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.
Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Do you care to provide the forensic evidence they don't match?
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?
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...
Originally posted by weedwhacker
Sorry, we just cannot let spurious photos that are un-connected or un-sourced
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar The bodies, the FDR, the FAA radar tapes, the hundreds of eyewitnesses, the aircraft wreckage at the scene .
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?
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?
Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
The preponderance of evidence clearly – to any reasonable person – indicates Flight 77 did, in fact, hit the Pentagon.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
'Military artillery crashes into NJ home, killing cat'
Originally posted by weedwhacker
OK, OK! I'm laughing so hard, now.....has anyone bothered to go back to
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]
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.
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.