Are you one of those "Pilots for 9/11 truth" characters who caused the 9/11 forem to be locked? Your single minded disregard of all the concrete evidence in favor of your own undocumented and unprovable theories strikes me as being rather orchestrated.

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by GoodOlDave

---

You're changing your story and you know it. You said there was a very good reason to aim a security camera at a SECLUDED brick wall

And secluded brick wall too Dave.

We get every move monitored by the feds regardless of who we are ( good or Bad). So why is it such a crazy thing to expect the Pentagon to aim cameras at a wall?

I was going to make a serious attempt at answering this until I stopped...

you're grasping at pretty absurd straws becuase you dont want to admit you know your claims are untenable.

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by GoodOlDave

---

I reiterate...Do not show me any piece of crap reenactments. Do you have objective corroborating evidence or not?

Let me ask, in all seriousness; it's patently clear you've dedicated yourself into believing the photographic evidence isn't enough to convince you, the eyewitness accounts won't be enough to convince you and even the recovered aircraft wreckage won't be enough to convince you. It's a given the information retrieved from the recovered black box won't have any impact on your beliefs, either. What wonderous, magical information would there be in any video that would spontaneously convince you that you wouldn't thoughtlessly deny in the same way? Please, explain that one to me.

Come now, what useful purpose would that serve? Any Pilots for 9/11 truth groupies here certainly won't display "I'm a member of Pilots for 9/11 truth" in their profile when they know full well they're on the hit list. The P4911T groupies are akin to the Nazis after WWII; They pulled all these outrageous stunts to let the world know of their existance and yet noone ever can ever seem to actually find anyone who admits they belong to the group.

It is not being malicious to note a pattern of behavior between a member and a group of self serving conspiracy peddlers who are known to behave in the same manner.

This is how the entire conversation is going, in a nutshell: Him: What evidence do you have that proves a plane hit the Pentagon? Me: Here's a list of eyewitnesses accounts detailing they saw that it was a plane Him: LIES! What else do you have? Me: There was aircraft wreckage all over the place after the impact Him: LIES! What else do you have? Me: A number of light poles were knocked over in a path leading straight to the Pentagon Him: LIES! What else do you have? Me: The photos of the damage shows the object that hit it was really large, heavy, and circular. Him: LIES! What else do you have? Me: They also recovered the black box from the craft and it identified it as being flight 77. Him: LIES! What else do you have? Me: There were also the recovered passenger effects and DNA tests confirming they were flight 77 passengers Him: LIES! What else do you have? Me: That's all the evidence there is. Him: You see? I told you that you couldn't prove a plane hit the Pentagon!

This isn't "denying ignorance" by anyone's definition. This is either being unrepentently ignorant, or there's an agenda at work here. Even you have to acknowledge that whatever his true motives are, they have nothing to do with an honest attempt to learn the facts of the 9/11 attack. ...and may I ask just why are you becoming so defensive over this? What dog do YOU have in this fight?

Him: What evidence do you have that proves a plane hit the Pentagon? Me: Here's a list of eyewitnesses accounts detailing they saw that it was a plane Him: LIES! What else do you have? Me: There was aircraft wreckage all over the place after the impact Him: LIES! What else do you have? Me: A number of light poles were knocked over in a path leading straight to the Pentagon Him: LIES! What else do you have? Me: The photos of the damage shows the object that hit it was really large, heavy, and circular. Him: LIES! What else do you have? Me: They also recovered the black box from the craft and it identified it as being flight 77. Him: LIES! What else do you have? Me: There were also the recovered passenger effects and DNA tests confirming they were flight 77 passengers Him: LIES! What else do you have? Me: That's all the evidence there is. Him: You see? I told you that you couldn't prove a plane hit the Pentagon!

This isn't "denying ignorance" by anyone's definition. This is either being unrepentently ignorant, or there's an agenda at work here. Even you have to acknowledge that whatever his true motives are, they have nothing to do with an honest attempt to learn the facts of the 9/11 attack.

4) Why do you think NIST is refusing to release the computer model parameters that were used?

5) Do you have evidence the engineers and architects in question were shown the documentary in advance of the final cut?
6) Do you have evidence indicating the architects and engineers were incapable of viewing the events as they took place that day?

7) Do you have evidence these people are capable of being deceived while you are not?

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by GoodOlDave

---

What avatar did you have before the one you have now Dave?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by GoodOlDave

---

What avatar did you have before the one you have now Dave?

Yes, I'm who you think I am: it was a black and white photo of a 50's era guy suffering a headache with the heading "Ah Jeez, not this crap again". The days of the 9/11 forum are over so I had to change it when I migrated to other forums. Besides, I was feeling creative with the animated GIFs.

Him: What evidence do you have that proves a plane hit the Pentagon? Me: Here's a list of eyewitnesses accounts detailing they saw that it was a plane Him: LIES! What else do you have? Me: There was aircraft wreckage all over the place after the impact Him: LIES! What else do you have? Me: A number of light poles were knocked over in a path leading straight to the Pentagon Him: LIES! What else do you have? Me: The photos of the damage shows the object that hit it was really large, heavy, and circular. Him: LIES! What else do you have? Me: They also recovered the black box from the craft and it identified it as being flight 77. Him: LIES! What else do you have? Me: There were also the recovered passenger effects and DNA tests confirming they were flight 77 passengers Him: LIES! What else do you have? Me: That's all the evidence there is. Him: You see? I told you that you couldn't prove a plane hit the Pentagon!

You'll forgive me for cheating on you when I admit I play with the "we never landed on the moon" conspiracy people now.

Someone with too much free time on his hands. I'm not trying to sell you any merchendise. No books, no DVDs, no T-shirts, not even a "Investigate 9/11 licence plate frame".

All right, time to put up or shut up- I already posted a GIGANTIC list of eyewitness testimony, and some of them are quite specific at what they saw. How do you explain every single one of these eyewitnesses are wrong when they all said they saw the exact same thing? You won't because you can't unless you outright accuse all these people of lying.

Psychologists and behavioral science researchers have found that memory is influenced by an observer's conditioning. Time is also an important element. Psychologists describe the influence of the passing time in terms of sharpening and leveling effect; thus, as time passes, critical aspects of the remembered situation become exaggerated or sharpened. At the same time, memory for less critical aspects of the original perception become diminished in a phenomenon known as leveling. For example, in a store hold-up, the eyewitness may remember the weapon more accurately than the person wielding it.[10] Another major factor influencing memory is the amount of suggestion supplied by law enforcement throughout the identification process. Suggestion can be created intentionally or unintentionally.[11] According to one study of eyewitness accuracy, study participants that received confirmation (ie. feedback suggesting their identification was correct) reported having a clearer picture of the culprit's face, being sure of their description, and being more willing to testify.[12]

the eyewitnesses saw this on the SOUTH side, where the wreckage from the north tower hit the building. That video is entirely from the NORTH side so of course it's not goign to be in the video. You can't NOT know that.

massive deformations in the side of the structure where the fires were burning out of control,

If you're going to quote me then quote me correctly. The buildign was creaking while it was standing. The "really loud bangs" were the ones witnesses heard six seconds before the collapse of the exterior of the building.

Sheesh, of all the unrepentently lazy...! All right, here's a link to Gage's web site. He runs a web site called Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, and on his web site he specifically shows the snipped video on the right side of the page and then immediately overlays it with "Controlled demolition?" If you attempt to deny he's deliberately snipping off the section of the Penthouse collapse to embellish his claims, you will be lying.

Dunno. Did you ever ask them for the computer model parameters?

Yes I do- look at the petition page (and no, I'm not going to provide a link. Click the specific link on Gage's web site yourself. It takes about four seconds.)...The point is, these people are all admitting right there out in the open they're not basing their opinions on their own professional expertise. They're basing it entirely upon the bad information Gage is presenting.

This statement you made. "An object traveling over 500 mph would be very difficult to identify." It was very easy to id that plane as a large passenger jet. Therefore, you are wrong. And debunked.

Sorry, but you do not get to set the standards of evidence. You do not get to decide that since there is no clear video, it is logical to reject all other evidence, That is illogical.

I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke. - Steve Anderson, eyewitness at the Pentagon

Do some research. I will not spoon feed you.

Nope. Therefore it is logical to mover onto other forms of evidence. Rejection of these other forms shows an agenda NOT interested in any truth.