9/11 facts - weigh in - OS VS others

page: 19
9
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 13 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

I made my case: pictures of an explosion with no airplane.


...and the case *I* made trumps the case *YOU* made: eyewitnesses in the area specifically saw that it was an airplane that hit the Pentagon.

So I will ask again- what alternative scenario do you have that explains both the strange wall damage AND the eyewitnesses seeing an airplane hitting the Pentagon? Many of them were pretty explicit.

Eyewitness accounts of the Pentagon attack


soo...supposed eyewitness accounts trump photographic evidence?




posted on Mar, 13 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 



He's saying that because we can't see a six foot person from a satellite, we should also not be able to see a 124 foot wide plane from 200 feet away!!


Don't care if your 20 feet away, if what you want to see is inside and your outside, well distance isn't really an issue.


All this work, research, marking points on pictures, and I get only 4 flags... and this Hooper person gets a star for THIS!!? Guys - stop backing each other! You're just making it worse.


Doesn't take a lot to shine on your stuff.


Hooper - keep in mind none of us can see your brain.


Yeah, and even if you were standing 2 inches away from me you STILL COULDN'T see it - it is INSIDE my skull.


While we're at it - you do realize you're backing the idea that there is a huge Boeing airplane INSIDE a militarily sealed building... and it got there by flying through a wall!!


I'm sorry - I didn't realize it was in a "militarily sealed" building. Well, then that changes everything. You just can't get through those military seals - they're made of real tough stuff -remind me again what military seals are made out of, will you? Yes, and it did get there by flying thorugh the wall - now I think you get. The plane flew THROUGH the wall and into the building, which is why you can't see it in photos of the OUTSIDE of the building, get it?



you are typing for the sake of it now....

the wall is still standing... how did the plane get past it?



posted on Mar, 13 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
If you honestly think that people's eye-witness accounts WITHOUT PICTURES, are better evidence than pictures of the explosion site then we have nothing more to talk about... [You may want to research that eye-witness accounts are often times not used in trials any longer because of the high propensity for error.]


Would you mind terribly explaining where you got THAT claim from? My house was broken into last year so I know full flipping well from personal experience that the first things cops do when investigating a crime is to go to everyone nearby and ask, "Did you see anything?" If you even attempt to claim they do anything else, you will be lying through your teeth.

If you had only one witness saying they saw a plane, you may have had a point. If you had only three or four witnesses that saw a plane, you still would have had a point. The problem for you is that EVERYBODY in the vicinity saw a plane. If your conspiracy stories can't get past that, then they can't get out of the gate regardless of how desperately you try.


yes, them asking questions is called investigating.

as in what you dont do.



posted on Mar, 13 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


Here are a few facts, not imaginations or suggestions, about AA 77.

Radar places AA 77 at the Pentagon.

Air Traffic Control places AA 77 at the Pentagon. Air Traffic Control at nearby Reagan National Airport attests to the crash at the Pentagon.

The Flight Data Recorder recovered at the Pentagon places AA 77 at the Pentagon.

The flight crew of a C130 in the area attests to AA 77 crashing into the Pentagon.

The recovered DNA of passengers and crew places AA 77 at the Pentagon.

Scores of witnesses saw a large passenger jet approach and crash into the Pentagon. Some say it was a Boeing 757, some say it had AA logo.

Wreckage of a Boeing 757 has been recovered from the Pentagon. Some of it imbedded within concrete within the Pentagon. Not a bolt from a missile or a whiff of an explosive was detected at the site.

To contradict that, all we seem to have is your personal opinon of what a crash site should look like. It is not as though you even pretend to have any expertise in the field.

From the morning of 9/11 to today no-one has seen AA 77,its crew, or passengers. Where are they ?



lets see the sources big guy.

i bet they dont work.



posted on Mar, 13 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Although I do have some experience and credentials for this, I'm not an expert - however, there are certain levels of reality that ANYBODY should be able to ascertain. You don't judge something's a murder by seeing blood on the ground; you see two wrecked cars touching and anyone can see it's a car accident (given that it is in this hypothetical case), you don't need to be an insurance adjuster or professional to see it.


Not true. If you saw a photo of a car parked directly behind mine and I had a huge dent in my bumper, you would insist the car banged into me. What you don't know is that the dent had been there for four months becuase it will cost $600 to fix a largely cosmetic dent and the car just happened to be there. You're still leaping to your own conclusions from the photos you're looking at.

...and what credentials do you have in crash site forensics, may I ask? Do you work for the FAA?


You don't need to be an expert to see there's NO AIRPLANE in any of the pictures.


You don't need to be an expert to understand that when every witness in the area specifically saw it was an airplane that hit the Pentagon, that there was aircraft wreckage inside the Pentagon, and that a black box identifying it as flight 77 was located in the Pentagon, that it was an airplane that hit the Pentagon. The debate becomes how the airplane created the specific pattern of damage shown, rather than conjuring up some cartoon plot that there never was any airplane to begin with.

Dude, don't you think your secret conspiracies and plots with controlled demelitions and staged false flag operations are pretty outer space convoluted as it is, without adding any more layers of convolution to the mix?


what your stupid analogy is missing is that the difference between a fresh fender-bender and a 4-month-old one are easily noticeable.



posted on Mar, 13 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by REMISNE
Well we have to look at the facts presented to us, most people with common sense and experts agree to the following.

1. The towers did not burn that long.


Why is the length of time that the fires burned relevent? The argument is over whether fires were able to sufficiently undermine critical structural supports, not how long it would have taken to undermine them.


2. The fire was oxygen starved and not burning real hot.


Incorrect. The NIST report esitmates that temperatures reached upwards of 1000C in the location of the impact, fifteeen minutes afterwards. I will post the report for you to review how they arrive at that estimate, if you desire.


3. The fires were burning out before the collapse.


Your obervation has no basis in fact. Recently released photos taken from NYPD helicopters showing that raging fires were still burning until the moment of the crash have already been posted elsewhere, so I will not repost them here.


So the question remains what was in th debris that kept steel at molten temps for several weeks.


The obvious answer is of course, "Heat". Anything more than that is 100% conjecture on your part.


raging fires? crazy, firefighters were able to get to the 78th floor of the south tower (i think its south)

crazy huh



posted on Mar, 13 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by REMISNE
Well we have to look at the facts presented to us, most people with common sense and experts agree to the following.

1. The towers did not burn that long.


Why is the length of time that the fires burned relevent? The argument is over whether fires were able to sufficiently undermine critical structural supports, not how long it would have taken to undermine them.


2. The fire was oxygen starved and not burning real hot.


Incorrect. The NIST report esitmates that temperatures reached upwards of 1000C in the location of the impact, fifteeen minutes afterwards. I will post the report for you to review how they arrive at that estimate, if you desire.


3. The fires were burning out before the collapse.


Your obervation has no basis in fact. Recently released photos taken from NYPD helicopters showing that raging fires were still burning until the moment of the crash have already been posted elsewhere, so I will not repost them here.


So the question remains what was in th debris that kept steel at molten temps for several weeks.


The obvious answer is of course, "Heat". Anything more than that is 100% conjecture on your part.


dereks just said that 'truthers' lack logical thinking skills because nothing can keep steel molten for weeks.

dave just agreed that heat would keep steel molten.

one of you is an idiot....

but im gona go with both



posted on Mar, 13 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by REMISNE
 


None of those would be accepted in a court of law as proof of CD.

Try again.

]
good thing you are no judge and this is no courtroom.

haha



posted on Mar, 13 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by REMISNE

There was a hole blown in the side of the Pentagon with another plane with parts that were recovered.


But what parts, what do they belong to?


I think I can handle that question for you...here is an analysis by a group of aerospace engineers that show the wreckage did come from a Boeing 757

Aerospace engineers' analysis of flight 77 wreckage

Not that it matters, as so many eyewitnesses specifically saw that it was a passenger jet that struck the Pentagon that there is no more room for doubt and debate that it was in fact a passenger jet.


since i know your reading comprehension is near that of a rock, listen close:

MULTIPLE, nay almost all within a brief period of time after the pentagon was hit, eyewitnesses state they saw a 'smaller' craft.



posted on Mar, 13 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
[edit on 13-3-2010 by 814ck0u7]





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in

join