has been presented to him has alternative expalations when in pretty much every post he makes he uses the term "could have" or "possibly". To call an assurtion of secret bases, for instance, "plausible" and then just decide that saying it makes it so boggles the mind.

Grand_Lunar · #**953** (**permalink**) 19-December-2006, 02:56 AM

Quote:

To call an assurtion of secret bases, for instance, "plausible" and then just decide that saying it makes it so boggles the mind.

Indeed it does.
He himself as admitted not being knowledge in the relevent fields, yet he can make absolute claims that what we see is evidence of an inside job.

That's like me saying "I'm not a pilot", yet claiming that the manuevers seen at an airshow are impossible to be preformed by a human being.

And he wonders why we say he's entertaining.

Swift · #**954** (**permalink**) 19-December-2006, 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David C

<snip>Yes I know there are people with PH.Ds who support the government version. People with PH.Ds can lie. When shown photos like the ones above and a Ph.D saying building 7 fell because of fire, obviousy the PH.D is dishonest.
You guys can analyze Steven Jones and then consider him debunked but he is only debunked to your satisfaction--not to the satisfaction of objective people.

I have a Ph.D. and I believe the government version. I believe it, not because I love the current government, or I'm paid, but because there is overwhelming evidence to support it. Are you saying I'm dishonest?

By the way, I'm still waiting for evidence you are not an alien. It is a very plausible theory.

Serenitude · #**955** (**permalink**) 19-December-2006, 07:10 AM

Wow. Great post Gillian.

David C, you've been tossing out, in nearly every post, such offensive gems as:

Quote:

Originally Posted by David C

I guess you learned some psychology when you were learning how to deal with being cornered

People with PH.Ds can lie.

...but he is only debunked to your satisfaction--not to the satisfaction of objective people.

As I said before--you guys have presented nothing but mere plausibilities that have other explanations.

Your position is laughable.

I know you guys can't adimit that 9/11 was an inside job.

..."Too blurry to make out" is laughable.

You are not an objective person who simply wants to get at the truth.

I doubt they would kill one of their own. There are several plausible scenerios about that.

Show something you consider to be proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon and we can talk about whether or not it's proof. So far I've seen only mere plausibilities with other explanations--no proof.

You guys seem to have a pre-formed conclusion so you steer away from what doesn't lead to your pre-formed conclusion.

But when someone mentions that they don't see how you can say that it is a clear photo with a straight face, it's:

Quote:

Originally Posted by David C

Now you're doing it--when cornered, deny the obvious with a patronizing attitude.

So, since you have said "...with a straight face..." at least several dozen times, since you introduced the phrase into the debate, may we infer that you've also been denying the obvious with a patronizing attitude since the first time you said it? Fair is fair, after all.

Laguna · #**956** (**permalink**) 19-December-2006, 07:21 AM

David, I give it a last try.
Please answer the questions:
Is your fighter about 200m away on the picture you always link to?
And do we only see its nose?

David C · #**957** (**permalink**) 19-December-2006, 10:42 AM

I have no time at all today so I'll have to deal with all of your questions later.

Quote:

This picture is not blurry. It's clear as a bell.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...dodvideos.html
I don't see how anybody can say it's blurry with a straight face.

Yes. That's wilfull ignorance on your part, as it's been explained to you, over and over again, why it is physically impossible for it to be as clear as you think it is.

Saying that object on the right of the upper right picture is smoke is downright silly. This picture has got you cornered so all you can do is come up with silly explanaions for it and try to use patronizing attitudes and intimidation tactics. I know you can't admit 9/11 was an inside job so that's all you can do I guess but I asssure you all that you look absolutely silly by saying that object is smoke.
The only thing that matters here is what the viewers end up thinking. I'd be surprised if even one percent of them were moved by your tactics.

Nicolas · #**958** (**permalink**) 19-December-2006, 11:50 AM

Quote:

I know you can't admit 9/11 was an inside job so that's all you can do

David C, I urge you to answer my question whether your assertions (see previous posts) are meaning to say we are disinfo agents, or what they do mean.

And if "the viewers" disagree with anything said by any side of the discussion, they are more than welcome to say so. It is a discussion board after all.

Laguna · #**959** (**permalink**) 19-December-2006, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David C

I have no time at all today so I'll have to deal with all of your questions later.

So I await your answer tomorrow.

BTW: It should not take that much time to answer two simple questions with either yes or no.

jt-3d · #**960** (**permalink**) 19-December-2006, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David C

I know you can't admit 9/11 was an inside job so that's all you can do I guess but I asssure you all that you look absolutely silly by saying that object is smoke.

What is silly is you saying you can't see anything in front of your supposed ninja assasin fighter thing.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/48507-911-pentagon.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
Loose Change Website - Version 2.0	This thread	Refback	03-December-2007 04:21 AM