9/11 facts - weigh in - OS VS others

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Here's a link. It's comonly accepted in law and Psychology that eyewitness accounts are unpredictable and not reliable. There have been numerous studies on this, such as people identifying a purse snatcher as the wrong sex! It's very commonly wrong.
visualexpert.com - eyewitness memory

The group of people here who believe the original story keep saying there is a "blizzard of eyewitnesses", "1000s of witnesses", etc but I'm not familiar with all those - got any citations or links for that?

From what I've heard there are very reliable witnesses, such as Pentagon security, or store owners at a fixed location, that say where the airplane was, and it WASN'T where the alleged black box says. Many people saw a plane, maybe even an American Airlines plane (speculation) but I haven't heard of any who actually saw the plane hit. There's also that cab driver who lies on hidden camera - but we won't count him

If it's so cut-n-dry why won't the Pentagon just release the full footage of the crash/explosion!?


[edit on 5-2-2010 by Thermo Klein]

You post on 9/11 threads but you haven't heard of any witnesses who actually saw AA 77 impact the Pentagon. You are pulling my leg surely ?

www.debunk911myths.org...

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Question 1) what is your experience in crash site forensics? How many plane crashes have you analyzed? I don't see how you can be screaming something looks suspicious when you have absolutely no idea whatsoever what a crash site should look like to even know what's suspicious and what isn't.

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.

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

concerning Your #2 and 3

If an airplane can fall from 35,000 feet at 500 MPH and end up with the majority of the airplane there, much of it intact - there's no logical reason to think an airplane crashing at 350 MPH into a wall (that stayed intact!) would dissolve, turn to liquid, or miraculously end up on the other side on the intact wall.

I recognize this particular wall is special, tough, enforced concrete with blast-proofing, but I doubt it's more durable than 100s of feet of solid ground.

*

Sometimes I'm amazed I keep this conversation up... is your point to just keep me writing until I get far enough away from the pictures that I fall into one of your proofs?

Best proof yet in this thread is the after-explosion, pre-collapse wall. There's little damage to the wall or the ground, and no airplane. Explain THAT and this whole thing will be solved one way or the other.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Here's a link. It's comonly accepted in law and Psychology that eyewitness accounts are unpredictable and not reliable. There have been numerous studies on this, such as people identifying a purse snatcher as the wrong sex! It's very commonly wrong.

Bad analogy. Eyewitnesses may differ as to what the purse snacher looked like, I will grant you that. There would be NO contention that it was in fact a purse snatching, rather than an animal attack or drive by shooting.

The group of people here who believe the original story keep saying there is a "blizzard of eyewitnesses", "1000s of witnesses", etc but I'm not familiar with all those - got any citations or links for that?

Not every single person gave testimony, obviously, but all the people who did give testimony agreed it was the same thing they saw- a passenger jet. They range from everyone from USA Today directors to immigrants working on the Pentagon lawn.

Eyewitness accounts of the Pentagon attack

From what I've heard there are very reliable witnesses, such as Pentagon security, or store owners at a fixed location, that say where the airplane was, and it WASN'T where the alleged black box says. Many people saw a plane, maybe even an American Airlines plane (speculation) but I haven't heard of any who actually saw the plane hit. There's also that cab driver who lies on hidden camera - but we won't count him

The only ones who claim he's lying are you conspriacy people, and that's only becuase his testimony refutes what you yourself want to be true- but not that it matters. When someone actually says-

"It just plowed right into the side of the Pentagon. The nose penetrated into the portico. And then it sort of disappeared, and there was fire and smoke everywhere. . . . It was very sort of surreal."

-I have to believe him. He was there. You weren't.

reply to post by Alfie1


Thanks - some of these seem like legitimate eyewitnesses, even though the quotes are on a debunk site. I would like to point out even on a debunk9/11 conspiracy site they say "many" not 1000s or a "blizzard of" eyewitnesses...

So, this guy Daryl Donley was on the scene, at the time of the explosion. He has a very good camera, as you can see by the clarity and distance from the explosion. Very odd even the most perfect eyewitness view SHOWS NO AIRPLANE!!!!

Come on... what the hell... you just don't have a good case for this. There's NO AIRPLANE. This was taken before the wall collapsed, so the hole in the wall would have been maybe 12-15 feet high.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/37e2532bd4da.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/334cf3657824.jpg[/atsimg]
Close up of the same scene, also by Daryl Donley (eyewitness) so none of you blind people will claim those round things are airplane parts.

[edit on 5-2-2010 by Thermo Klein]

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

"It just plowed right into the side of the Pentagon. The nose penetrated into the portico. And then it sort of disappeared, and there was fire and smoke everywhere. . . . It was very sort of surreal."

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/441c8b7b26b4.gif[/atsimg]

Crashed into the portico, that just happened to remain standing - no one has addressed this part yet. The wall remained standing for 20 minutes AFTER the explosion. No airplane inside (because the wall was still standing), no airplane outside (as numerous pictures, from numerous sources, clearly show).

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?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
anyone can see it's a car accident (given that it is in this hypothetical case)

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.

Maybe just take a breath and READ THE WHOLE THING, before attacking me for an irrelavent and wrong interpretation of my words.

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

I already explained this clearly. I do not work for the FAA, and I clearly stated I'm not an expert, just that I have permission to work a crash site and training to do that.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
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?

I point to a picture of an event and you respond by eyewitnesses and claims. The black box doesn't prove anything - it doesn't match with the damage at all; it DOES NOT identify Flt 77.

The debate does not become the path of the airplane, because there's no proof an airplane ever hit there.

I'm saying an airplane didn't hit there. If no one can show me airplane wreckage I'll logically have to assume someone besides Muslim hijackers caused an explosion there, but my main point is debating whether an airplane crashed.

Do you guys enjoy this?? Every chance you get you attack my motives, my sources, my intentions, my patriotism... I am simply looking for what happened that day - your lame attempts at discrediting me are not hurting anyone's credibility but your own. Show me a picture of some wreckage - that's all I ask.

* Edited to fix quotes


[edit on 5-2-2010 by Thermo Klein]

Since most of the people on this thread are unwilling to accept pictures as proof, we'd all be better off if we just had a beer and played some chess

I'll keep this up as long as you like, but isn't sort of old after a while?

reply to post by Thermo Klein


What gets old is the idea that you think you can look at a photo of the outside of a building and determine what is on the inside. Really, if you can't clear that small intellectual hurdle then what is the point?

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
I'm saying an airplane didn't hit there. If no one can show me airplane wreckage

Here we have a truther lying once again - you have been shown 757 wreckage, both inside and outside the Pentagon many times here before - you heave been shown 757 wheels, undercarriage, engines etc. inside the Pentagon, and fuselage parts outside the Pentagon. You also ignore the DNA found inside the Pentagon that matches the passengers and crew on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon.... and the damage done to the Pentagon by a 757 sized aircraft

But like all truthers, when shown evidence that destroys your silly conspiracy theory you close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and scream NONONONONONONONONONONO!

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Crashed into the portico, that just happened to remain standing - no one has addressed this part yet. The wall remained standing for 20 minutes AFTER the explosion. No airplane inside (because the wall was still standing), no airplane outside (as numerous pictures, from numerous sources, clearly show).

The man's name is Terrance Kean, a D.C. architect living in an apartment building nearby. He was packing to move when he heard loud engine noises, and when he looked outside the window he saw flight 77 hit the Pentagon. He's on Linkedin, if you wanted to confirm his eyewitness account:

Terrance Kean's linkedin page

So are you such an arrogant little [censored] that you're actually calling Terrance Kean a liar? A guy who, unlike you, was actually there? Go ahead and call him a liar. I double dog dare you.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by Alfie1

 

Thanks - some of these seem like legitimate eyewitnesses, even though the quotes are on a debunk site. I would like to point out even on a debunk9/11 conspiracy site they say "many" not 1000s or a "blizzard of" eyewitnesses...

So, this guy Daryl Donley was on the scene, at the time of the explosion. He has a very good camera, as you can see by the clarity and distance from the explosion. Very odd even the most perfect eyewitness view SHOWS NO AIRPLANE!!!!

Come on... what the hell... you just don't have a good case for this. There's NO AIRPLANE. This was taken before the wall collapsed, so the hole in the wall would have been maybe 12-15 feet high.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/37e2532bd4da.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/334cf3657824.jpg[/atsimg]
Close up of the same scene, also by Daryl Donley (eyewitness) so none of you blind people will claim those round things are airplane parts.

[edit on 5-2-2010 by Thermo Klein]

Wow, a fierce fire and you say " wot no airplane ". Do you see a missile, a bomb a drone ? what ?

On topic but off course post.

For all you people who *know* 9/11 was an inside job and the OS is a complete fraud (like me) you have probably and justifiably given up hope that the MSM will ever allow this to be exposed.

There is another huge coverup that has the same smell of 9/11. Thats the 'man on the moon' hoax. I assume you are open minded and can follow common sense and basic physics, which has led to the above conclusion.

If you are in doubt about the moon hoax, do some research. It is my belief that if the moon hoax was exposed, it would open the doors for other massive MSM coverups, primarily 9/11.

The moon is topical - the 'next' manned mission has just been cancelled (for good reason too).

As no real harm was done by faking it (unlike 9/11 which caused great suffering) it should be possible to expose. With 9/11 following closely afterwards.

Mod Note: Please stay on Topic – Review This Link.



[edit on Fri Feb 5 2010 by Jbird]

reply to post by hooper


Dude I thought you were joking before...

The hurdle here is that a 125 foot wide plane CAN'T fit through a tiny hole! The plane IS NOT on the other side by VERY LOGICAL DEFINITION - THE WALL IS STILL STANDING!!!! So the plane CAN'T be on the other side (even if you can't see the other side).

I can't believe you're serious... do you normally experience things appearing on the other side of solid walls/doors, without going through something?

A solid airplane DOES NOT go through a solid wall without knocking it down.


[edit on 5-2-2010 by Thermo Klein]

Originally posted by Alfie1
Wow, a fierce fire and you say " wot no airplane ". Do you see a missile, a bomb a drone ? what ?

I don't know, but it WASN'T anything that was 200,000 pounds of metal before impact, and nothing afterward.

A real, unbiased investigation would be appropriate.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/54e281264cf7.jpg[/atsimg]

Hmm... Let's recap.

NO AIRPLANE
(since there's just no airplane there)

EXPLOSION CAME FROM WITHIN THE BUILDING
(since the support columns are blown OUTWARD)

WALL REMAINED INTACT FOR 20 MINUTES AFTER THE EXPLOSION
(NIST report)

DING DING DING!! We have a winner!!
Explosion came from INSIDE the building.
(Wasn't a plane inside the building because the wall was still there after the explosion, although the wall was weakened when the support columns were blown away from the blast center.)


[edit on 5-2-2010 by Thermo Klein]

disregard

[edit on 6-2-2010 by Thermo Klein]

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by GoodOlDave
I have no interest in discussing what happened over Pennsylvania.
With Rumsfeld's statement (on video) that it was shot down...

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Once again you conspiracy theorists are taking quotes out of context to suit your own antiestablishment political agenda. What Rumsfeld said EXACTLY was...

"And I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten -- indeed the word "terrorized" is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be."

...so going by your own unbending strict methodology to accept every word, apostrophe, and comma at face value, Rumsfeld is saying it was *the terrorists* that shot down flight 93, not the gov't. Thus, you need to explain why the gov't would want to cover up the fact that al Qaida operatives shot down a plane that had been hijacked by other al Qaida operatives. Just becuase you're so madly in love with the idea that the gov't shot it down it doesn't give you the right to deliberately change the evidence around to artificially make thinks look that way, you know.

BTW who the heck told you there was no plane wreckage at the crash site? Were you there?

I've been thinking about this...

GoodOlDave - do you think the terrorists that shot down flight 93 were the same group of terrorists who hijacked it? Or a different group of terrorists, who happen to have capability of shooting down planes on US soil?

The bottom line, to me, is that he said flight 93 was "shot down." Whoever did it, the fact remains that the then Secretary of Defense gave facts entirely different that your MSM media story.

I see why you'd be reactionary and abusive... don't taze me bro!


[edit on 6-2-2010 by Thermo Klein]

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

GoodOlDave - do you think the terrorists that shot down flight 93 were the same group of terrorists who hijacked it? Or a different group of terrorists, who happen to have capability of shooting down planes on US soil?

I don't believe the terrorists shot flight 93 down becuase I don't believe Rumsfeld is a human tape recorder. The guy meant to say "caused it to crash" but he had something else on his mind that caused him to say, "shot it down". He may have had the shoot down order on his mind, I don't know, but Rumsfeld has never waivered on the statement that it was the terrorists who brought flight 93 down.

the only people who are making a mountain out of this molehill are you conspiracy people, and the only reason you're doing THAT is becuase you know you have ZERO tangible evidence to back up your claims of conspiracy so you have to resort to rifling through garbage cans and analyzing speeches with a microscope looking for secret meanings in order to keep your conspiracy stories afloat.

I see why you'd be reactionary and abusive... don't taze me bro!

I have always made my position clear- I have no personal beef with any of the conspriacy theorists here. I find that you're generally intelligent and articulate people, and I know that deep down you do believe you have good intentions. Rather, my utmost disgust is with the con artist punks behind these damned fool conspiracy web sites (Dylan Avery, Alex Jones, etc) who are churning out all sorts of "the gov't is plotting to murder us all" horse [censored] to intentionally get people all paranoid over shadows. You yourselves are merely the victims in their con.

The only frustration I have is from my constantly explaining over and over how they're conning you, and yet you're still swallowing their rubbish. All I can do is warn you not to drink the Kool-aid, guy. You have to realize you need to stay away from the kool-aid on your own.

reply to post by Thermo Klein

A solid airplane DOES NOT go through a solid wall without knocking it down.

So in your universe the entire wall must come down in order to accomodate the plane? Why not the entire side of the building? There is this really nice report prepared by the ASCE about all this. Why don't you take a quick read through that and get back with specific arguments. This way we're not talking about "tiny holes" and "whole walls".