| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
int_80
Minor Poster
Joined: 03 Jan 2007
Posts: 15
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:18 pm Post subject: Re: Aerospaceweb debunking |
 |
|
I think these three articles effectively and authoritively demolish three bits of "evidence" put forward by "truthseekers". Thanks very much for bringing them to our attention. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
this is why i believe a plane at the pentagon all though i do find it strange why they just dont release all the footage. i admit there is still a bit of doubt but only because they will not show all the footage, and think if it was a cover-up nothing stops them putting those parts there(but that cannot be proven its more to do with trust i suppose because of other factors in the whole story). but i think a plane just explaining why i still have a bit of doubt there.
[before anyone says but you questioned this or that, it was a while ago and part of looking at all the differant areas to come to a conclusion] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
int_80
Minor Poster
Joined: 03 Jan 2007
Posts: 15
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | this is why i believe a plane at the pentagon all though i do find it strange why they just dont release all the footage. i admit there is still a bit of doubt but only because they will not show all the footage, and think if it was a cover-up nothing stops them putting those parts there(but that cannot be proven its more to do with trust i suppose because of other factors in the whole story). but i think a plane just explaining why i still have a bit of doubt there.
[before anyone says but you questioned this or that, it was a while ago and part of looking at all the differant areas to come to a conclusion] |
Precisely what I thought, why so secretive? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| int_80 wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | this is why i believe a plane at the pentagon all though i do find it strange why they just dont release all the footage. i admit there is still a bit of doubt but only because they will not show all the footage, and think if it was a cover-up nothing stops them putting those parts there(but that cannot be proven its more to do with trust i suppose because of other factors in the whole story). but i think a plane just explaining why i still have a bit of doubt there.
[before anyone says but you questioned this or that, it was a while ago and part of looking at all the differant areas to come to a conclusion] |
Precisely what I thought, why so secretive? |
exactly, nothing to hide nothing to fear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 724
Location: Brighton
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Have you fellas watched Pandoras Black Box?
The NTSB data analysis by pilots for 911 truth is deffo worth checking out if ya havent:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8672066571196607580&hl=en
Cheers for those links.
_________________
Positive...energy...activates...constant...elevation. (Gravediggaz) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
nice one scar forgot about this, i remember people talking about it but the link was broken when i tried watching it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
The cool thing about the web is you can create a website called Pilots for 911 truth and you don't even need any pilots.
Two other problems: you are alleging that video exists, but there isn't any actualy proof that it does. The fact that a camera is located nearby doesn't mean it captured video of the plane, as we have seen cameras which were nearby pointed exactly at the right location didn't capture video which was good enough, why would something in a gas station across the street pointed the wrong way capture anything?
And lastly, waiting for the video is a charade. Any plotter who could arrange 911 can arrange fake video, and it wouldn't take 5 years.
Not to mention the occalm's razor problems with not using a plane, the eyewitnesses, the physical evidence... it seems the only remaining objections are pure argumentativeness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | The cool thing about the web is you can create a website called Pilots for 911 truth and you don't even need any pilots.
Two other problems: you are alleging that video exists, but there isn't any actualy proof that it does. The fact that a camera is located nearby doesn't mean it captured video of the plane, as we have seen cameras which were nearby pointed exactly at the right location didn't capture video which was good enough, why would something in a gas station across the street pointed the wrong way capture anything?
And lastly, waiting for the video is a charade. Any plotter who could arrange 911 can arrange fake video, and it wouldn't take 5 years.
Not to mention the occalm's razor problems with not using a plane, the eyewitnesses, the physical evidence... it seems the only remaining objections are pure argumentativeness. |
same both ways, are we now saying nothing on the web is trustworthy? not even websites claiming 9/11 wasnt an inside job? after all they could claim to be experts like yourself and dont need to be and proberbly are not for all we know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Maybe nobody will notice you ignored every point I raised. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Maybe nobody will notice you ignored every point I raised. |
maybe no will notice every point you make is based on presumptions |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | The cool thing about the web is you can create a website called Pilots for 911 truth and you don't even need any pilots.
Two other problems: you are alleging that video exists, but there isn't any actualy proof that it does. The fact that a camera is located nearby doesn't mean it captured video of the plane, as we have seen cameras which were nearby pointed exactly at the right location didn't capture video which was good enough, why would something in a gas station across the street pointed the wrong way capture anything?
And lastly, waiting for the video is a charade. Any plotter who could arrange 911 can arrange fake video, and it wouldn't take 5 years.
Not to mention the occalm's razor problems with not using a plane, the eyewitnesses, the physical evidence... it seems the only remaining objections are pure argumentativeness. |
you presume pilots for truth is not really pilots.
you prsume their is no other footage even though the pentagon is one of the most secure places you can get, others presume their is footage but whats the differance? you are still presuming just as much as anyone else.
you presume that anyone could make a fake which is presuming that if a video does appear it must be fake.
eyewitnesses contridict at the pentagon and if it was a cover-up plane parts could of been placed, so you presume only one set of witnesses could be right and presume the plane parts come from flight 77 when they cannot be identified as from flight 77 but only that they came from a 767 aircraft. again if a cover-up nothing stops these being placed, so although the evidence may point to a plane theres nothing to prove it was flight 77 which is why people call for video evidence, because that would rule out planted parts.
you ignore the fact that we were told the plane vapourised to begin with which was a lie, why tell us that when there was obviously plane parts there? it just raises more concern about the truth being told to most people. you dont need to lie if the stroy is true, yet there have been quite a few examples of the offical version changing all the time, which isnt suspious if the changes were bought about by ferther research, but you cannot tell me they could'nt find a plane and so therfore it must of vapuorised then months later hold on look there it is take some photos.
the same as they said they had no footage of the plane crash then all of a sudden released a clip showing 5 frames, so they was obviously lieing when they said they had NO footage. why lie?
and before you say a 767 can be identified in the 5 clip frame it is not clear enough and only shows something as oppose to showing what can only be a 767. so maybe this post explains ferther why some people just dont trust what they have been told and call for better footage, which we know they have because the confiscated numerous tapes from across the street.
what im working from is what the evidence shows and not letting the gaps in evidence be filled in with presumption like yourself. example plane parts do not prove it was flight 77 it just proves they were plane parts. and beofre you go on about flight paths watch pandoras box above, the data was obtain through FOIA(freedom of information act).
none of it makes any sense unless you are working on the presumption that our goverments would never do such a thing, when history shows yes they would. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| as for dna evidence, it contridicts if you watch pandora's black box obtained through FOIA as it clearly shows the plane in question didnt hit the pentagon. so regardless of what the truth is questions need to be asked it dosnt mean a goverment cover-up but data/evidence does not add up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johndoex
Minor Poster
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pilot Members/Aviation professionals of pilotsfor911truth.org. All aviation professionals can be cross-checked at faa.gov.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html
Next...
Aerospaceweb measures a compressor disk by using a human in the picture as tape measure. That is NOT positive identification for American 77. Many of those pictures of parts came from an anonymous source and cannot be viewed on any govt site in support of their fairy tale.
In order to positively ID AA77, they need to produce the parts to independent experts to cross check with the maintenance manuals from the airline.. for starters..
Pictures on a website using humans to measure approximate length of parts does not constitute positive identification.
_________________
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org/forum |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | if you watch pandora's black box obtained through FOIA as it clearly shows the plane in question didnt hit the pentagon. |
Well, to be accurate, it does if you accept their calculations.
Similarly, FEMA's report shows that flight 77 did hit the Pentagon, if you accept their evidence.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | ..........even though the pentagon is one of the most secure places you can get.......... |
Oh look, marky, you made a presumption!
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | if you watch pandora's black box obtained through FOIA as it clearly shows the plane in question didnt hit the pentagon. |
Well, to be accurate, it does if you accept their calculations.
Similarly, FEMA's report shows that flight 77 did hit the Pentagon, if you accept their evidence. |
its not their calculations if it was released through FOIA is it?
its either the actual calculations of flight 77 or they released false information meaning either way theres questions to answer.
so if correct it points to flight 77 not being in the correct place to hit the pentagon.
and if its false it points to a cover-up of sorts maybe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've said it before and I'll say it again. You can be as argumentative as you want. You can reject every piece of evidence, follow every question with another question, deny, obfuscate, jump from topic to topic randomly, tell me the sky is green, whatever. Its not my problem, I don't have to get you to admit the obvious. You are the one that needs to convince people, not me. And you are obviously failing miserably. You may think that by lowering your standards to the point of absurdity you have "won", but the joke's on you.
| Quote: | | you prsume their is no other footage even though the pentagon is one of the most secure places you can get, others presume their is footage but whats the differance? |
When you say "one of the most secure places you can get", you are just repeating what conspiracy websites tell you to say. Nobody has ever explained in in what relevant sense the Pentagon was "one of the most secure places you can get". Let me give you an analogy - Nestle headquarters is not made out of chocolate. Think about it. | Quote: | | you presume that anyone could make a fake which is presuming that if a video does appear it must be fake. |
It is a fact that anyone could make a fake. It is a fact that if a video appears you would call it a fake. Asking for video is a charade. | Quote: | | you ignore the fact that we were told the plane vapourised to begin with which was a lie |
You always say "they" told you, but who is "they"? I know who "they" is, its the conspiracy websites which tell you what they want you to believe the official story is. | Quote: | | yet there have been quite a few examples of the offical version changing all the time |
I'm sure the "official version" (whatever that is - anyone anywhere speaking on camera?) five minutes after the crash and the official version after months of investigation changed. You may find this inexplicable, but sane people wouldn't. | Quote: | | the same as they said they had no footage of the plane crash then all of a sudden released a clip showing 5 frames, |
Did "they" say they had no video? All this stuff was being kept for use in a criminal trial. In case you didn't know, you don't just go publishing all the evidence before a jury trial. It was "suddenly" released following a freedom of information request. | Quote: | | so maybe this post explains ferther why some people just dont trust what they have been told and call for better footage, which we know they have because the confiscated numerous tapes from across the street |
We know we have tapes, we don't know they have footage of the plane, that is a lie. As I explained before (and you ignored), if a pentagon security camera pointed at the pentagon can't capture good video, why would a gas station camera across the street capture good video? Would it even be pointed at the Pentagon? | Quote: | | as for dna evidence, it contridicts if you watch pandora's black box obtained through FOIA as it clearly shows the plane in question didnt hit the pentagon. |
DNA evidence is used to determine flight paths? What are you smoking? | Quote: | | Pictures on a website using humans to measure approximate length of parts does not constitute positive identification. |
You are right, eyewitness accounts say they saw the plane hit the pentagon, flight data says the the plane was definitely headed right for the Pentagon, the plane has definitely disappeared somehow, the correct parts were found there, the DNA was found there, all three other hijacked flights were crashed into something, but in the sense that there is no conceivable evidence that cannot be denied, well in that sense there is no evidence.
You have to wonder how anyone ever gets convicted of anything when the crime isn't videotaped. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
the only word this person knows is "the conspiracy website told you"
you have not linked one thing to prove your points yet ignore everything i put forward to show my point.
the only conspiracy theory here is the OCT which you can only rant about and not prove is correct. im still waiting for the link to what the offical theory says in regards to total collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 after the point of collapse. as you state i was wrong about pancaking then fail to show me anything that says anything differant that is NOT assumptions.
i have to question if you even know yourself so i cannot trust a word you say. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | the only word this person knows is "the conspiracy website told you"
you have not linked one thing to prove your points yet ignore everything i put forward to show my point. |
Its not my fault you are so predictable. You have the same questions all the conspiracy websites tell you to ask, you make the same mistakes all the conspiracy websites do. You are the same as everyone else who has been conned by these people. If that weren't true you could show me the official version that says Osama planned 911 from a cave, but you can't because it doesn't. | Quote: | | as you state i was wrong about pancaking then fail to show me anything that says anything differant that is NOT assumptions. |
Its not that I'm saying it, it is a fact that the official theory does not use pancaking, you were wrong and as I pointed out above, who talks about pancaking? Conspiracy websites. | Quote: | | Im still waiting for the link to what the offical theory says in regards to total collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 after the point of collapse. |
But why? You reject their theory for the initiation of collapse, so why do you care so much what happens after? You are pretending this is vitally important when you have rejected everything else they have said up to that point. Why would you pretend this is a meaningful exercise? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i have not rejected anything, i will accept anything that is true. only where it is proved wrong will i have doubts. but yet again i linked the reasons why NIST are wrong but you could not bring your self to watch the link i provided that explained this. instead you just keep ranting talking down to people and using insults.
which is why this is pointless. if you have come here to shout the odds your wasting your time if you have come here to debate on evidence then im more than willing. however i will not take your abuse and dont have to.
good day.
none of your posts are even evidence based. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
this is how it works one of us shows evidence, then the other points out why it is wrong or if they agree with it ect. and so and so forth debating points of evidence, it could always be done without insults but that will not make you feel good so im fine with insults, what ever gives you a kick.
what is pointless is i say something then just say something then i say something ect untill we fill 10 pages of circular arguement till one of us gets bored. now i think ive been pretty civil so far after being called all sorts when giving you an oppertunity to prove my points wrong with links you just ignore. im not going to be proved wrong by being called a lunatic when i provide a link you cannot comment on.
so its your choice however i will not be replying to any non evidence based posts by yourself. i should of just done what everyone else does and just ignore critics corner instead of giving people an oppertunity to prove wrong my points of evidence so i can see why its supposidly so wrong something you have not been able to prove so far.
just for the record, i just want to know the truth about 9/11 if that ends up being the offical version so be it, although currently i think there are to many unanswered questions and a new investigastion is needed.
i do not question princess diania's death, or anyother conspiracy theory.
fact: conspiracys DO happen, i see problems with 9/11 and 9/11 only.
now i know 100% you will take everything i said and twist to your own views just like a conspiracy theorists so please go ahead, but i dont know what more i can say or do to prove i am geniue with my concerns about 9/11 because of the implications this has on the world, and our childrens future. so take your pick im easy rant and rave or debate but remember your easily ignored. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
just to add as you obviously know nothing, NIST admit they only calculated upto the point of the collapse and did not account for anything after. the only other explaination for total collapse is the explaination by fema(pancaking).
if you class them as conspiracy theorists i would'nt currently disagree.
however if i am wrong please point out why, nicely if possible although i dont expect it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | i have not rejected anything, i will accept anything that is true. |
That's a joke, because there is NO CONCEIVABLE EVIDENCE which you could not reject. Eyewitness testimony? Lies. Physical evidence? Planted. Video? Faked. | Quote: | | this is how it works one of us shows evidence, then the other points out why it is wrong or if they agree with it ect. |
OK, I show you reports that they found plane wreckage and DNA, you claim it was all fake or planted. Whoopeee, sounds productive.
You try it. You imagine some evidence has been found, and I'll pretend to be a troofer and use my incredible powers to reject anything. | Quote: | | none of your posts are even evidence based. |
My posts are logic based, because of the problem i pose above. There is no conceivable evidence I could present which you couldn't reject. | Quote: | | instead you just keep ranting talking down to people and using insults. |
I pointed out that you claim video exists, but have no proof that it does. I pointed out that you continually call the Pentagon "one of the most secure places on earth", but can't back up how this is true in any meaningful way. I pointed out that you keep referring to how "they" told us something, but never back up who "they" are or show where "they" said it. I pointed out that saying "better footage, which we know they have" is a fabrication, since you have no evidence or reasoning to explain why better video exists. i pointed out that you expect the government to email all the evidence from a jury trial to Alex Jones without explaining why.
I pointed out all these things in this thread alone, and you refuse to address any of them, and claim I only insult you. Well its obvious that if you can't explain something, you just don't. That's why you are willing to accept wildly implausible alternative explanations at every opportunity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | i have not rejected anything, i will accept anything that is true. |
That's a joke, because there is NO CONCEIVABLE EVIDENCE which you could not reject. Eyewitness testimony? Lies. Physical evidence? Planted. Video? Faked. | Quote: | | this is how it works one of us shows evidence, then the other points out why it is wrong or if they agree with it ect. |
OK, I show you reports that they found plane wreckage and DNA, you claim it was all fake or planted. Whoopeee, sounds productive.
You try it. You imagine some evidence has been found, and I'll pretend to be a troofer and use my incredible powers to reject anything. | Quote: | | none of your posts are even evidence based. |
My posts are logic based, because of the problem i pose above. There is no conceivable evidence I could present which you couldn't reject. | Quote: | | instead you just keep ranting talking down to people and using insults. |
I pointed out that you claim video exists, but have no proof that it does. I pointed out that you continually call the Pentagon "one of the most secure places on earth", but can't back up how this is true in any meaningful way. I pointed out that you keep referring to how "they" told us something, but never back up who "they" are or show where "they" said it. I pointed out that saying "better footage, which we know they have" is a fabrication, since you have no evidence or reasoning to explain why better video exists. i pointed out that you expect the government to email all the evidence from a jury trial to Alex Jones without explaining why.
I pointed out all these things in this thread alone, and you refuse to address any of them, and claim I only insult you. Well its obvious that if you can't explain something, you just don't. That's why you are willing to accept wildly implausible alternative explanations at every opportunity. |
your questions are nothing short of stupid and pointless because what you say ive been doing is what you have actually been doing since you started posting. i say something with a link, you say the opposite without addressing the link ect. if i say they have videos(and we know because they confiscated them) you say they have not.
if i say the pentagon is security tight you say its not(like they only had one cctv camera)
i dont know who "they" are maybe i should of said the offical version claimed the plane at the pentagon vapourised in the earily stages only to prove themselves wrong by releasing photographic evidence, the same as the pentagon claimed to have no video footage only to prove themselves wrong by releasing some.
but you do what you say im doing as well which is why i pointed out this is pointless unless based on evidence not stupid questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | just to add as you obviously know nothing, NIST admit they only calculated upto the point of the collapse and did not account for anything after. the only other explaination for total collapse is the explaination by fema(pancaking).
if you class them as conspiracy theorists i would'nt currently disagree.
however if i am wrong please point out why, nicely if possible although i dont expect it. |
who's the one failing to address things? i noticed how you just skipped over this after claiming this in the above post
qoute pepik:
Its not that I'm saying it, it is a fact that the official theory does not use pancaking, you were wrong and as I pointed out above, who talks about pancaking? Conspiracy websites. end qoute: |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | if you watch pandora's black box obtained through FOIA as it clearly shows the plane in question didnt hit the pentagon. |
Well, to be accurate, it does if you accept their calculations.
Similarly, FEMA's report shows that flight 77 did hit the Pentagon, if you accept their evidence. |
its not their calculations if it was released through FOIA is it?
its either the actual calculations of flight 77 or they released false information meaning either way theres questions to answer.
so if correct it points to flight 77 not being in the correct place to hit the pentagon.
and if its false it points to a cover-up of sorts maybe. |
No, marky, life is rarely as simple as you think. See this thread |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | if you watch pandora's black box obtained through FOIA as it clearly shows the plane in question didnt hit the pentagon. |
Well, to be accurate, it does if you accept their calculations.
Similarly, FEMA's report shows that flight 77 did hit the Pentagon, if you accept their evidence. |
its not their calculations if it was released through FOIA is it?
its either the actual calculations of flight 77 or they released false information meaning either way theres questions to answer.
so if correct it points to flight 77 not being in the correct place to hit the pentagon.
and if its false it points to a cover-up of sorts maybe. |
No, marky, life is rarely as simple as you think. See this thread |
thanks for pointing it out to me(the thread that is) but im honestly not see which part of the thread dosnt make it simple. can you explain you point or point out which post? as i dont want to go away from this being puzzled if im wrong i want to see where. thx |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | if you watch pandora's black box obtained through FOIA as it clearly shows the plane in question didnt hit the pentagon. |
Well, to be accurate, it does if you accept their calculations.
Similarly, FEMA's report shows that flight 77 did hit the Pentagon, if you accept their evidence. |
its not their calculations if it was released through FOIA is it?
its either the actual calculations of flight 77 or they released false information meaning either way theres questions to answer.
so if correct it points to flight 77 not being in the correct place to hit the pentagon.
and if its false it points to a cover-up of sorts maybe. |
No, marky, life is rarely as simple as you think. See this thread |
thanks for pointing it out to me(the thread that is) but im honestly not see which part of the thread dosnt make it simple. can you explain you point or point out which post? as i dont want to go away from this being puzzled if im wrong i want to see where. thx |
Snowygrouch is talking about analysing the raw data released by NTSB to calculate the flightpath of the plane as not matching the official version of the plane coming in very low and knocking over light poles before crashing into the Pentagon. That analsis depends upon calculations that can be right or wrong.
Think of it this way, you can read all the bar-codes on your shopping when you go to Tesco, that's the raw data, but you will not know how much you have spent until further calculation has been done by Tesco's computers in looking up all the prices and working out the total bill. You could take the raw data and check it for yourself from Tesco's price list, which is the equivalent of what Snowygrouch and his team are doing, you might then say that Tesco had got it wrong, and people might believe you, but that does depend on your calculations being accurate.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | if you watch pandora's black box obtained through FOIA as it clearly shows the plane in question didnt hit the pentagon. |
Well, to be accurate, it does if you accept their calculations.
Similarly, FEMA's report shows that flight 77 did hit the Pentagon, if you accept their evidence. |
its not their calculations if it was released through FOIA is it?
its either the actual calculations of flight 77 or they released false information meaning either way theres questions to answer.
so if correct it points to flight 77 not being in the correct place to hit the pentagon.
and if its false it points to a cover-up of sorts maybe. |
No, marky, life is rarely as simple as you think. See this thread |
thanks for pointing it out to me(the thread that is) but im honestly not see which part of the thread dosnt make it simple. can you explain you point or point out which post? as i dont want to go away from this being puzzled if im wrong i want to see where. thx |
Snowygrouch is talking about analysing the raw data released by NTSB to calculate the flightpath of the plane as not matching the official version of the plane coming in very low and knocking over light poles before crashing into the Pentagon. That analsis depends upon calculations that can be right or wrong.
Think of it this way, you can read all the bar-codes on your shopping when you go to Tesco, that's the raw data, but you will not know how much you have spent until further calculation has been done by Tesco's computers in looking up all the prices and working out the total bill. You could take the raw data and check it for yourself from Tesco's price list, which is the equivalent of what Snowygrouch and his team are doing, you might then say that Tesco had got it wrong, and people might believe you, but that does depend on your calculations being accurate. |
i see sorry for not understanding straight away, but thanks for explaining it. it sounds like confusing stuff to be sure its accurate then, well to me at least. i understand the basis now though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
