Pentagon - No camera footage = No plane. A reasonable assumption.

page: 43
136
<< 40  41  42    44 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack
 


I'm sorry that you don't understand the point. There are MANY other examples of the debris....and, yes, even SMALL pieces...yet, you use derision and a mocking tone? This is not representative of the entire story, but to illustrate the wide range.

And, yes...even the fact that "eyewitnesses" can also be mistaken. Out of any group, all seeing the same event, I would hypothesize that there exists a "bell curve" of sorts...a range...from VERY accurate and described precisely, to wholly inaccurate, and wildly incorrect. AND, it depends a lot on the location, distance and life experience/technical knowledge of each individual. This is well understood, has been demonstrated for years...I would think most people are aware of this phenomenon? (Maybe I presume people to know more than they actually do? In that case, I expect people will do further research, on their own...rather than just DISMISSING something, and hand-waving it aside. Intellectual pursuit, absent any effort at actuallly learning, is called something else entirely....).

Point is, despite a handful of persons whose initial impressions, immediately following the event, turn out to be incorrect, based on the reasons outlined above....it is the AGGREGATE of eyewitness testimony that matters. When you have a majority whose recollections begin to all match, independantly, then you know to disregard the others....although, usually, even if some details are incorect, they STILL have some other kernel to contribute, for the overall reconstruction and to help ascertain the circumstances.

PLUS, there IS physical evidence....too often, especially with this Internet anonymity, such outrageous demands are made....as if each here has some "right" of some sort....to "demand to see *everything*...or else, it's not good enough!!"

Sorry, but in the real world, it doesn't work out that way. NO events are recorded to such detail....yet, in the realm of "9/11 conspiracies"?? The so-called "truthers" are NEVER satisfied, no matter how mcuh evidence is shown to them.



A sad, sad commentary on the state of humanity, at this stage of our "development". Are we, as a species, devolving?? OR, is the Internet Age to blame? The over-load of info, and the "I must have it NOW!!" attitudes???

edit on 20 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)


Quite the rant without really adding anything to the debate...

All I want to see is PROOF...
Plain and simple...
If a 124' wide plane hit the Pentagon and a large proportion of that plane did NOT penetrate the building, then I expect to see PROOF..
The Pentagon event was one of the most widely covered as it was the last and TV crews and reporters were on the scene very quickly...

But what bothers me the most about you Weedwhacker is the FACT that I have seen you playing the part of skeptic in many other threads like the A&O forum..
Your DEMANDING of provable FACTS in those forums appears far more vigorous that what you exhibit in the 9/11 forum, where you seem to accept blurry 5 frames of vid, a few pics of tiny debris and selected eyewitness accounts as 100% proof..

Odd how your standards alter..




posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
This whole "no plane hit the Pentagon" claim is so identical to the "no planes hit the WTC" claim that I have to consider them one and the same. The only footage of the first aircraft strike on the towers is of shadowy blurs and sillouettes...namely, becuase they were filming something else at the time and didn't expect a plane to come along.


except ample evidence exists that the naudet brothers had FOREKNOWLEDGE and was far from random or lucky.

thats not even to mention the irrefutable and overwhelming evidence of fakery in their footage or the fact that their footage was in control of the FBI before it was released...ALL EVIDENCE that most like you ignore and find nothing suspect with which Proves that you're either BIASED, intentionally peddling disinfo to discredit NPT or in denial.


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Yet, the majority of the truthers still accept the first aircraft strike was in fact a passenger jet because this didn't occur in the middle of the desert or at the bottom of the ocean.


NO, the majority of truthers accept the first aircraft strike was a passenger jet because they either haven't investigated the evidence, they haven't examined the evidence, nor are open-minded enough to consider the implications of the evidence.


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
This occurred in downtown Manhatten and some 100,000 people specifically saw that it was a passenger jet.


Which is an OUTRIGHT LIE that you know you have ZERO evidence to support.


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Yes, there are fringe proponents who insist the planes were holograms, the video is all fake, and the witnesses reporting it was a passenger jet are all secret gov't disinformation agents,


And there is overwhelming irrefutable evidence to support it which is why these proponents continue to grow as more examine the evidence those like you try to hide and have failed to disprove.


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
but most truthers roll their eyes and take this claim with a grain of salt.


The only ones who roll their eyes and take it with a grain of salt are those who either haven't investigated the evidence, haven't examined the evidence, nor are open-minded enough to consider the implications of the evidence due to personal reasons and fear of the truth.


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Why then, are truthers so eager to do a 180 and use the exact same stunted logic as the no planers and insist that it wasn't a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon.


because irrefutable facts, science and evidence has proven it beyond a doubt.


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The Pentagon is in the middle of an industrial park as well as several highways so hundreds of people from every angle saw that it was a passenger jet,


which is another outright lie and there's overwhelming evidence thats proven why what you say is flawed, biased, and exaggerated not to mention only presents information that conforms to ONE SIDE ie the OS, and rejects any evidence that doesn't; and there's MOUNTAINS of it.


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
plus, piles of wreckage appeared all over the front lawn of the Pentagon immediately after the impact,


yet ANOTHER LIE and EXAGGERATION that ignores contradicting evidence and testimony... pretty much like the situation over at Shanksville.


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
and it'd be idiotic to claim that someone ran out and threw all these pieces onto the lawn in broad daylight without anyone noticing.


Too bad for those peddling that disinfo, that evidence exists which supports the theory you nor anyone has conclusively disproven.... not to mention the FACT there's no conclusive verifiable forensic evidence that any of the debris on the lawn, came from flight 77 or passenger jet... In fact, there's evidence to suggest anything but one. So its far more idiotic to claim that there's no evidence to support the planting of evidence.


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
This whole, No plane hit the Pentagon" bit is nothing but instigating paranoia for paranoia's sake.


exactly what disinfo agents are peddling and want people to believe.


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
If you acknowledge that passenger jets did in fact hit the towers then it's pointless to claim it was something else that hit the Pentagon since whoever was responsible for the attack irrefutably had at least two disposable passenger jets under their control that they were flinging into buildings elsewhere.


EXACTLY... which is why those who understand and support the NRPT, do so because the evidence explains it far better than any alternative theories.

edit on 22-1-2011 by lord9 because: edit



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

I'm sorry that you don't understand the point. There are MANY other examples of the debris....and, yes, even SMALL pieces...


but since NONE of that debris that you claim proves a passenger jet or flight 77 has ever been forensically identified, its WORTHLESS.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
yet, you use derision and a mocking tone?


PKB

If I had a dime for every time your postings use derision and a mocking tone, i'd be able to buy the little planes you claim to have flown.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
And, yes...even the fact that "eyewitnesses" can also be mistaken. Out of any group, all seeing the same event, I would hypothesize that there exists a "bell curve" of sorts...a range...from VERY accurate and described precisely, to wholly inaccurate, and wildly incorrect. AND, it depends a lot on the location, distance and life experience/technical knowledge of each individual. This is well understood, has been demonstrated for years...I would think most people are aware of this phenomenon?


which is exactly why the OS has failed under scrutiny when one examines all the evidence and those supporting it look so foolish.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
(Maybe I presume people to know more than they actually do?


which i'm sure you have personal experience with no doubt



Originally posted by weedwhacker
In that case, I expect people will do further research, on their own...


most don't do research or fail to do any in-depth research... those who do and are objective, agree there's mountains of evidence contradicting the claims you're making .


Originally posted by weedwhacker
rather than just DISMISSING something, and hand-waving it aside


like you and most do?


Originally posted by weedwhacker
. Intellectual pursuit, absent any effort at actuallly learning, is called something else entirely....).


which describes all those who support the ridiculous OS fantasy.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Point is, despite a handful of persons whose initial impressions, immediately following the event, turn out to be incorrect, based on the reasons outlined above....it is the AGGREGATE of eyewitness testimony that matters. When you have a majority whose recollections begin to all match, independantly, then you know to disregard the others....


which is exactly why the OS continues to fail and the evidence overwhelmingly contradicts the LIES and disinfo you peddle and blindly support.

and corroboration of witness testimony is one reason contradicting the OS BS.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
in the real world, it doesn't work out that way. NO events are recorded to such detail....yet, in the realm of "9/11 conspiracies"?? The so-called "truthers" are NEVER satisfied, no matter how mcuh evidence is shown to them.


In fact the OPPOSITE is far more true about those who support the OS lie... and there's far more evidence against the OS, than supports it which most dismiss, ignore, and haven't done any in-depth investigation on.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
A sad, sad commentary on the state of humanity, at this stage of our "development". Are we, as a species, devolving?? OR, is the Internet Age to blame? The over-load of info, and the "I must have it NOW!!" attitudes???


yes, its a sad commentary that with all the facts, science and evidence that contradicts the OS and proves it a lie, most in todays world can't see 9/11 was an inside job and the most blatant conspiracy in the history of the world.
edit on 22-1-2011 by lord9 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...
911 no planes?



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack
 


Flat out lie and untruth!!!!


BTW, Weedwhacker doesn't agree that the engines went inside..
He stated they disintigrated on impact and bounced off the walls, or something like that


Typical, typical, typical, typical....lie, distort, alter what someone has said to fit your own "pet delusions.....



Pet delusions, weedwhacker? What if I told you that the entire world is full of delusion and that so-called "historical people" get pet delusions ALL THE TIME.

Kind of like Colin Powell's pet delusions about WMD at the United Nations?


Powell: My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources.


Kind of like President Johnson's pet delusions about the Gulf of Tonkin?


Johnson: Last night I announced to the American people that the North Vietnamese regime had conducted further deliberate attacks against U.S. naval vessels operating in international waters, and I had therefore directed air action against gunboats and supporting facilities used in these hostile operations. This air action has now been carried out with substantial damage to the boats and facilities. Two U.S. aircraft were lost in the action.


Kind of like Herman Göring's pet delusions about the Reichstag Fire?


Göring: I was told by an official. Things which were reported to me on the night of the fire…could not be tested or proven. The report was made to me by a responsible official, and was accepted as a fact, and as it could not be tested immediately it was announced as a fact. When I issued the first report to the press on the morning after the fire the interrogation of Van der Lubbe had not been concluded. In any case I do not see that anyone has any right to complain because it seems proved in this trial that Van der Lubbe had no such card on him.


The purest political power is violence, weedwhacker. If you do not understand that powerful lies have been used throughout history to engage in the furtherence of the accumulation of more political power - well, then, weedwhacker, your are the one who maintains pet delusions... and here is a delusion that is so powerful that even you will defend it!


Mr. Hanjour, who investigators contend piloted the airliner that crashed into the Pentagon, was reported to the aviation agency in February 2001 after instructors at his flight school in Phoenix had found his piloting skills so shoddy and his grasp of English so inadequate that they questioned whether his pilot's license was genuine.


Weedwhacker informs the OP of Hani Hanjour's piloting skill "YOU could do it, with very little training."

Hani Hanjour Reloaded (alleged Pentagon terrorist pilot)


www.abovetopsecret.com...

That's right! Weedwhacker informed everyone at ATS that ""YOU could do it, with very little training."

Why would Mr. Hanjour continue showing up at flight training schools if piloting the AA 77 B757 was so easy, eh Weed? Why bother with the charade? Pet delusions? weedwhacker? Perhaps you ought to get yourself some skepticism
edit on 1/24/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: cleanup



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


True but I could also go back through Weeds posts and find where he did in fact state what I said..

BTW, Weedwhacker doesn't agree that the engines went inside..
He stated they disintigrated on impact and bounced off the walls, or something like that


Weed changes his stance every so often..Then the old ones are lies if you mention them.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


True but I could also go back through Weeds posts and find where he did in fact state what I said..

BTW, Weedwhacker doesn't agree that the engines went inside..
He stated they disintigrated on impact and bounced off the walls, or something like that


Weed changes his stance every so often..Then the old ones are lies if you mention them.


Well, it's important to always keep this pilot, Hani Hanjour, in mind, when discussing any Pentagon 9/11 matters. He was touted to be the best pilot amongst all the 9-11 pilots. He had a rough time getting his certifications and credentials. Was it really his first time in the actual cockpit of such an airplane?

Who was really flying this plane when at 9.38am, American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757 weighing 80 tons smashed into the Pentagon? It sounds about right considering WTC1/2 and WTC7 were blown up using remote controlled demolition... a similar path of thinking leads to the possibility that the Pentagon strike was remote controlled, like the other flights.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by lord9
except ample evidence exists that the naudet brothers had FOREKNOWLEDGE and was far from random or lucky.


OR, there were ten thousand other journalists reporting other things in NYC and it was only the Naudet brothers who were in the right place at the right time to cover the attacks. A one on ten thousand chance means that out of ten thousand attempts, one will be successful.

The only "ample evidence" is the drivel coming from those damned fool conspiracy web sites that are based entirely upon abject paranoia rather than actual research.


NO, the majority of truthers accept the first aircraft strike was a passenger jet because they either haven't investigated the evidence, they haven't examined the evidence, nor are open-minded enough to consider the implications of the evidence.


OR, they realize that claiming it was anything else necessarily means the 100,000 people in NYC who saw the thing hit the tower are all lying. There's only so much convolusion one can add to a conspiracy theory before it starts soundling absurd.


Which is an OUTRIGHT LIE that you know you have ZERO evidence to support.


Are you genuinely saying that you've so desperate to keep this "no planes" drivel alive you're demanding that I need to prove there were 100,000 people in downtown Manhattan? In the middle of rush hour? In late summer?

You no planers have no credibility. Fortunately, most of your fellow truthers already know this so there's no need for me to expound on it any further.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


True but I could also go back through Weeds posts and find where he did in fact state what I said..

BTW, Weedwhacker doesn't agree that the engines went inside..
He stated they disintigrated on impact and bounced off the walls, or something like that


Weed changes his stance every so often..Then the old ones are lies if you mention them.



Totally outright falsehood.

I NEVER STATED THAT THE ENGINES "DISINTEGRATED" ON CONTACT AND BOUNCED OFF THE WALLS!!!

(and not, "something like that").

YOU were the one who complained a few days ago about people "putting words in your mouth"!!!


NOW....you have just trashed me in the thread. Put up the goods, or recant.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



YOU were the one who complained a few days ago about people "putting words in your mouth"!!!
NOW....you have just trashed me in the thread. Put up the goods, or recant.


OK Weed..I'll waste an hour or so going back over other threads to find it..
Though you do tend to edit a LOT of your posts...
I know what you said



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


There is a specific time-window for post edits. The maximum is meant to be 4 hours although some have found it to be shorter.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Happy hunting, but I've noted others going down the same line in regards to WW and his comment on engines. They also failed.

TJ



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by tommyjo
 



Happy hunting, but I've noted others going down the same line in regards to WW and his comment on engines. They also failed.


Ahh, my memory is pretty good..
I know it was said because I was debating it at the time..
I'll find it



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


How did the search go back on the 8th January? You made the same editing claim back then as well.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

TJ
edit on 25-1-2011 by tommyjo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by tommyjo
reply to post by backinblack
 


How did the search go back on the 8th January? You made the same editing claim back then as well.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

TJ
edit on 25-1-2011 by tommyjo because: (no reason given)


Honestly??
I couldn't be bothered proving to others what I know as fact..
I care what I think, not what you think..
Takes too long searching for posts in multiple threads..
I'd rather do something else..



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



You are the one making the accusations. Twice in this case with no proof. I remember WW explaining in detail to another poster when he was challenged. That original poster had, like you, taken it completely out of context. This is the second time that you have brought it up. The onus is on yourself to deliver the goods as you promised or stop harping on about it? Remember you are stating this as a fact.

TJ


edit on 25-1-2011 by tommyjo because: spelling
edit on 25-1-2011 by tommyjo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by tommyjo
reply to post by backinblack
 



You are the one making the accusations. Twice in this case with no proof. I remember WW explaining in detail to another poster when he was challenged. That original poster had, like you, taken it completely out of context. This is the second time that you have brought it up. The onus is on yourself to deliver the goods as you promised or stop harping on about it? Remember you are stating this as a fact.

TJ


edit on 25-1-2011 by tommyjo because: spelling
edit on 25-1-2011 by tommyjo because: (no reason given)


lol, you just don't get it do you??
I don't CARE if you believe me or not..
I'll still sleep tonight..
If Weed wants to keep changing his stories, fine..



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   
"Totally outright falsehood. I NEVER STATED THAT THE ENGINES "DISINTEGRATED" ON CONTACT AND BOUNCED OFF THE WALLS!!!"


OK, check out the fifth post on the following ATS page by weedwhacker:

"Cherry....a B757, not B747....BIG difference. The "16-foot" hole is NOT the entry point, it is the exit of some debris on one of the inner concrete block walls of one of the rings. An R/R engine will NOT survive those forces intact. They will be shredded/crumpled/disintegrated."

www.abovetopsecret.com...

weedwhacker, you still want to stick to your claim that you never wrote the 757 engines disintegrated on contact?


I guess it's kind of tough to remember what you previously stated when you have so many lies to keep straight. You know, like some famous slip of the tongue by several Government Officials.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


Bit before my time here so that wasn't the posts I was talking about..
I did find this from WW in that thread though..

Sound familiar to what happens here maybe??


It is important to understand, also, some facts about "P4T". It is run by only ONE man. He lists himself as 'co-founder'....but he is the 'Grand Poohbah' over there, and has total control. It is his pet ego project, nothing else....not at ALL as credible as this site, ATS. Not by a long shot..... Anyone who disagrees with him, even to the slightest degree, is unmercifully ridiculed and disdained, and almost immediately "post banned". He brooks no arguments, only allows boot-lickers to comment.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
What I am interested in knowing from our resident airplane expert is did the engines at the Pentagon shred, crumple, disintegrate or all of the above?


How can one be so sure about what happened at the Pentagon, since one obviously does not have a clue as to what happened to the engines? Since when are conclusive investigations based on multiple answers?

Just because someone may have some knowledge about airplanes, it obviously does not mean he has a clue as to how to investigate airline accidents. This is why pilots are not investigators and investigators are not pilots.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   
"Are you genuinely saying that you've so desperate to keep this "no planes" drivel alive you're demanding that I need to prove there were 100,000 people in downtown Manhattan? In the middle of rush hour? In late summer?"

Yeah, I am that desperate - what's it to you? Now, getting back to your statement, can you please provide the names and witness statements of the 100,000 individuals you claim witnessed a commercial 757 airliner hit the towers.

And by the way, what does the time of day or time of year have to do with your unproven and unverified claim?





new topics
top topics
 
136
<< 40  41  42    44 >>

log in

join