It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

737 Wheel recovered at the Pentagon on 9/11

page: 11
4
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Do you care to provide the forensic evidence they don't match?

No. I don't need to provide any evidence that doesn't identify the plane. I'm not sure if you understand that it's not possible, in this instance, to prove a negative, especially when the positive proposition has not been proven. Perhaps you should enrol in a short course on logic and proof, it may help you understand why your statement above is meaningless.

I'm waiting for the forensic report that shows where the alleged wreckage has been matched to serial numbers and maintenance records of the alleged flight AA77.



In the absence of any other correlating evidence (a vacuum if you will) the likelihood the parts don't match is the same they do, in fact, match...correct?

Your mathematical reasoning here is unsound. You exhibit a common flaw in fundamental intuitive understanding, commonly displayed by high school students, with the topic of chance and probability.

A common fallacy is for students to think that if they don't know the probability of subjective outcomes, then each is likely. For example - will it rain tomorrow? Many unintuitive students will say there's a 50/50 chance.

You can read educational research papers on this, they are based around the false of notion of equal probabilities, where it is not valid to assign equal values.

It is a flawed notion to want to assign an arbitrary equal probability to the alleged wreckage belonging to the alleged plane, or not.

It is a true statement that either the alleged wreckage belongs to the alleged flight AA77, or it doesn't. If the alleged wreckage does belong to the alleged flight, then it can be matched by serial numbers and maintenance records. Failure to show this, is inconclusive and does not positively identify the alleged plane involved.

Under no circumstances is it logically, or mathematically valid to assign an equal probabilistic outcome to estimate the chances that the alleged wreckage might, or might not belong to the alleged plane.

Please, don't destroy centuries of mathematical logic with your uninformed statements.

Thanks.

[edit on 10-4-2008 by tezzajw]




posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Anyway, please, again, post the photos of the damaged engines, from the Pentagon,


Here is the photo of the engine found outside the Pentagon. It is damaged and i cannot not match it to a RB211.

i22.photobucket.com...


Well, ULTIMA, at least it's something....compared to the size of the (obviously) burned out car nearby...you did notice the car, I hope?

What we don't know, from that picture, is when it was taken. There is what appears to be a tarp covering whatever is in the picture....when was it taken? What is it?

Sorry, we just cannot let spurious photos that are un-connected or un-sourced be used as 'proof' one way or the other!

Just doesn't work that way, for educated people....

WW



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Sorry, we just cannot let spurious photos that are un-connected or un-sourced


You mean like all the photos of aircraft parts at the Pentagon that people that believe the official story like to use as evidence that flgith 77 hit the Pentagon?

[edit on 11-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Sorry, we just cannot let spurious photos that are un-connected or un-sourced


You mean like all the photos of aircraft parts at the Pentagon that people that believe the official story like to use as evidence that flgith 77 hit the Pentagon?

[edit on 11-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]


Yes, actually, Sir, like all the photos that have been used to document the actual impact of the actual airplane, Sir.

AND, these actual photos may sometimes provide comfort and solace to the people who lost loved ones on that flight, Sir!

Has it occured to you, Sir, that our CiC doesn't allow the, now, over 4000 honored dead, from the battles in Iraq, to be filmed upon their return to American soil? Is that not a sacrilege, Sir?

Is that not a way to, a POLITCAL way to, diminish their sacrifice, Sir?

It is despicable, that we, the People, allow this disgrace to happen, without standing up and saying something about it, Sir!

Instead, the true criminals laugh at us for arguing about something that happened almost 7 years ago. Now, tell me which is the true crime here!



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Do you care to provide the forensic evidence they don't match?

No. I don't need to provide any evidence that doesn't identify the plane. I'm not sure if you understand that it's not possible, in this instance, to prove a negative, especially when the positive proposition has not been proven. Perhaps you should enrol in a short course on logic and proof, it may help you understand why your statement above is meaningless.

(tip: at this juncture I think it's wise to point out making spelling mistakes, while attempting to pass yourself off as smarter than the person you're talking to doesn't really help your cause)

Of course you don't need evidence! What you assert is true because....well......you say so!

I'm not sure if you understand, in this particular instance, that the positive has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. You are the one asking for a negative to be proven. You can choose to ignore, as you have done, the massive amount of correlating data at your folly.



I'm waiting for the forensic report that shows where the alleged wreckage has been matched to serial numbers and maintenance records of the alleged flight AA77.


Yes, of course. The strawman argument. All evidence that indicates flight 77 did, in fact, hit the Pentagon is irrelevant. The bodies, the FDR, the FAA radar tapes, the cockpit voice recorder, the transmissions to the various flight controllers, the hundreds of eyewitnesses, the aircraft wreckage at the scene and the cell phone calls to loved ones, from loved ones actually on the flight (to name but a few examples) is meaningless.

Until we have this information we can't possibly follow the perponderance of evidence.

Sure.




In the absence of any other correlating evidence (a vacuum if you will) the likelihood the parts don't match is the same they do, in fact, match...correct?
Your mathematical reasoning here is unsound. You exhibit a common flaw in fundamental intuitive understanding, commonly displayed by high school students, with the topic of chance and probability.


In my fictitious example I said: in the absence of any other correlating data (stay with me) all probabilities are equal. Which is, in fact, a true statement. One more time, in the absence of other correlating data.

Again, there is a absolute mountain of correlating evidence to support that flight 77 was, in fact, the plane that hit the Pentagon thereby making the probability that your “theory” is correct so low as to be absurd.


It is a flawed notion to want to assign an arbitrary equal probability to the alleged wreckage belonging to the alleged plane, or not.


And that, my friends, is the point. There isn't equal probability in this example.

My point, again, is thus:
The only way your serial number demand would be at all relevant is if there were no other supporting evidence.


It is a true statement that either the alleged wreckage belongs to the alleged flight AA77, or it doesn't. If the alleged wreckage does belong to the alleged flight, then it can be matched by serial numbers and maintenance records. Failure to show this, is inconclusive and does not positively identify the alleged plane involved.

If this was the only piece of evidence that could be considered, you would be correct. Again, slowly........in the absence of any other correlating evidence you would be correct. Unfortunately for you, there is a mountain of evidence that makes specific serial number identification irrelevant.

Nice try at semantics but, that's nothing more than another truther strawman.


Under no circumstances is it logically, or mathematically valid to assign an equal probabilistic outcome to estimate the chances that the alleged wreckage might, or might not belong to the alleged plane.

Please, don't destroy centuries of mathematical logic with your uninformed statements.

Thanks.


Again, thank you for proving my point for me. You're correct. So, taken into account all of the other evidence that supports flight 77 being the plane to hit the Pentagon, what's the probability the parts do match?

Pretty darn high.

Which makes your contention, drum roll please, very, very, very unlikely based on a probability that takes into account the other, supporting evidence.

If that's your best attempt at being snarky, I suggest you do a little polishing on your technique as it's severely lacking. It doesn't do yourself any good to write a post full of petty condescension when from the very first word your playing into the hand of the person you think you're taking to task.

So, next time, perhaps you should step back and think, before you post?

[edit on 11-4-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


If I may add to the chorus....oh, that's not a particularly good way to chime in, but I just have to....

I have seen, time and time again, a request for 'serial numbers' to match the parts recovered at the crash sites....

This is so stupid, it defies reason.

I have already mentioned, on another thread, about the wheel assembliles...

Airlines make up wheel/tire assemblies...what this is, is the proper hub, with tire attached, already 'pumped' up to the proper air pressure, so it's ready to be swapped out for another wheel, just in case a tire is shown to be damaged such as to need changing. Heck! They do this in NASCAR!!! Get it?!?

They don't keep serial numbers, except on the built-up wheel assembly that gets mounted, it is an INTERNAL number, not a serial number to see later in the accident debris!!

Finally, these people who strive for 'S/N' on every piece of debris, every part from the airplane that hit the Pentagon, then say

'Hey! You don't have the Serial Number for every part, therefore there was no airplane!'

Nonsense. It is a silly argument, intended to deflect and confuse....a preponderance of evidence is enough....a partial piece may, or may not, have a S/N on it....let me ask, where is the S/N on your car? How many components of your car are labeled?

The VIN for my car is located in the left side of the windshield.

The records of a commercial jet are located, in the maintenance area, and in the headquarters of the airline in question.

Of course, any passenger is free to ask to see the 'Airworthiness Certificate' and the 'Registration Certificate'...since these two documents are required, by regs, to be 'prominently displayed'....(hint...usually, in the cockpit. But, try to see them before take-off....LOL!)

WW



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Again, there is a absolute mountain of correlating evidence to support that flight 77 was, in fact, the plane that hit the Pentagon thereby making the probability that your “theory” is correct so low as to be absurd.

I'm not sure why you cling to a notion that the identification of the alleged crash of flight AA77 should be assigned a probability?

Again, you fundamentally ignore all aspects of probability and logic, when you state that a theory should have an associated probability. This is simply not the case.

Either the alleged flight AA77 crashed at the Pentagon, or it did not. This is not a game of chance, there is no need to assign probabilities.

If flight AA77 crashed, then where are the serial numbers that match the alleged wreckage to maintenance records?

Without positive identification of the alleged wreckage, then there is no way to be certain that the alleged plane that crashed was flight AA77.

I'm not surprised at the poor understanding that some people demonstrate when dealing with chance - it's one of the more difficult topics that students find difficult, for many different intuitive reasons. Your post clearly demonstrates some of the these misconceptions.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Yes, actually, Sir, like all the photos that have been used to document the actual impact of the actual airplane, Sir.


You mean you will not accept the photo i posted because its unsourced but you will accept the photos of the parts even though they are unsourced also ?

I am still waiting for an official report that matches those parts found to Flight 77. Oh thats right they have not been released.


[edit on 11-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar The bodies, the FDR, the FAA radar tapes, the hundreds of eyewitnesses, the aircraft wreckage at the scene .


1. You mean the bodies that have not been proven to be passengers from Fligth 77, and that the bodies from Flight 77 were never proven to be in the Pentagon?

2. You mean the FDR that questions the official story?

3. The radar tapes wher Flight 77 was off radat for 18 minutes and not noticed for at least another 18?

4. The eyewitnesses that could not agree and what they saw and whos testimony would not hold up in court?

5. The wreckage that has not been proven to be from Flight 77?



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
1. You mean the bodies that have not been proven to be passengers from Fligth 77, and that the bodies from Flight 77 were never proven to be in the Pentagon?

Do you discount the first-responders who found bodies still strapped into seats as incorrect?

Personally, I would think this statement would have more credibility if bodies suddenly appeared out of thin air. In the absence of tremendous fire damage (consistent with a fire based off of an accelerant called JP4), eyewitnesses who saw the plane physically impact the building, the missing plane, the missing loved ones, pieces of commercial aircraft wreckage strewn all over the place, huge, multi-thousand pound landing gear assemblies, structural airframe members entirely consistent with a commercial airliner, etc, etc, etc, etc.

The key is this: the incident did not take place in a void. The preponderance of evidence indicates – which is massive – that flight 77 did, in fact, hit the Pentagon.

My only point, as it has been all along, is that in order to take the wrong plane/no plane contention seriously you have to utterly dismiss the mountains of evidence that indicates Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon.

It’s only complicated to those who can’t, for their agenda’s sake, acknowledge the evidence that does not support the wrong plane/no plane ‘theory’.




2. You mean the FDR that questions the official story?


How? Unless you’re going to offer actual proof, that’s a pure strawman argument. I don’t reject your contention outright – anything is possible – but I am going to require more than your word on this.


3. The radar tapes wher Flight 77 was off radat for 18 minutes and not noticed for at least another 18?


For the sake of the argument, I will use your timeline.

So? What does that indicate? Not a thing.

As before, in the absence of other, incriminating evidence that would indicate something was amiss (beyond the horrible circumstances of a hijacked airliner) that’s also a strawman.

If you consider the evidence – not speculations – the probability is much higher that the plane was flown to low as to be a reliable radar return than something “black ops” was going on.
If you choose to ignore the evidence, as you do, then all things are equal (which they are not) and it’s as likely your wrong as you are right.


4. The eyewitnesses that could not agree and what they saw and whos testimony would not hold up in court?


They can not agree? Says who? CIT? Can you find some witnesses who’s recollection is incorrect, or outside of the average? Of course you can. Eyewitness testimony ALONE is highly unreliable. Again, there is a whole lot more than just eyewitness testimony to draw conclusions from.

Once again, the preponderance of evidence is overwhelming. Can you find inconsistencies? Absolutely! Does this prove a conspiracy? Absolutely not!

Taking one data point, and eliminating all others from consideration is propaganda, not truth seeking.




5. The wreckage that has not been proven to be from Flight 77?


Again, another variation of the strawman argument. The preponderance of evidence clearly – to any reasonable person – indicates Flight 77 did, in fact, hit the Pentagon.

It’s not that I think your ideas are not worth looking at. Not at all. I think anyone who is really after the truth must consider all the evidence.

[edit on 12-4-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Okay. Interesting.

So, moving forward, based on our agreement that any probability is reached based on all available evidence, what do you think the probability of the serial numbers matching is?


[edit on 12-4-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Caustic Logic
 



Those pictures do seem to be debris from a plane.

But I see a problem:


I see pictures of the pentagon.

I see pictures of plane debris.


But not both at the same time. In the pentagon pictures, the debris is conspicuously absent. In the pictures of the debris, the pentagon is conspicuously absent.


I can't identify both in the same picture. This is what keeps me scratching my head.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
The preponderance of evidence clearly – to any reasonable person – indicates Flight 77 did, in fact, hit the Pentagon.


The preponderance of what evidence? Maybe i need to show you the missing evidence.

1. No photo or video of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

2. No official reports matching the parts found to Flight 77.

3. Eyewitness testimony would not hold up in court.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   
OK, OK! I'm laughing so hard, now.....has anyone bothered to go back to page 1? The original post, by the 'OP'??

Talk about the 'rabbit hole'!!!!

WW

[add] 'Military artillery crashes into NJ home, killing cat'



[edit on 4/12/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
'Military artillery crashes into NJ home, killing cat'



But it was Mohammad Catta, the mastermind of the 9/11 operation.
This is quite a rabbit hole isn't it? I mean, did anyone discuss the poor dead cat?



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
OK, OK! I'm laughing so hard, now.....has anyone bothered to go back to


Its even more laughable that people can still believe the official story with no actual evidnece to support it.

[edit on 12-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by weedwhacker
OK, OK! I'm laughing so hard, now.....has anyone bothered to go back to


Its even more laughable that people can still believe the official story with no actual evidnece to support it.

[edit on 12-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]


Apologies to Mods, for doing a full quote, but did anyone else notice how my partial quote was utilized by ULTIMA in order to make me look silly?

What I am trying to point out is....a sentence fragment, from my post, was used in order to change the original context of what I was referring to.

This must stop! Please!

With all due respect to those who post, there are just certain lines that should not be crossed, besides the ones already pointed out in the T&C.

ATS has become a hotbed of attention, and activity....stuff has to be reined in, or else it will devolve....

WW



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
What I am trying to point out is....a sentence fragment, from my post, was used in order to change the original context of what I was referring to.


Kind of like what people do to me all the time.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA, I understand, you share my frustration....but please do me the honor, at least, of noting that I don't do it.

Thanks.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
[ULTIMA, I understand, you share my frustration....but please do me the honor, at least, of noting that I don't do it.


You should be telling that to the people that believne the official story that have the misquote and twist other post to keep from facing reallity.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join