Jet engine sim for testing 9/11 planes

Originally posted by KarmaIncarnate
I would never deign to put words in your mouth or attribute something to you which you, yourself, have not said.

Right like evertime i turn around the beleievers are either twisting my post, misquoting me or insulting me.

Are you now considering, or have you in the past, profited from the sale of material based on this incident?

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO,

IS that enough, and i consider it an insult for you to even think i would when i am trying to find the truth of what happened that day. something that you should be doing?



[edit on 13-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO,

IS that enough,

Seems fair; that's all I asked for was an actual answer.

Thank you. I will lay it to rest unless some other evidence reveals itself.

Originally posted by _Del_
Seems fair; that's all I asked for was an actual answer.

And you had it several posts back if you would have read and understood.

By the way why would you state that in an insulting manner, that i would sell something anyway?

[edit on 13-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
And you had it several posts back if you would have read and understood.

By the way why would you state that in an insulting manner, that i would sell something anyway?

[edit on 13-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

I saw a suggestion somewhere that you were writing a book. I asked you and you refused to answer with a clear answer; it seemed a logical conclusion.

Originally posted by _Del_
I saw a suggestion somewhere that you were writing a book. I asked you and you refused to answer with a clear answer; it seemed a logical conclusion.

I did not refuse to answer i challenged you to show me where i had stated anything about a book.

Why would you state it in a insulting manner?


[edit on 13-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Why would you state it in a insulting manner?

Because it is contemptable.

I never said you stated you were working on a book. I said you refused to answer the question.

Ultima...why do you continue to group everyone who does not agree with you into the "believers" category. Also, you have not proven anything. Evidence and proof are two different things.

Here is where I and probably many others disagree with you. If you really want to help support your claims it would help to debate these following statements with cited evidence.

1.) Your engine sim is not evidence that flight 77 did or did not hit the pentagon.

2.) While I do not disagree that jet blast occurs in flight you have yet to prove or show evidence that it is significant enough to rock cars while going 500 mph.

3.) Ground effect is not an unstoppable force that prevents planes from flying low the ground.

4.) Many parts of a boeing 757 where photographed at the pentagon with the same paint schemes as an AA 757. While this does not prove it was flight 77 it is considerable evidence it was, but not proof. Flight 77 was also tracked on radar by ATC from takeoff to crashing, evidence it was 77. While yet it is not rock solid proof flight 77 hit the pentagon it is beyond reasonable doubt that it did. Can you show any evidence it was not flight 77?

While I think the government deceived us in a large way on 9/11 I do not think they actually had anything to do with the actual crashing of any of the 4 planes that crashed that day. I have not seen any evidence to suggest they did.

Please Ultima....I am not a believer of anything, I believe scientific facts only. While you have posted some scientific facts about jet blast, you have not posted any facts the show jet blast caused the cars to rock, nor have you posted any facts that show flight 77 did not hit the pentagon.


[edit on 14-5-2008 by Sway33]

Originally posted by _Del_
I never said you stated you were working on a book. I said you refused to answer the question.

Yes you did, do you want me to post your quotes?

I never refused to answer. I challenged you to post where i stated i was working on a book, since you failed to do that i warned you about lying and was warning the mods.

Originally posted by Sway33
Ultima...why do you continue to group everyone who does not agree with you into the "believers" category. Also, you have not proven anything. Evidence and proof are two different things.

Maybe because the believers have been grouping everyone who does not agree with them. They usually call them conspircy theorist, even thosugh the official story is the only conspiracy theory since it is based on a conspiracy.

I have posted lots of facts and evidence, like the FAA and other government and professional sources.

Ultima....I am not a believer of anything, I believe scientific facts only. While you have posted some scientific facts about jet blast, you have not posted any facts the show jet blast caused the cars to rock, nor have you posted any facts that show flight 77 did not hit the pentagon.

I have posted a source for the jet wash to cause cars to be rocked and quoted the witnesses from the source.

I do not need to post evidence that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, i have shown reasonable doubt that it did not hit. IF you believe that flight 77 did hit the Pentagon then its up to you to post evidence that it did.

By the way the FBI and NTSB has not realeased any videos or phoots that flight 77 hit the Pentagon, so you have no photos or videos to show as evidence.

Also the FBI and NTSB has not released a report that matches the parts found to flight 77.







[edit on 14-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Yes you did, do you want me to post your quotes?

I never refused to answer. I challenged you to post where i stated i was working on a book, since you failed to do that i warned you about lying and was warning the mods.

Must you always start an argument? You would not give an answer to the question. I took that as an affirmation. So yes, I stated you were peddling a product. You never said you weren't (until yesterday). I never said "Ultima says he's writing a book"
*sigh*

Originally posted by _Del_
[Must you always start an argument? You would not give an answer to the question. I took that as an affirmation.

Yes i did give an answer in the form of challenging you to post where i stated i was writing abook. Since you failed to answer the challenge that meant you lied about me stating i was writing a book.

Its not my fault if you did not understand that was a answer to your question.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Yes i did give an answer in the form of challenging you to post where i stated i was writing abook. Since you failed to answer the challenge that meant you lied about me stating i was writing a book.

So, _del_ is correct. You would rather start an argument than just answer a simple question.

Rather than just say "Yes, I am writing a book", or "No, I am not writing a book"...you have to "challenge" him. I thought that was only done in the middle ages....or maybe on-line gaming.

Here in the real world, a simple "Yes" or "No" would have sufficed.

Nor is it my fault you do not communicate a point with clarity. I'm sure I'm not the only one who viewed your "answer" as evasion.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I do not need to post evidence that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, i have shown reasonable doubt that it did not hit. IF you believe that flight 77 did hit the Pentagon then its up to you to post evidence that it did.

By the way the FBI and NTSB has not realeased any videos or phoots that flight 77 hit the Pentagon, so you have no photos or videos to show as evidence.

Also the FBI and NTSB has not released a report that matches the parts found to flight 77.

For those of you at home keeping score, what Roger is doing here is using a combination of the Nirvana fallacy and the Negative-proof fallacy. If only fallacial arguments were actually valid when having a substantive debate.

You missed false dichotomy.

Evidence, were there any, that the official account is flawed does not mean his story is proven.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I do not need to post evidence that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, i have shown reasonable doubt that it did not hit.

Maybe the double negative was accidental but I agree with what you've stated there and I have reasonable doubt that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon too. This thread has convinced me more than ever that it did, in fact, hit the Pentagon as witnessed and reported.

Originally posted by KarmaIncarnate
For those of you at home keeping score, what Roger is doing here is using a combination of the Nirvana fallacy and the Negative-proof fallacy.

No what i have done is proven that the believers have no actual evidence that flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

So in court the evidence they have would not hold up because i have shown reasonable doubt and they would lose their case, just like they are losing it here in this thread.

1. NO photos of videos have been released showing flight 77.

2. NO reports have been released that match parts found to flight 77.


[edit on 15-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Maybe the double negative was accidental but I agree with what you've stated there and I have reasonable doubt that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon too. This thread has convinced me more than ever that it did, in fact, hit the Pentagon as witnessed and reported.

Out of curiosity, what was it that convinced you that AA77 did hit the Pentagon as witnessed and reported? Various people have different thresholds for burden of proof and so I'm always curious when someone is convinced of a viewpoint, what put them over the top.

Originally posted by KarmaIncarnate
For those of you at home keeping score, what Roger is doing here is using a combination of the Nirvana fallacy and the Negative-proof fallacy.

Originally posted by KarmaIncarnate
Out of curiosity, what was it that convinced you that AA77 did hit the Pentagon as witnessed and reported? Various people have different thresholds for burden of proof and so I'm always curious when someone is convinced of a viewpoint, what put them over the top.

No what i have done is proven that the believers have no actual evidence that flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

So in court the evidence they have would not hold up because i have shown reasonable doubt and they would lose their case, just like they are losing it here in this thread.

1. NO photos or videos have been released showing flight 77.

2. NO reports have been released that match parts found to flight 77.



[edit on 15-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by KarmaIncarnate


The closer I look at the micro-details of the whole event, the more I find that supports the suggestion of AA77 having impacted at the Pentagon while at the same time I'm seeing progressively less against it. Threads such as this bring out more detail all the time that adds to the overall picture.

If weighing the evidence currently available I end up heavily in favour of it being AA77. Granted there may still be some blockbuster evidence not as yet revealed to reverse that but without it my conclusion is as stated.