Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

NoC versus SoC issue. Let's set the facts straight, once and for all.

page: 9
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Have any other examples of commercial crashes with no large hull or wing parts laying around? I'd be interested in seeing them.


Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by Bilk22
Who is "we"? Quite odd that you come to a web site that is dedicated to exploring unexplained phenomena and you spend your time solely on 911, using all effort in attempting to debunk alternate theories and attacking people in the process. This comes off as your personal crusade. But I guess if that's what you get paid for while sitting in your parent's basement ...........


Maybe he is simply living up to the website's motto ... deny ignorance?




posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bilk22
Have any other examples of commercial crashes with no large hull or wing parts laying around? I'd be interested in seeing them.


Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by Bilk22
Who is "we"? Quite odd that you come to a web site that is dedicated to exploring unexplained phenomena and you spend your time solely on 911, using all effort in attempting to debunk alternate theories and attacking people in the process. This comes off as your personal crusade. But I guess if that's what you get paid for while sitting in your parent's basement ...........


Maybe he is simply living up to the website's motto ... deny ignorance?


Okay, I give. What does your reply have to do with my comment? But yes, there have been. I recall one when I lived in Florida that was very similar to the UAL93 crash. Do I keep a list of names, dates and such of such events? No. Why? Because it should be obvious to anyone that flying a plane at 500+ into a solid structure just ain't gonna leave much plane.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Come on you can do better than that. Physics man. It's called physics, not hyperbole.


Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by Bilk22
Have any other examples of commercial crashes with no large hull or wing parts laying around? I'd be interested in seeing them.


Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by Bilk22
Who is "we"? Quite odd that you come to a web site that is dedicated to exploring unexplained phenomena and you spend your time solely on 911, using all effort in attempting to debunk alternate theories and attacking people in the process. This comes off as your personal crusade. But I guess if that's what you get paid for while sitting in your parent's basement ...........


Maybe he is simply living up to the website's motto ... deny ignorance?


Okay, I give. What does your reply have to do with my comment? But yes, there have been. I recall one when I lived in Florida that was very similar to the UAL93 crash. Do I keep a list of names, dates and such of such events? No. Why? Because it should be obvious to anyone that flying a plane at 500+ into a solid structure just ain't gonna leave much plane.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bilk22
Who is "we"? Quite odd that you come to a web site that is dedicated to exploring unexplained phenomena and you spend your time solely on 911, using all effort in attempting to debunk alternate theories and attacking people in the process. This comes off as your personal crusade. But I guess if that's what you get paid for while sitting in your parent's basement ...........



You seem to think the 911 conspiracy section of ATS is a battle between good and evil. It's not. It is a stupidity contest. We are the judges and you're a contestant. Truthers come in here and say "I'm stupid and I can prove it" and we say "OK Kid show us what you got" It's very entertaining.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Bilk22
 


Bilk22 - research the crash of flight 1771. That will answer your question.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
What will it answer?


Originally posted by Six Sigma
reply to post by Bilk22
 


Bilk22 - research the crash of flight 1771. That will answer your question.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Isn't it time for you to grow up and interact like an adult?


Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Bilk22
Who is "we"? Quite odd that you come to a web site that is dedicated to exploring unexplained phenomena and you spend your time solely on 911, using all effort in attempting to debunk alternate theories and attacking people in the process. This comes off as your personal crusade. But I guess if that's what you get paid for while sitting in your parent's basement ...........



You seem to think the 911 conspiracy section of ATS is a battle between good and evil. It's not. It is a stupidity contest. We are the judges and you're a contestant. Truthers come in here and say "I'm stupid and I can prove it" and we say "OK Kid show us what you got" It's very entertaining.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bilk22
Isn't it time for you to grow up and interact like an adult?



OK Kid show us what you got. Whats your best 911 was an inside job evidence ?


Try to make it entertaining.


edit on 20-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bilk22
Have any other examples of commercial crashes with no large hull or wing parts laying around? I'd be interested in seeing them.


Flight 1771:


Detective Bill Wammock is the first to arrive on the scene. He recalls “nothing that resembled an airliner... we went on for hours, before we heard the news reports of a missing airliner, believing that we were dealing with a small airplane full of newspapers that had crashed. We saw no pieces of the aircraft that were larger than, maybe, a human hand. It did not look like a passenger aircraft.”


www.airdisaster.com...

I know how much you truthers love YouTube videos:





posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bilk22
Come on you can do better than that. Physics man. It's called physics, not hyperbole.


In other words you are just trolling. I see.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by 911files
 



That does not mean any of them were lying. Just means different people perceive and recall the same event differently. The details they miss, their brain fills in with details familiar to it so that it can make sense of what happened. However, it is a statistical "fact" that if you limit your witness set to one side of an events location (north side of the flight path for example), the described path will shift in that same direction. If you excluded the NoC eyewitnesses and only included the people on the other side of I-395, we would be arguing No395 or So395.

So there is nothing to "believe" or "disbelieve" about the NoC eyewitnesses. They recall what they saw in a very fragmented way, and what they saw is what their brains perceived that they saw, not what actually happened.


I am very aware of that, I know it from a life long experience with people telling stories that did not catch-up with later shown photo's or videos to them.
That is why you will have noticed a trend in my NoC witness candidates.
I came up with new ones that expressed in their registered words, WHERE they stood on 9/11. Be it in print, audio or video. I am not so interested in what they saw, my first goal with all these accounts is, to find clues where exactly they stood on 9/11 on Route 27, or anywhere else.

That's why it is a bit strange that none of you does contact Vin Narayanan, while I gave three means to do that.
Are you afraid to find out, that Vin is present in one of the Steve Riskus pictures in a totally different spot than you expect him to have been?

If you hear in what type of car he drove that day, just as you can ask Christine Peterson and Penny Elgas the same thing, then you can easily solve the whole NoC issue.
You must know it, you're a bright guy, so why do you dodge this one in a lifetime chance to stop all the Pentagon issues bickering on myriads of 9/11 based web sites, blogs and in books.

We have the words of Christine : " I stood in FRONT of the Heli Pad when the plane came straight over my head".
Penny : "I stood a few cars away from where the plane crossed (Washington Boulevard / Route 27)" and then a very detailed account of what she saw when the plane impacted the west wall. It proves that she must have stood very near to the impact position, which is i.m.h.op., near the Heli Pad, a few cars behind Christine.
Under a NoC flight path.

If you can show Christine her car, and herself, in that Steve Riskus photo I posted, you directly know that the OS is a farce.
If you however can prove to us with hard evidence that both ladies stood near the huge traffic sign board in the OS, I can go lay my tired body to rest. In that case they stood under a SoC flight path.

Be my victor, I really hope you can, but since the words of both ladies in several interviews predict to you a different outcome than what you hope for, I give you a small chance.

There seems to be a concerted effort by OS followers, to avoid the position issue in all telephone interviews, while every investigator knows that is the iron rule. First ask the witness where exactly he/she stood compared to the investigated event.

Listen to the phone interview of Jeff Hill with Penny Elgas, it's up at his site, PumpItOut.
I never heard a clearer case, from both sides by the way, of both participants avoiding the position issue as the Plague. It's glaringly obvious that both did NOT want to touch that question.
The bias of Jeff sips through in the whole interview. He wants to hear from her, only what he wants to get.
And that is really a shame, he could have ended the whole damn NoC issue right there.


pumpitout.com Forum→9/11 Research→The Pentagon→Conversations with Pentagon witnesses
s1.zetaboards.com...

Penny Elgas :
s1.zetaboards.com...
If Penny stood near or even under the traffic board SoC, how could she have seen the plane fly over Columbia Pike right at her? In that case, she would have still stood a few cars behind Christine, who in the SoC case would have stood right under its flight path crossing Route 27 about 50 meters past the huge traffic signs board.
Simpler said, the plane would have come flying perpendicular to her position on Route 27, just behind that huge board. But she stood not there, but near the Heli Pad.
And I think you all know it intuitively, if Christine and Penny stood near the Heli Pad, and are to be seen in that Steve Riskus photo I already posted pages ago, the OS is BS.

But you all also don't want to touch this issue. It will instantly shatter all your years of online involvement.
I will be very glad when one of you can prove me wrong. REALLY !

Vin Narayanan :
s1.zetaboards.com...

Albert Hemphill :
s1.zetaboards.com...

And 19 more phone-interviewed people there.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
But you all also don't want to touch this issue. It will instantly shatter all your years of online involvement.
I will be very glad when one of you can prove me wrong. REALLY !


You really have lost touch with reality here. What any of those eyewitness says has absolutely NOTHING to do with what happened. There is nothing to prove "wrong". That is the part you don't get. If you wish to believe in fantasy, suit yourself. It is your life. NoC is a moot argument for internet trolls. No evidence, just distorted eyewitness accounts taken out of context.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by LaBTop
But you all also don't want to touch this issue. It will instantly shatter all your years of online involvement.
I will be very glad when one of you can prove me wrong. REALLY !


You really have lost touch with reality here. What any of those eyewitness says has absolutely NOTHING to do with what happened. There is nothing to prove "wrong". That is the part you don't get. If you wish to believe in fantasy, suit yourself. It is your life. NoC is a moot argument for internet trolls. No evidence, just distorted eyewitness accounts taken out of context.


No, no, no.
If that African-American lady standing on that concrete divider in front of the Heli Pad and a burning Pentagon in the background is Christine Peterson, and she damn well looks as in the photo I posted from her at her inauguration ceremony at Northern Arizona University, and if that is her car there in front of the Heli Pad, our clashes are simply over.

Than she stood under a NoC flight path.

That's why 9/11 photo's from that day and hour are immensely important.
You can't deny the words of a woman who says she stood in front of the Heli Pad, the plane came over her head and car and impacted.
And then you show a photo of her, in that exact same spot. End of all highly complicated and unnecessary anymore, discussions on the Internet.
You can start storming the Capitol, clean out your government and army.

However, if you can give rock hard evidence with a photo, video or her own words that she stood near the Pike overpass in Route 27 under a SoC path, then you have made my day, because you will be the one who did heal me. From my 9/11 obsession, as your comrades expressed so gallantly.

Btw, why the immediate switch to hostility, when this subject is brought up?
I thought we were discussing a world event, in which are rows and rows of unexplainable discrepancies, which one by one need to be resolved, before a great part of the global citizenry will trust governments again.

Don't get Pavlov-ized, hoping on pats on your shoulder by online entities you presume are your friends or like-souls. Keep up with all arguments, do not shove the not so easy ones aside with words like your above, then you really missed the connection with reality.
I simply ask to go and check the witnesses words about their exact position.
Why do you immediately react with hostile and acidic words? I am not an Internet troll, and I am far from living in a fantasy. I'm a collector of discrepancies, and hope to solve them, to clean the slate.

I really am interested what makes you react on such a simple question in that above shown manner.
I get the impression that for most pro and contra official story contestants, the whole issue has become a hate game.
I do not hate anybody who expresses a logical approach to all these 9/11 issues.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


You have not been paying attention. What she claims, or does not claim is not important. She has her perception of what happened and recall of it. That is far different from what actually happened. That is true for ALL eyewitnesses (ever hear of the saying "two sides to every story"). It does not matter what she or any of the other witnesses say, period. The flight path is established by multiple empirical data sources. That is reality. Perceptions (eyewitness accounts) are subjective (fantasy). If you want to build your world around fantasy, then suit yourself.

(That is what they did until Galileo and Copernicus came along, lived in their fantasy that the Earth was the center of the universe, because that was their perception).
edit on 20-6-2012 by 911files because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-6-2012 by 911files because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   
I have no idea who you are or what your motivation is regarding the events of that day in September of 2001, but I can tell you this, people, real people with human spirit, can see the truth from the lies and deceit and one day those lies will be exposed by the truth. You can call me what you will. You can try to diminish my intellect and my professional life's experiences, but you cannot diminish my righteousness or that of other good people. So continue posting your lies and fabrications. One day you or someone you love be on the other end of those same lies and deceit and you'll understand what you are doing is wrong. Then it will be too late for you as well.

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by Bilk22
Come on you can do better than that. Physics man. It's called physics, not hyperbole.


In other words you are just trolling. I see.
edit on 20-6-2012 by Bilk22 because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-6-2012 by Bilk22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by Bilk22
Have any other examples of commercial crashes with no large hull or wing parts laying around? I'd be interested in seeing them.


Flight 1771:


Detective Bill Wammock is the first to arrive on the scene. He recalls “nothing that resembled an airliner... we went on for hours, before we heard the news reports of a missing airliner, believing that we were dealing with a small airplane full of newspapers that had crashed. We saw no pieces of the aircraft that were larger than, maybe, a human hand. It did not look like a passenger aircraft.”


www.airdisaster.com...

I know how much you truthers love YouTube videos:




Not only that, but the hand written suicide note was found, proving what caused the crash.

But according to truthers, this can't happen if the plane has disintegrated.

"The plane was estimated to have crashed at a speed of around 700 mph (1,100 km/h), disintegrating instantly. It is estimated that the aircraft hit the ground at five thousand times the force of gravity"



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   
I don't know much about that crash, but there are two things to consider here. First, regarding the 1771 crash, does it make sense that a guy would write a suicide note fully knowing that the craft is going to probably burn during the crash? Wouldn't he expect the note to burn too?

Second, this crash has nothing in common with the 911 crashes. This plane was reported to have fallen from 30,000ft and impacted solid earth. The 911 planes flew into structures which are thin skins with volumes of vacant space behind them. Isn't that an OS claim as to why the planes penetrated into the structures so readily? Why the "disappeared" as if there were no structure there at all? Now we're told to believe something very different than that.

reply to post by Fluffaluffagous
 



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bilk22

Second, this crash has nothing in common with the 911 crashes. This plane was reported to have fallen from 30,000ft and impacted solid earth. The 911 planes flew into structures which are thin skins with volumes of vacant space behind them. Isn't that an OS claim as to why the planes penetrated into the structures so readily? Why the "disappeared" as if there were no structure there at all? Now we're told to believe something very different than that.




You need to go back and read your original question.




Have any other examples of commercial crashes with no large hull or wing parts laying around? I'd be interested in seeing them.


Why should the wings or fuselage survive ?

Do you have any examples of planes crashing into buildings at 500 mph with large hull or wing parts laying around ?



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bilk22
I have no idea who you are or what your motivation is regarding the events of that day in September of 2001, but I can tell you this, people, real people with human spirit, can see the truth from the lies and deceit and one day those lies will be exposed by the truth. You can call me what you will. You can try to diminish my intellect and my professional life's experiences, but you cannot diminish my righteousness or that of other good people. So continue posting your lies and fabrications. One day you or someone you love be on the other end of those same lies and deceit and you'll understand what you are doing is wrong. Then it will be too late for you as well.


My, my, aren't we touchy? You come into the thread, launch an assault on me when you "have no idea who" I am "or what" my "motivation is regarding the events of that day in September of 2001" and then get your panties in a wad when I dismiss you as a troll. If you want to be taken seriously, then have a serious discussion and quit acting like a five year old.
edit on 21-6-2012 by 911files because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bilk22
I don't know much about that crash, but there are two things to consider here. First, regarding the 1771 crash, does it make sense that a guy would write a suicide note fully knowing that the craft is going to probably burn during the crash? Wouldn't he expect the note to burn too?

Second, this crash has nothing in common with the 911 crashes. This plane was reported to have fallen from 30,000ft and impacted solid earth. The 911 planes flew into structures which are thin skins with volumes of vacant space behind them. Isn't that an OS claim as to why the planes penetrated into the structures so readily? Why the "disappeared" as if there were no structure there at all? Now we're told to believe something very different than that.





Wait... what??? Here is what you said:


Have any other examples of commercial crashes with no large hull or wing parts laying around? I'd be interested in seeing them.


I responded with the crash of flight 1771. You got your answer, I would appreciate a sincere thank you, not you moving the goal posts.

Your post proves your ignorance of the structures that the planes hit and your ignorance of physics. You asked for proof of another crash with no large hull or wings laying around...you got one. Now run along.





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join