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.

 

9/11 The Pentagon “Where are the FACTS!

page: 8
14
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2010 @ 05:07 AM
link   
yeah and that link also has this gem...

"One common question we've seen on sites critical of a Boeing 757 striking the Pentagon is why is there so little engine wreckage. The only identifiable engine components seen so far are the two discussed above. Since these pieces represent so little of the two large engines carried by a 757, those believing in conspiracy suggest that these small items were planted and the lack of more substantial debris is proof of a cover-up. If a 757 truly hit the Pentagon, they argue, then where is the rest of the two engines? This argument ignores the simple fact that a lack of photos of other engine parts does not mean that none existed, only that other engine components were either not photographed or the photos have not yet been released."

So, the authors would have us believe the biggest, most world changing event the US has ever seen took place on 9/11 and no one brought a camera??

Does this make sense to you?

Conversely, its all top secret 'n National Security is at risk soooo we aint releasing 'em....but you can have three pics..no more, just three.

No mention of the rest of the freakin' plane in the article...you know...the Elephant in the room...

Sorry....not evidence.

Good try, but how can you expect to prove your point via an Official Story site??

A touch of bias to your source methinks.....

Sheeesh...you guys are something else!!





[edit on 20-5-2010 by benoni]




posted on May, 20 2010 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 



Conversely, its all top secret 'n National Security is at risk soooo we aint releasing 'em....but you can have three pics..no more, just three.


Sorry, but your petition is falling on deaf ears, not due to any massive government conspiracy and cover up, but because the volume of the collective voices of the so-called "truth movement" are so unsubstantial that they do not warrant a response.

The three photos of engine parts are actually part of a huge portfolio of photos, eyewitness testimony, technical review and technical data that has been released and all of which has been met with disbelief by the tiny communtiy of true-disbelievers in the truth movement.

So to what end would the release of additional photos serve? Photos are released and the doubters start the choral refrain, "where is the chain of custody", "how do I know this is genuine", "there should be more, what are you hiding"?



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 



Conversely, its all top secret 'n National Security is at risk soooo we aint releasing 'em....but you can have three pics..no more, just three.


Sorry, but your petition is falling on deaf ears, not due to any massive government conspiracy and cover up, but because the volume of the collective voices of the so-called "truth movement" are so unsubstantial that they do not warrant a response.

The three photos of engine parts are actually part of a huge portfolio of photos, eyewitness testimony, technical review and technical data that has been released and all of which has been met with disbelief by the tiny communtiy of true-disbelievers in the truth movement.

So to what end would the release of additional photos serve? Photos are released and the doubters start the choral refrain, "where is the chain of custody", "how do I know this is genuine", "there should be more, what are you hiding"?



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 


How is this :-

www.aerospaceweb.org...

an " Official Story site "?

This is how they describe themselves in their homepage " Aerospaceweb.org is a non-profit site operated by engineers and scientists in the aerospace field. "

The fact that these engineers and scientists conclude from the evidence that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon does not make them an " Official Story " site.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by gavron
 


but... it's... it's been 10 years? TEN YEARS!,



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 


As Alfie1 has already pointed out , that link is not an 'Official' webpage , but rather , an independent analysis .

Truthers ask for an 'independent' investigation , but when one is given , you label it as OS ?

I think it is clear where the 'bias' lies .

As stated , just because other photos are not being shown does not prove that other photos don't exist .

Do you actually believe it would be in the best interests of National Security to walk around inside the Pentagon taking pictures and videos , and then releasing those for all the world to see ?

Really ?

Yes , you guys really are 'something else' .

And , would you rather we prove our point via an official 'truther' site ? Why would we use your arguments to prove our point ?


The only real question here , is why does the author of this thread still refuse to address the link that has been posted several times now ?

[edit on 20-5-2010 by okbmd]



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
As it has been pointed out I am not posting a reply to the posted website that supposedly shows definitive proof to the OS. Actually if you had read all of my posts instead of just the last few posts I made, I have addressed the very site you are citing in your posts. If you believe that site to be a scientific authority, you my friend are sadly mistaken. I would also like to point at a post that I have in this thread that directly shows (photographs) the obvious mistakes made in the photographic analysis of the compressor hub that is in question. Last but, not least; this site also does not post the scientific method it used to analyze any of the evidence that is posted, nor does it show any official documentation to backup their findings; therefore I will not as you say address the website mentioned as it is a joke of an analysis at best.

Respectfully

MolecularPHD

P.S. Where is the post showing the names and credentials of the individuals involved in this supposed scientific analysis?



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by MolecularPhD
 


That is certainly a very 'scientific' attitude you have there . Just dismiss the guy's findings as a 'joke' because they don't support your beliefs . VERY proffessional .

And , here you are , wanting 'official' documentation of an independent report ?


It is clear to me , that you will never be satisfied with anything produced , unless it contains an open admission by the U.S. government as to their guilt .

Your attitude is far from being that of a truly scientific nature , as you are predisposed as to what the end results should be .

The OS is all false and a cover-up , yet you want 'official' documentation ?



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by MolecularPhD
 


Here is the post showing what you asked for in your above post . I'm inclined to believe you didn't even read the entire report , otherwise you would have found this info without having to ask for it .

www.aerospaceweb.org...

www.aerospaceweb.org...

[edit on 20-5-2010 by okbmd]



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by theability
 


I'm not obligated to give out personal information to you , in fact , ATS discourages such a practice .

You have no way of verifying it anyway , with nothing other than okbmd as a name . You gonna do a check to see if okbmd went to a certain college ?

Your post has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion , but is either a personal attack , or off-topic at least , so instead of getting banned again or placing you on ignore again , I will utilize the alert function instead . We are discussing an aircraft engine here , we are not talking about where I went to college or who okbmd is .

Do you have anything to contribute towards the discussion about this engine ?

Do you wish to refute the findings from the link I posted ?

This is not about me , it is about an aircraft engine .



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by MolecularPhD
 


Now that okbmd has shoved the very impressive credentials of Jeff Scott and Dr Joseph Yoon under your nose do you still maintain that we are " sadly mistaken " treating their article as "scientific authority " ?

If so, why ?



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by MolecularPhD
 



....scientific method it used to analyze.....


Here is a picture of the thing on the ground, here is a picture of the same thing in a jet engine.

Exactly how is different, or less, than the system you used which was to call out to some guy allegedly walking by your door when you were looking at some photos on your laptop and saying "look at these pictures"?



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   
ANY scientific "study" which uses "estimates" left, right and centre is FAR from scientific....

When you estimate something you are guessing.....

How can this be regarded as "scientific" ???

Answer?

It cannot.....and is hardly regarded as definitive or even accurate!!



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 


What, exactly, IS the "scientific method"?


Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.


You can read the rest, with more definitions, HERE.






[edit on 20 May 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 11:09 PM
link   
and heres another definition...just for some balance of course...

From Wiki..


Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new[1] knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[3]
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently-derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective to reduce biased interpretations of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.


Funny that you should hilight the word guess, implying that the guesstimates in the article are accepted Scientific Method...laughable weedy, and you know it....guessing Sir, doesnt carry any weight in a scientific Paper.....

So, your aerospace site is guessing what it think hit the Pentacon....


That just seems ridiculous that you should be using this(wheres all the empirical measurable evidence??????????????) to argue your point.....some dude guesses what happened, and you parrot it off as being "Gospel".....

interesting....



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 


No , what's actually 'funny' is that you posted the above thinking that it helps YOUR argument , when in fact , it only further supports the fact that the analysis was indeed carried out in a scientific manner .

You really should make sure you comprehend what you are quoting before assuming it supports your position .

What you quoted blows your position clean out of the water .

Your quote from wiki in no way supports or gives credence to your position , but rather supports what you are arguing against .

I will be more than delighted to break it down for you into laymens terms , if you so wish ?



To be fair , why don't you go first , and show me how this helps your argument ?

Show me why you feel that this quote proves the analysis of the engine was not conducted in a scientific manner .

[edit on 21-5-2010 by okbmd]



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 


In which manner, and in what way, did anyone ever imply that the investigation of the recovered engine debris parts and fragments was merely "guessed" at??

That seems to be your allegation, and is unsupported. By continuing to focus on a certain minutae, it deflects from the bigger picture, and thoroughly distracts, and leaves incorrect impressions in some reader's minds.

THAT is the tried-and-true tactic in use, still today, by the 9/11 deniers.

Here, in a nutshell, is how most deniers see things, when discussing events of 9/11 -- let's stay at the Pentagon (NOT your barbaric, and I assume intentional, bastardization spelling "pentacon"...):

Despite testimony, expert and otherwise, from dozens, or even hundreds of people, on various aspects of the event, IE, eyewitnesses, expert analysts of aircraft parts an debris, DNA analysis, etc...a faction devoted to "9/11 denying" will IGNORE the vast quantity of evidence contrary to a pet "belief", in favor of a handful of articles, comments, or even sketchy 'eyewitnesses' who happen to 'buck the trend', and include THOSE as their only lifeline of support, in order to maintain this 'denier' mindset.

Following on with their "logic" is a tendency to cherry-pick, as well. Out-of-context quotes are a favorite, as well as heavily edited (or even annotated) REAL evidence, that is thusly skewed in favor of the 'deniers' viewpoint. It is evident, in these discussioons, time and again.


THIS thread is an excellent example of how a casual, off-hand comment, in passing, regarding ONE photo of a turbine engine rotor has spawned a frenzy of miscommunication and misunderstandings.

What is LEFT OUT is the fact that these parts were collected, taken somewhere for study, and COMPARED to known parts, and found to be a match. Just because the "denier" hounds can't find (or don't bother to dig deeply enough to find) this information does not mean it doesn't exist! No, the "deniers" scratch only deep enough until they think they have found some 'flaw' in the much-maligned "official story" (there's a whole topic, and needs a staff of psychiatrists to unravel...). Once they sniff out their "amazing 'new' information", they breathlessly announce it, as if they are Moses with fifteen tablets...like, he found five that were misplaced....


What is intimated, here, is merely "looking" at ONE photo, then jumping to the conclusion that ALL of it is some massive "lie"? The logic of that escapes me, frankly. And, it is hardly "scientific".



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
And I think thats exactly what the OP wants to know...that part you mentioned at the end, you know, the bit about some parts being ...

"collected, taken somewhere for study, and COMPARED to known parts, and found to be a match. Just because the "denier" hounds can't find (or don't bother to dig deeply enough to find) this information does not mean it doesn't exist! "

Does it exist??The link above is NOT the answer....because it is bias, drawing sooo many conclusions on such scant evidence(which you have swallowed hook, line and sinker!!)


Your website full of guesstimates does not a substantial argument make sir....

okb...
yes, please give me your interpretation for the Layman..should be good..no cherry picking...ow, and keep it simple would you, in case its over my head....!!



And weedy...
thanks once again for your now daily breakdown of the Truther mindset and all its machinations...you seem to be the real expert on all things Truther....

At a guess anyway....



You have a good day boys....



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   
I think it's ridiculous that there isn't any actual physical evidence of a plane having been there. If a plane had really crashed there would be more parts then just a few "planted" pieces here and there. It's funny how there are thousands of videos of 9-11 in NYC but the government won't show a conclusive video of a plane crashing at the Pentagon.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join