Explosive 9/11 Documentary About To Air On Public Television In United States

reply to post by GoodOlDave

So before I respond, I want to make sure I understand your position clearly- just WHY are you claiming "eyewitness testimony of planes hitting the Pentagon is unreliable"?

I take it you mean "plane," and the plurality was just a mistake.

1) Because there are many types of objects similar in size and shape to an airplane.

2) Because the object in question was traveling at a very high rate of speed. Much faster than would be at a regular landing speed (i.e., 250 mph is typical landing speed). An object traveling over 500 mph would be very difficult to identify.

3) No corroborating video/still image evidence, despite the fact this is probably one of the most secure installations in the world, without a doubt under 24/7 outside surveillance.

Originally posted by totallackey

What interpretation have I offered?

Well, I'd hate to jump to conclusions, but I'm guessing that your interpretation of evidence has led you to believe that 9/11 was an inside job.

And again, the consensus of that evidence goes against your beliefs. You cannot deny that your beliefs are not the accepted one.

Aside from the obvious appeal to numbers argumentation

It's not an appeal to numbers. It's an appeal to logical thinking and proper interpretation of ALL evidence, and using a proper chain of logic to give the proper amount of weight to that evidence.

There's a difference.

If 2 people claim they saw a eight foot tall kangaroo grasping a large rifle would you believe it on the testimony alone?

No.

Maybe, maybe not...but if you were to gain access to a stand alone camera and was able to pull a photograph from that stand alone camera that looked like this:

And in the absence of a clear photo (I'm thinking of the calls to clear video of a plane at the Pentagon here) then I would go with other evidence - radar tracks, the consensus that there WAS a plane AND it hit the Pentagon, etc. A clear photo/video would be nice, but a strong case for there actually being a clear video existing has not been made. Only incredulity that there is not. Therefore, this line of reasoning should be rejected UNLESS a strong case for its existance can be made. Incredulity doesn't cut it if you're being objective. That is how logic works.

I explained this entire issue in my reply to you earlier. Surprised you could not understand it. Well, you now know what constitutes objective corroboration.

Well that's the point. You want me to assume that you are being objective when you are claiming that you have made an honest evaluation. I am stating that you are not.

I was asking for proof from you. I see you have none. Thanks for the admission.

I admit that I have no idea what specific video you are referring to.

But if you want to research doctored videos that have been presented as evidence of an inside job, then I suggest you do more research. They are well known and not worth posting here.

And so we have it. According to this ATS Member, fluffaluffagous, the argument conclusively deciding the events of 9/11/01 is this: APPEAL TO NUMBERS...AKA CONSENSUS.

Nope.

It's an appeal to using a proper chain of logic when assessing evidence. Using proper engineering reports that have an agreement amongst other properly experienced engineers.

What you seem to be doing would be akin to needing brain surgery, and going to an orthopedic surgeon for his opinion on the proposed procedure. Both are highly skilled surgeons. Perfectly fine to get another opinion, but I would give the specialist's opinion greater weight. This is logical.

You sure you understand what "deny ignorance," means?

Yes.

But it also means that you also need to know how to give proper weight to ALL the available evidence. I don't see you doing this. I don't see anyone that believes that 9/11 was an inside job doing this.

Sorry, I thought I would experience a higher level of discussion. It is evident you are the one grasping at straws.

Nope.

We disagree about the evidence. I say that you have a faulty logic chain and may not be able to assess how to give proper weight to evidence due to some personal views. It may a general suspicion about "the man", or authority, or whatever.

But others disagree with you. You are not in the majority. It is apparent to all that you have not educated yourself through Google U and utube U to be able to make an objective assessment of the evidence. You are not smarter than everyone else. You are not special.

But keep tilting at windmills. It is entertaining to watch.....

reply to post by GoodOlDave

The problem with your analogy is that the conspiracy theorists do not have any such real, tangible, and concrete proof of their own claims. What they do have, is misrepresentation and argumentative interpretation according to their own viewpoint. When we hear of "witnesses hearing explosions" what they're really saying is that witnesses heard really loud BANGs, which would certainly be a normal thing to hear when a building is collapsing. Conspiracy theorists on the other hand insist explosions always means EXPLOSIVES regardless of context.

No Dave. There is no problem with my analogy. The objective evidence is the video and sounds recorded during that fateful day. In conjunction with the eye/ear witness testimony.

When a witness states they heard "really loud BANGS," when they saw this:

photo courtesy of www.inmagine.com...
What would you think they meant? Sounds of the building collapsing? The bangs can no longer be heard over the sound of the building collapsing. The timelines do not match up.
Dave, what this boils down to is this. It is clear in your post you are usurping the use of the word "EXPLOSIONS" and substituting the phrase "really loud BANGs." Further, you claim conspiracy theorists are the ones making use of the word "EXPLOSIONS."
This is simply not true. The witnesses are the ones who used the word, "EXPLOSIONS." Not the conspiracy theorists. there is corroborating OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE supporting "EXPLOSIONS" took place and it is therefore you who are left without support for your claims.

So when we see similar trickery coming from the conspiracy theorists (I.E. Richard Gage deliberately snipping off the collapse of the penthouse of WTC 7 six seconds before the collapse of the building itself, all so he can say "mysterious noises were coming from WTC 7 six seconds before the collapse") I would likewise believe there's a disinformation campaign at work here...but it's coming from the presenters themselves.

Where is it? I am still waiting for the "snip," you claim is absent. I have watched the OP video. From what I see, I see a video presenting the COMPLETE PROPORTIONATE COLLAPSE of WTC 7 from START to FINISH. I asked you earlier to provide the video you claim is missing. I take it your failure to produce this "snip," is simply an admission it does not exist.

FYI that soldier was superimposed over that photo with the kangaroo and rifle. You can even see the white outline around his feet that came from the original photo the soldier was taken from. You do know that, right?

Dave, Dave, Dave...of course I know this...Why do you think I chose this photograph (along with the one from Hancock, showing him throwing the whale)? It was tribute to your fantastic analogy of the sperm whale going through the Pentagon. And it also goes directly to the issue of OBJECTIVE CORROBORATING EVIDENCE. Now please, stop trying to obfuscate the issue and try to engage this conversation in an intellectual manner. You can start by providing the missing snip you claim Gage left on the cutting floor.

Originally posted by totallackey

1) Because there are many types of objects similar in size and shape to an airplane.

And not surprisingly, they are all planes.

2) Because the object in question was traveling at a very high rate of speed. Much faster than would be at a regular landing speed (i.e., 250 mph is typical landing speed). An object traveling over 500 mph would be very difficult to identify.

www.youtube.com...

That's a 757 at 400 knots. Easy to identify as a large passenger jet.

You are debunked.

3) No corroborating video/still image evidence, despite the fact this is probably one of the most secure installations in the world, without a doubt under 24/7 outside surveillance.[

Incredulity, as I pointed out, is not evidence that there indeed is a clear video of a plane.

You MUST bring evidence that the video and recording capabilities were in place for this event. If you cannot, then your incredulity is nothing but comedy material.

That's how logic works.

reply to post by Fluffaluffagous

Well, I'd hate to jump to conclusions, but I'm guessing that your interpretation of evidence has led you to believe that 9/11 was an inside job. And again, the consensus of that evidence goes against your beliefs. You cannot deny that your beliefs are not the accepted one.

It is patently obvious you do not hate to resort to anything in terms of your argumentation. Appeals to numbers and now leaping to unfounded conclusions.

It's not an appeal to numbers. It's an appeal to logical thinking and proper interpretation of ALL evidence, and using a proper chain of logic to give the proper amount of weight to that evidence. There's a difference.

Proper chain of logic...that is rich. As soon as you can explain that, let me know. Better come prepared with supporting documentation. Point by point, I want you to explain, using the NIST Final Report, how the proper chain of logic was utilized. The word, "assumption," is quite prevalent in the report. As soon as you can demonstrate how that fits in with the term, "proper chain of logic," then you may have something. Until then, you have the appeal to numbers. And that is all.

And in the absence of a clear photo (I'm thinking of the calls to clear video of a plane at the Pentagon here) then I would go with other evidence - radar tracks, the consensus that there WAS a plane AND it hit the Pentagon, etc. A clear photo/video would be nice, but a strong case for there actually being a clear video existing has not been made. Only incredulity that there is not. Therefore, this line of reasoning should be rejected UNLESS a strong case for its existance can be made. Incredulity doesn't cut it if you're being objective. That is how logic works.

You have a strong case for radar tracks? You got radar tracks? The clear video shows something has hit the Pentagon. It does strike me strange there is no clear video of a plane striking the Pentagon. Incredible even. But incredible things have happened before.

Well that's the point. You want me to assume that you are being objective when you are claiming that you have made an honest evaluation. I am stating that you are not.

I offered an example of what constitutes OBJECTIVE CORROBORATING EVIDENCE for purposes of the discussion. I am stating your analysis and tendency to argue from a position of numbers and leaping to conclusions CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE you do not understand.

I admit that I have no idea what specific video you are referring to. But if you want to research doctored videos that have been presented as evidence of an inside job, then I suggest you do more research. They are well known and not worth posting here.

I want you to admit you have no background in video analysis and cannot provide proof of doctored videos as you want to put it. Willing to do that? Yet?

Nope. It's an appeal to using a proper chain of logic when assessing evidence. Using proper engineering reports that have an agreement amongst other properly experienced engineers. What you seem to be doing would be akin to needing brain surgery, and going to an orthopedic surgeon for his opinion on the proposed procedure. Both are highly skilled surgeons. Perfectly fine to get another opinion, but I would give the specialist's opinion greater weight. This is logical.

So in essence, you are stating that Gage and everyone else listed on the OP video are to be viewed as orthopedic surgeons attempting brain surgery...This is about the most DISINGENUOUS thing I have ever read in my life. I doubt you would be here on ATS if you had any qualifications to make this assessment on your own. Again, you are relying simply on the numbers game. I am willing to engage you directly on the NIST Report on WTC 7. Are you willing to do this or not?

Nope. We disagree about the evidence. I say that you have a faulty logic chain and may not be able to assess how to give proper weight to evidence due to some personal views. It may a general suspicion about "the man", or authority, or whatever. But others disagree with you. You are not in the majority.

I leave everyone with this quote from you, demonstrating for all to see, the predilection for you to engage in leaping to conclusions. You show me a single post where I have made any formal positional stance regarding the events of 9/11/01. All I have done is to call into question some statements in the report and asked pertinent questions relative to other posts in this thread. For this, I have been grouped and shoehorned into your narrow minded view as having some "personal views...suspicious of the man, or authority, or whatever." Nice try.

If having questions constitutes being in the minority then I proudly accept that mantle. You wish to engage on NIST?

reply to post by Fluffaluffagous

And not surprisingly, they are all planes.

No, they are not.

www.youtube.com... That's a 757 at 400 knots. Easy to identify as a large passenger jet. You are debunked.

What is debunked? I said 500 miles mph for one, and go ahead and find a video of that plane. When you show me video of the plane in question at the Pentagon then we can have a discussion. Until then, there is NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE to corroborate the testimony of the Pentagon incident. Understand?

Incredulity, as I pointed out, is not evidence that there indeed is a clear video of a plane. You MUST bring evidence that the video and recording capabilities were in place for this event. If you cannot, then your incredulity is nothing but comedy material. That's how logic works.

No, I do not. The claim by the US Government is a plane struck the Pentagon. You got radar tracks? Let's see them. You got corroborating video evidence to support the eyewitness testimony? Let's see it. Until now, all we have is what we all saw presented on the news. A bunch of crappy stills pieced together. You are grasping at straws. Please stop.

Originally posted by totallackey
Because the object in question was traveling at a very high rate of speed. Much faster than would be at a regular landing speed (i.e., 250 mph is typical landing speed). An object traveling over 500 mph would be very difficult to identify.

Unless of course it is a very large object like a plane. You walked right into that one.

No corroborating video/still image evidence, despite the fact this is probably one of the most secure installations in the world, without a doubt under 24/7 outside surveillance.

You're being conspicuously artful in your responses again. Yes, there's 24/7 surveillance...OF AREAS WHERE PEOPLE WOULD BE, like the entrance, the parking lot, and that security gate where that photo came from. Do you genuinely expect they are going to aim security cameras at every garbage can, blade of grass, and every blank brick wall for no reason? Or are you saying you demandd to see security footage of people all looking at something off camera to prove it was a plane?

This is nothing but desperate excuse making and you know it.

Originally posted by totallackey
No Dave. There is no problem with my analogy. The objective evidence is the video and sounds recorded during that fateful day. In conjunction with the eye/ear witness testimony.

The eyewitness testimony of the firefighters who were physically there (I.E. Deputy fire chief Peter Hayden) shows they saw massive deformations in the side of the structure where the fires were burning out of control, and they knew the building was going to collapse hours ahead of time from the creaking noises the building as making, Nice try.

I am still waiting for the "snip," you claim is absent. I have watched the OP video. From what I see, I see a video presenting the COMPLETE PROPORTIONATE COLLAPSE of WTC 7 from START to FINISH. I asked you earlier to provide the video you claim is missing. I take it your failure to produce this "snip," is simply an admission it does not exist.

I either did not see it, or I had posted it elsewhere and you didn't see it, but no matter. Since I have your attention now, here it is. Here's the original video that NIST used in its analysis:




...and here is an example of the altered video the conspiracy theorists use to "prove" controlled demolitions. You will note that the entire six preceding seconds of the collapse was deliberately snipped off. Why?



The collapse of the penthouse is a critical component of the NIST model, not only that the interior collapsed into he interior of the structure before the exterior did, but also how far the penthouse collapsed into the interior from the broken windows...which the conspiracy proponents falsely attribute to squibs now that they snipped off the preceding six seconds.

THEN, they continue to misrepresent their scenario by misquoting a NIST computer model. NIST released several models to show why they came up with the scenario they arrived at (I.E. to illustrate that if X happened, the building would have fallen this way, but since the building didn't happen, it means X didn't happen) and one of the "this isn't what happened" scenarios is falsely being attributed as being the scenario NIST is supporting. All we need to do is READ THE FLIPPING REPORT to see that's not what they said.

SO, if you're attempting to claim the conspiracy proponents aren't deliberately misreprenting the events of 9/11 to artificially embellish their own spooky-scary conspiracy stories, then you, sir, will be lying.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Do you genuinely expect they are going to aim security cameras at every garbage can, blade of grass, and every blank brick wall for no reason?

I always enjoy your replies Dave.

A blank brick wall is a good place to hide when you want to "Puff the Magic Dragon".. Know what I mean Dave?

The 4 Best Locations for Your Security Cameras

Secluded Areas

Parking lots and back alleys are also useful locations for security cameras. The images you capture in these areas are useful for investigating vandalism or violence. The deterrent value of your camera system also comes into play in these applications. Seeing a security camera staring at them, potential perpetrators may think twice about committing a criminal act.

Entrances and exits, customer transaction points, targets and secluded areas. These are the 4 best locations to position your security cameras. In so doing, you will capture useful investigative images and take advantage of your security camera's power to deter crime.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

The eyewitness testimony of the firefighters who were physically there (I.E. Deputy fire chief Peter Hayden) shows they saw massive deformations in the side of the structure where the fires were burning out of control, and they knew the building was going to collapse hours ahead of time from the creaking noises the building as making, Nice try.

This again? Really Dave?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti

I was getting some resistance. The common thing was, hey, we’ve still got people here, we don’t want to leave. I explained to them that we were worried about 7, that it was going to come down and we didn’t want to get anybody trapped in the collapse. One comment was, oh, that building is never coming down, that didn’t get hit by a plane, why isn’t somebody in there putting the fire out? A lot of comments, a bit of resistance, understandable resistance.

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by Fluffaluffagous

 

No, they are not.

Ohhh, naughty naughty. The only 500 MPH object that every eyewitness would ever uniformly identify as a plane is in fact a plane.

Originally posted by maxella1
Secluded Areas

Parking lots and back alleys are also useful locations for security cameras. The images you capture in these areas are useful for investigating vandalism or violence. The deterrent value of your camera system also comes into play in these applications. Seeing a security camera staring at them, potential perpetrators may think twice about committing a criminal act.

Are you seriously suggesting that a wall at the Pentagon adjacent to a security tower and a security gate is a "secluded area"?

Yeah, try to bring your girlfriend there to that "secluded area" for some saturday night horizontal refreshment, and see what happens.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by Fluffaluffagous

 

No, they are not.

Ohhh, naughty naughty. The only 500 MPH object that every eyewitness would ever uniformly identify as a plane is in fact a plane.

Is this a fact or is it what you think is true?

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

This again? Really Dave?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti

So does Deputy Chief Nick Visconti believe as you do that WTC 7 was brought down by explosives? Or are you just taking his quotes out of context in exactly the way I'm accusing the conspiracy proponents are doing?

Nice try.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by maxella1
Secluded Areas

Parking lots and back alleys are also useful locations for security cameras. The images you capture in these areas are useful for investigating vandalism or violence. The deterrent value of your camera system also comes into play in these applications. Seeing a security camera staring at them, potential perpetrators may think twice about committing a criminal act.

Are you seriously suggesting that a wall at the Pentagon adjacent to a security tower and a security gate is a "secluded area"?

Yeah, try to bring your girlfriend there to that "secluded area" for some saturday night horizontal refreshment, and see what happens.

No Dave I am suggesting that you are wrong about this--

Do you genuinely expect they are going to aim security cameras at every garbage can, blade of grass, and every blank brick wall for no reason?

Because there is a very good reason for aiming security cameras at a blank brick wall. Get it?

Originally posted by maxella1

Is this a fact or is it what you think is true?

You are free to try and disprove the claim. What other very large 500MPH object would ever be universally be confused with a plane?

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Unless of course it is a very large object like a plane. You walked right into that one.

I walked into nothing...you have corroborating objective evidence of a plane or not?

You're being conspicuously artful in your responses again. Yes, there's 24/7 surveillance...OF AREAS WHERE PEOPLE WOULD BE, like the entrance, the parking lot, and that security gate where that photo came from. Do you genuinely expect they are going to aim security cameras at every garbage can, blade of grass, and every blank brick wall for no reason? Or are you saying you demandd to see security footage of people all looking at something off camera to prove it was a plane? This is nothing but desperate excuse making and you know it.

And you are being EXTREMELY ARTFUL in your responses and entire position! On the one hand, the witnesses at the Pentagon are to be taken as trustworthy on their word ALONE with no objective corroborating evidence. Yet on the other hand, the witnesses at WTC 1/2/7 are not to be trusted when they used the word EXPLOSIONS and have objective corroborating evidence to support their statements.

No Dave...you seriously need to take a look at your position...it is built on sand...with no foundation...and is made of straw...

Originally posted by maxella1

Because there is a very good reason for aiming security cameras at a blank brick wall. Get it?

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. The area where the plane hit was anything but secluded. Ergo either a security camera wasn't thought to be necessary at that area, or it was at an angle that didn't pick up the plane.

You were proven wrong and you know it. Get on with your life already.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

So does Deputy Chief Nick Visconti believe as you do that WTC 7 was brought down by explosives? Or are you just taking his quotes out of context in exactly the way I'm accusing the conspiracy proponents are doing? Nice try.

See you missed the point again.

You try to trick people with this --

The eyewitness testimony of the firefighters who were physically there (I.E. Deputy fire chief Peter Hayden) shows they saw massive deformations in the side of the structure where the fires were burning out of control, and they knew the building was going to collapse hours ahead of time from the creaking noises the building as making, Nice try.

You make it look like the total and sudden and very fast collapse of WTC 7 was anticipated by FDNY, while you obviously know that it isn't true,

The building was in danger of collapse in the area of the damage and fire, but we all know now that it collapsed as a unit at once and extremely fact. None of the first responders that I know of expected that to happen.

But again we talked about it many times, I'm just confused about why do you always forget the things we discussed in the past.

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

I walked into nothing...you have corroborating objective evidence of a plane or not?

Now you REALLY walked into that one...