| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:59 pm Post subject: NPT hypocrisy |
 |
|
I find it strange that a good proportion of this forum is devoted to an ongoing battle between no-planers and others in the truth movement. Why? Because MOST if not ALL in the truth movement are no-planers! Most truthers do not believe that the flights crashed into the Pentagon or at Shanksville, despite multiple witnesses at each site, crew at the crash sites, and the physical evidence of the planes and human remains being identified on the sites.
It seems to me that many in the truth movement are falling into the trap of thinking that if something didn't happen on TV, then it didn't happen at all. Rather than having positive evidence to prove their existence, they rely on the lack of visual evidence to deny it. This is a weak argument.
The no-plane theories at the World Trade Centers are actually MORE consistent with logic than the majority of truthers' theories. The conspiracy that these theories describe is a consistent one where all the planes didn't crash, rather than an illogical one where the planes at the WTC were real, and the Pentagon and Shanksville ones were fake (for reasons that truthers have yet to explain).
Indeed, one of the arguments against no planes at the WTC is the huge risk that one of the many witnesses getting footage out to the World that didn't include planes - I have seen that argument used many times against no-planers. The irony of course is that that risk also exists for the Pentagon and Shanksville crashes.
The great weight of evidence suggests that the listed flights DID crash at the Pentagon and Shanksville. The alternatives suggested by the truth movement contradict most if not ALL of the existing evidence, have little or no evidence of their own, and provide absolutely no suggestion of motive on the part of the alleged conspirators. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lots of opinion, so little evidence presented to support your opinion.
Perhaps you could explain away the analysis of the flight data recorder at the pentagon that appears to flatly contradicts the flight path required by the official story, to give just one example? I presume you are familiar with this work |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I find it strange that a good proportion of this forum is devoted to an ongoing battle between no-planers and others in the truth movement. Why? Because MOST if not ALL in the truth movement are no-planers! Most truthers do not believe that the flights crashed into the Pentagon or at Shanksville, despite multiple witnesses at each site, crew at the crash sites, and the physical evidence of the planes and human remains being identified on the sites. |
You're kind of missing the point here - you're making something based on ideaology when it is in fact based on evidence.
For example - I believe Alexander Litvinjenko was spiked with a lethal radioactive material.
I believe JFK was shot with a gun.
If someone came up to me and claimed that JFK in fact died through being spiked with a radioactive material I would refute it - would this be "very strange"?
| Quote: | | It seems to me that many in the truth movement are falling into the trap of thinking that if something didn't happen on TV, then it didn't happen at all. |
Really? How did you come to that conclusion?
What "many" (read: virtually everybody) in the truth movement believes is there has to be a reason to believe something shown on TV is not real - you don't take the default position that everything you see on TV is faked do you? So far that reason is not forthcoming.
| Quote: | | Rather than having positive evidence to prove [the planes] existence, they rely on the lack of visual evidence to deny it. This is a weak argument. |
No, it's not. You're suggesting we should have proof positive of planes existing, otherwise the default position should be that they were inserted onto footage by computer? Since when has something so complex been a reasonable starting point of inquiry?
The fact is, this movement has taken the official narrative and interrogated it against known facts, and when it has been shown to be false, we have demonstrated why - in some cases we have been able to show what did in fact happen.
The planes flying into the WTC are a part of that official story - so we interrogate that against the known facts - do we find it to be false? No we don't - I'm still waiting for an evidence based argument which can stand up against a gentle breeze of questioning without blowing away to demonstrate this is false.
It is almost impossible to 100% prove anything, besides your own existence to the very limited audience of you. Proving something wrong can be done quite easily when the facts support it - that is why believeing something is real until proven false is a more logical route to take than assuming everything is false unless proved real - which you seem to be suggesting we should.
| Quote: | | The no-plane theories at the World Trade Centers are actually MORE consistent with logic than the majority of truthers' theories. The conspiracy that these theories describe is a consistent one where all the planes didn't crash, rather than an illogical one where the planes at the WTC were real, and the Pentagon and Shanksville ones were fake (for reasons that truthers have yet to explain). |
And we still patiently wait for any one of you to demonstrate this….
| Quote: | | Indeed, one of the arguments against no planes at the WTC is the huge risk that one of the many witnesses getting footage out to the World that didn't include planes - I have seen that argument used many times against no-planers. The irony of course is that that risk also exists for the Pentagon and Shanksville crashes. |
Firstly - That's hardly the central argument, it is usually thrown in after the most recent hair brained claim has been demolished by reason.
Secondly - The Shanksville plane crash and the Pentagon were far more remote areas that Manhattan in rush hour.
Thirdly - Look through this site - the Pentagon and especially Shanksville are hardly major areas of 9/11 research. Personally the former I only ever approach with kid gloves and the latter I can barely be bothered to talk about. There is a lack of conclusive evidence for anything there. The WTC Towers and Building 7 are our trump cards with hard evidence and arguments to show foul play with both. Some people want these replaced with unprovable claims about beam weapons and computer inserts which are designed to make us a laughing stock. Why does it "surprise" you that some people want to counter that agenda?
| Quote: | | The great weight of evidence suggests that the listed flights DID crash at the Pentagon and Shanksville.The alternatives suggested by the truth movement contradict most if not ALL of the existing evidence, have little or no evidence of their own, and provide absolutely no suggestion of motive on the part of the alleged conspirators. |
Whatever floats your boat, my advice is to leave theories about each incident alone, and focus only on the clear discrepancies in the Pentagon story (such as the FDR Ian mentioned above) - WTC7, WTC Towers - lots to talk about there. But some people would rather we were all distracted from that task by evidenceless and impossible theories instead… wonder why?
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ian neal wrote: | Lots of opinion, so little evidence presented to support your opinion.
Perhaps you could explain away the analysis of the flight data recorder at the pentagon that appears to flatly contradicts the flight path required by the official story, to give just one example? I presume you are familiar with this work |
Well it was a nice opportunity to read up on it. The flight data recorder is an anomaly - you give no indication what evidence the analysis provides.
I think I summarise this evidence correctly as follows. The NTSB-provided computer simulation of the black box data showed one angle of approach, but a subsequent analysis of the actual raw data suggested the OT approach angle. So one of these two analyses is inaccurate (or maybe both are). I frankly don't know how it ties in with any conspiracy theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well the analysis of the raw data strongly suggests that the plane could not have hit the lampposts that the official conspiracy theory says it did, which given the supposed infallibility of FDR data does make one question the OCT.
If this were the only question or anomoly in the evidence, it could perhaps be overlooked, but I'm aware (even if you are not) of a great deal of other evidence challenging the OCT |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ian neal wrote: | Well the analysis of the raw data strongly suggests that the plane could not have hit the lampposts that the official conspiracy theory says it did, which given the supposed infallibility of FDR data does make one question the OCT.
If this were the only question or anomoly in the evidence, it could perhaps be overlooked, but I'm aware (even if you are not) of a great deal of other evidence challenging the OCT |
I don't think you're right on the evidence. The analysis of the raw data confirmed that the plane hit the lamp-posts. But the NTSB computer animation that they said was based on the raw data had the differing trajectory that you are referring to.
Certainly, any anomalies in simulations based on the data do not necessarily confirm or even support a conspiracy theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stefan wrote: | | Whatever floats your boat, my advice is to leave theories about each incident alone, and focus only on the clear discrepancies in the Pentagon story (such as the FDR Ian mentioned above) - WTC7, WTC Towers - lots to talk about there. But some people would rather we were all distracted from that task by evidenceless and impossible theories instead… wonder why? |
Thanks for the reply.
I don't really agree that these are minor theories in the truth movement - I believe that 'most' truthers do not believe that flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon, often very casually with little examination of the evidence. I find this (a) incredible, given the huge weight of evidence supporting the OT, and (b) hypocritical, to believe one no-plane theory despite little evidence supporting it, while at the same time pouring scorn on no-plane theories at the WTC. Flights 77 and 93 took up a large part of the version of Loose Change that I watched (which is the most watched CT video). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There's always the wee problem of using data from a FDR recovered from the plane crash to suggest that the plane didn't exist, since if it didn't they wouldn't have recovered a FDR.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | There's always the wee problem of using data from a FDR recovered from the plane crash to suggest that the plane didn't exist, since if it didn't they wouldn't have recovered a FDR. |
If the FDR was recovered from a plane crashing into the Pentagon after colliding with specific light poles, then the data should indicate that - it doesn't. So you have some choices ...
1. It is the FDR from Flt 77 - which means Flt 77 never hit light poles or Pentagon.
2. It isn't the FDR from Flt 77 - so why is it being provided as such?
Either way, a little strange don't you think? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | pepik wrote: | | There's always the wee problem of using data from a FDR recovered from the plane crash to suggest that the plane didn't exist, since if it didn't they wouldn't have recovered a FDR. |
If the FDR was recovered from a plane crashing into the Pentagon after colliding with specific light poles, then the data should indicate that - it doesn't. So you have some choices ...
1. It is the FDR from Flt 77 - which means Flt 77 never hit light poles or Pentagon.
2. It isn't the FDR from Flt 77 - so why is it being provided as such?
Either way, a little strange don't you think? |
Logically, there are rather more possibilities:
1. It is the FDR from flight 77 and
a. The data recorded is correct and has been correctly analysed which means the plane did not hit the light poles or the Pentagon.
b. The data recorded is incorrect for some reason such as incorrect calibration of the instruments, but has been correctly analysed by Snowygrouch.
c. The data recorded is correct but has been incorrectly analysed.
d. The data recorded is both incorrect and incorrectly analysed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Alex
| Quote: | | Thanks for the reply. |
No problem.
| Quote: | | I don't really agree that these are minor theories in the truth movement - I believe that 'most' truthers do not believe that flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon, often very casually with little examination of the evidence. |
I can only speak for myself - I've always considered that the evidence regarding the Pentagon is scant and therefore left it alone in my campaigning - there is, however, clear proof of error in the official story with the FDR - either Calum Douglas and PfT were given false data, or the plane did not hit the light poles (despite the classic critic response that "oh it was analysed wrong" - it was analysed by a dedicated computer program - not by hand - and at this point CD already had for sometime had a FDR animation ((which is an expression of an existing analysis of the raw data)) showing much the same) . This is worth highlighting, certainly, as is the numerous eye witness accounts which place the plane witnessed that day on a similar flight path to that which the FDR suggests - IOW nowhere near the light poles.
Shanksville - yes of course it's minor - just look through discussion forums.
If you put together all of the alternative theory films shanksville barely gets a mention and the Pentagon is in the minority. The WTC is the overwhelming trump card, especially WTC7 (which Ridge Huggers always seem to want to move conversation away from).
| Quote: | | I find this (a) incredible, given the huge weight of evidence supporting the OT, |
As I say - whatever floats your boat - you aren't obligied to campaign on the Pentagon, and if you think it's best left alone that's your personal judgement call.
I don't think there is overwhelming evidence supporting the OT (unless you reduce the definition of evidence to somewhere similar to that that proponents of TV Fakery employ), but I don't think there is overwhelming evidence for a global hawk or a missile or anything else.
| Quote: | | and (b) hypocritical, to believe one no-plane theory despite little evidence supporting it, while at the same time pouring scorn on no-plane theories at the WTC. |
I wrote a lot above explaining why this is a logical fallacy - you've chosen not to respond to it yet, perhaps you will this time.
Let's start with my metephor:
I believe Alexander Litvinjenko was spiked with a lethal radioactive material.
I believe JFK was shot.
If someone came up to me and claimed that JFK in fact died through being spiked with a radioactive material I would refute it
Am I being hypocritical? By your rationale I am - I have said that Litvinjenko suffered radioactive poisoning - and now I'm calling someone wrong for saying JFK wasn't - what a hypocrite!
Or not.
There is no reason at all to believe JFK was given a lethal dose of radioactive poisoning. Someone could claim that the footage of him being shot was faked, of course, while he lay bald and dying of radioactive poisoning in his bed - but to make such a claim would have to provide a lot of evidence to back it up.
The exact same is true of the WTC: Because there is no evidence that planes did not hit the WTC, rational people do not claim that is what happened. And while it is not the strongest case in the world, it is far more understandable that people would question whether or not a plane did hit the Pentagon.
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | I wrote a lot above explaining why this is a logical fallacy - you've chosen not to respond to it yet, perhaps you will this time.
Let's start with my metephor:
I believe Alexander Litvinjenko was spiked with a lethal radioactive material.
I believe JFK was shot.
If someone came up to me and claimed that JFK in fact died through being spiked with a radioactive material I would refute it
Am I being hypocritical? By your rationale I am - I have said that Litvinjenko suffered radioactive poisoning - and now I'm calling someone wrong for saying JFK wasn't - what a hypocrite!
Or not.
There is no reason at all to believe JFK was given a lethal dose of radioactive poisoning. Someone could claim that the footage of him being shot was faked, of course, while he lay bald and dying of radioactive poisoning in his bed - but to make such a claim would have to provide a lot of evidence to back it up.
The exact same is true of the WTC: Because there is no evidence that planes did not hit the WTC, rational people do not claim that is what happened. And while it is not the strongest case in the world, it is far more understandable that people would question whether or not a plane did hit the Pentagon. |
I stand by my accusation. JFK and Litvinjenko are totally unrelated incidents. Imagine two identical Litvinjenko's, one 'caught on TV' being poisoned, another not. Imagine ridiculing somebody for not believing the TV pictures of Litvinjenko being poisoned, while simultaneously believing that the 2nd Litvinjenko wasn't poisoned. And imagine one of your chief reasons for not believing the 2nd Litvinjenko story being 'lack of TV footage' of the incident!
Truthers ridicule no-planers at the WTC (and maybe rightly), but fail to acknowledge that they are no-planers with an utterly flimsy case (as you concede) at the Pentagon and Shanksville. That is hypocrisy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | I stand by my accusation. JFK and Litvinjenko are totally unrelated incidents. Imagine two identical Litvinjenko's, one 'caught on TV' being poisoned, another not. Imagine ridiculing somebody for not believing the TV pictures of Litvinjenko being poisoned, while simultaneously believing that the 2nd Litvinjenko wasn't poisoned. And imagine one of your chief reasons for not believing the 2nd Litvinjenko story being 'lack of TV footage' of the incident!
Truthers ridicule no-planers at the WTC (and maybe rightly), but fail to acknowledge that they are no-planers with an utterly flimsy case (as you concede) at the Pentagon and Shanksville. That is hypocrisy. |
Sorry Al, can't let this one slide:
Your new metaphor suggests two opinions about one event - not two opinions on two events. The attack on the Pentagon and the attack on the WTC were two SEPARATE although related events.
It would fit only if I was saying "I believe that the world trade centre was hit by a plane AND I believe that the world trade centre was not hit by a plane"
Who's saying that? Not me; no one I can see in fact.
If you are looking for a related death - what if another Russian dissident was killed - this time by being shot in the head live on TV - would I THEN be a hypocrite for not arguing he was poisoned by plutonium? This is what you seem to be suggesting.
It's a very tenuous argument.
What I am proposing is we take the official story and all the evidence which is available to us regarding 9/11 and see what parts of that story hold up to questioning.
The idea that planes hit the WTC clearly stands up to interrogation (unless you want to take on the task of showing why I should not believe planes hit them).
The idea that the WTC collapsed at high speed from gravity alone does not.
The idea that a Boeing hit the Pentagon, as far as I am concerned, is inconclusive.
For that reason, the reason that the "Boeing strikes the Pentagon" hypothesis does not stand up as conclusive, it is perfectly sensible to interrogate other hypotheses as well, to see if some other solution might better fit the evidence. Until we have a clear view of what happened (i.e. when the Pentagon releases one of it's many CCTV camera's footage showing what hit) it is right to continue to look for answers.
Some people are satisfied other hypotheses (such as a missile or smaller RC plane) do stand up, but then some people are satisfied the Boeing theory stands up as well. I'm quite a critical person and as far as I'm concerned neither does.
The "Boeings hit the WTC" hypothesis has very convincing evidence and therefore stands up as conclusive. Now people can try to challenge that evidence as faked or unreliable - and they are doing just that - but these claims should come under as much scrutiny as any official claims would within our movement, and so far have been found lacking.
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Flight 77 FDR 'evidence' is being misrepresented on this thread. Let's get the info right.
- The FDR raw data has the 'official story' flightpath according to PfT analysis (ie the one that hit the lightpoles)
- The FDR raw data has altimeter readings that have been analysed by PfT to be different from the official story.
- An animation provided by the NTSB under a FOIA request shows a different flightpath.
So as far as I can gather, some of the evidence from PfT supports the OT and some of it contradicts it.
The confusion over this evidence I put down to the utterly shoddy way in which it has been presented by PfT. Looking at their website and forum it is extremely unclear what, if anything, they have to say on the matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Perhaps better to start a new thread on that if it's something you want to discuss Alex.
I'd rather stick to your central claim - that if someone thinks no boeing hit the pentagon, they MUST think no Boeing hit the WTC (no matter the evidence to the contrary) or they are a hypocrite.
Do you have any thing more to add to this, or can we assume your whole argument is based on this logical fallacy.
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stefan wrote: | Perhaps better to start a new thread on that if it's something you want to discuss Alex.
I'd rather stick to your central claim - that if someone thinks no boeing hit the pentagon, they MUST think no Boeing hit the WTC (no matter the evidence to the contrary) or they are a hypocrite.
Do you have any thing more to add to this, or can we assume your whole argument is based on this logical fallacy. |
You are totally twisting the point I was making - I never made that claim. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry Alex, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, but even reviewing your posts for a second time this does seem to be your claim - perhaps you could ellaborate a little so we understand you better.
It is the claim of hypocracy I find hard to square with any kind of logic.
You claim if someone believes a Boeing did not hit the Pentagon, they are being hypocrites if they think a Boeing did hit the WTC.
Right?
If not please correct me.
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stefan, I think the point that Alex is making is that if you think that the plotters had the means to fly real planes into the WTC, whatever those means might have been, they had the means to fly a real plane into the Pentagon, and fly a real plane at Shanksville, whatever its purpose there was. If they had the ability to use real planes, it would be logical for them to do so, given the unnecessary complication and risks of discovery involved in using anything else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stefan wrote: | Sorry Alex, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, but even reviewing your posts for a second time this does seem to be your claim - perhaps you could ellaborate a little so we understand you better.
It is the claim of hypocracy I find hard to square with any kind of logic.
You claim if someone believes a Boeing did not hit the Pentagon, they are being hypocrites if they think a Boeing did hit the WTC.
Right?
If not please correct me. |
Hmm I thought you were being deliberately mischevous - maybe I was wrong.
A) Many truthers criticise no-planers at the WTC in strong terms on this forum.
B) I suspect that many of those truthers who are criticising a no-plane scenario believe in other no-plane scenarios at the Pentagon and Shanksville.
C) I think much of the Pentagon and Shanksville evidence of no-planes is EXTREMELY flimsy (and to some extent you agree with me).
D) Therefore those attacking the flimsy evidence of the no-planers at the WTC are effectively in a glass house throwing stones. Because they believe in flimsy evidence of no-planes at the Pentagon and Shanksville.
E) Therefore they are being hypocrites in my book. They are effectively saying "I am superior to you because I would never believe such foolish theories" despite believing very similar theories in terms of the other 9/11 attacks.
And to clarify further, I don't think that if someone thinks no boeing hit the pentagon, they MUST think no Boeing hit the WTC to avoid hypocrisy - why would I think that? That is just their opinion. It is specifically when they criticise no-planers at the WTC that I am referring to.
It wasn't worth that level of clarification to be honest. Let's move on  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Killtown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 438
Location: That Yankee country the U.S.
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | flimsy evidence of no-planes at ... Shanksville. |
Hi Alex, I think the point of your thread is really good, however I must take issue with this.
The easiest way to prove no 757 crashed in Shanksville is the absences of a 757's tail section and almost perfect impression in the "soft soil" of a vertical tail as if a 757's heavy tail was set on the grass and its weight left an impression, then the tail was carted off.
Also if interested, check out my films about the planted black boxes and engine at:
http://hoodwinkedatshanksville.blogspot.com/
_________________
killtown.blogspot.com - 911movement.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The easiest way to prove no 757 crashed in Shanksville is the absences of a 757's tail section |
You are basically asking us to believe that it must be there because you say so. But why should we take your word for it? We have plenty of eyewitness accounts of the recovery of plane parts and human remains. It is hard to believe someone was able, or had any motivation, to go to such lengths to make it look like a plane crashed there when it didn't.
Its been six years. Try to come up with something that makes sense.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Killtown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 438
Location: That Yankee country the U.S.
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | 1) You are basically asking us to believe that it must be there because you say so.
2) Its been six years. Try to come up with something that makes sense. |
1) No, that's not what I'm saying. Pay more attention next time.
2) You mean something that makes sense to your feeble mind? OK, what happened to the tail section and it was obliterated from crashing, what obliterated it and can you show me where it was obliterated?
_________________
killtown.blogspot.com - 911movement.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:32 am Post subject: Re: NPT hypocrisy |
|
|
Having had a look at the latest Loose Change film, it's astonishing how much they play down the Pentagon and Shanksville angles, which were such major parts of their previous films. Their Pentagon section actually seems to quietly promote the plane hitting the building over the no-plane theories.
As Stefan indicated, perhaps this is a sign that Pentagon and Shanksville are in the process of being quietly disowned by the truth movement. I predict that in a year's time few will question the official story on these locations. It would be an astonishing about-turn though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 12:58 pm Post subject: Re: NPT hypocrisy |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | Having had a look at the latest Loose Change film, it's astonishing how much they play down the Pentagon and Shanksville angles, which were such major parts of their previous films. Their Pentagon section actually seems to quietly promote the plane hitting the building over the no-plane theories.
As Stefan indicated, perhaps this is a sign that Pentagon and Shanksville are in the process of being quietly disowned by the truth movement. I predict that in a year's time few will question the official story on these locations. It would be an astonishing about-turn though. |
each plane part has an ID number which is associated with a specific plane, each new part added to a plane also has a ID number which is then associated with that specific plane.
they do this for a number of reasons.
all it would of took is for somebody to produce the evidence that the stated planes that hit each target were indeed identified via plane part ID numbers at the scene and were the planes that is stated hit each target and then producing that evidence for all to see.
that would of settled a lot of things a very long time ago. but 6 years on, i hear people moan about people questioning 9/11 but they don't seem to want to help or produce those facts that would disprove 9/11 inside job in a instant.
i don't think those questioning 9/11 are entirely to blame here, if anything i see alot of people fueling it, by either ridiculing, or not providing the information that would of setteled it a very long time ago, or just simply refusing to.
if only that information was put in the commission report, would we all be here now trying to find out whats what and what the hell is going of or trying to disprove this and that?
| Quote: | | It would be an astonishing about-turn though |
things change with new information, even i have changed my stance or discarded certain things as factual information as more information is brought to light.
the fact is though 6 years on nobody should here questioning anything, as it all could of been disproved years and years ago with actual evidence proving the said planes hit the said targets via plane ID numbers, rather than 'something' hit, but was it a plane or a different plane blah blah blah blah and on and on 6 years after and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:35 pm Post subject: Re: NPT hypocrisy |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Alex_V wrote: | Having had a look at the latest Loose Change film, it's astonishing how much they play down the Pentagon and Shanksville angles, which were such major parts of their previous films. Their Pentagon section actually seems to quietly promote the plane hitting the building over the no-plane theories.
As Stefan indicated, perhaps this is a sign that Pentagon and Shanksville are in the process of being quietly disowned by the truth movement. I predict that in a year's time few will question the official story on these locations. It would be an astonishing about-turn though. |
each plane part has an ID number which is associated with a specific plane, each new part added to a plane also has a ID number which is then associated with that specific plane.
they do this for a number of reasons.
all it would of took is for somebody to produce the evidence that the stated planes that hit each target were indeed identified via plane part ID numbers at the scene and were the planes that is stated hit each target and then producing that evidence for all to see.
that would of settled a lot of things a very long time ago. but 6 years on, i hear people moan about people questioning 9/11 but they don't seem to want to help or produce those facts that would disprove 9/11 inside job in a instant.
i don't think those questioning 9/11 are entirely to blame here, if anything i see alot of people fueling it, by either ridiculing, or not providing the information that would of setteled it a very long time ago, or just simply refusing to.
if only that information was put in the commission report, would we all be here now trying to find out whats what and what the hell is going of or trying to disprove this and that?
| Quote: | | It would be an astonishing about-turn though |
things change with new information, even i have changed my stance or discarded certain things as factual information as more information is brought to light.
the fact is though 6 years on nobody should here questioning anything, as it all could of been disproved years and years ago with actual evidence proving the said planes hit the said targets via plane ID numbers, rather than 'something' hit, but was it a plane or a different plane blah blah blah blah and on and on 6 years after and counting. |
I think much of that is fair comment - if official sources were to spend their time producing evidence that would refute conspiracy theorists, then some of the issues would have been resolved much more quickly. For example some of the evidence officials produced for the Moussaoui trial would have helped refute many allegations much more quickly.
However, I can understand why officials don't respond to conspiracy theorists - most are perceived as loonies, rightly or wrongly. This is why conspiracy theories don't get mainstream press coverage very often, not because of any secret agreement not to mention them. How would it look if officials presented evidence (if they have it) of ID numbers now? Firstly conspiracy theorists would denounce it as fake, and secondly it would look like officials would be pandering to discredited fringe movements. As indeed they would be.
I don't know of any plane crash where evidence has been presented 'confirming that the plane was actually involved in the crash'. No mainstream confirmation of this has ever been needed in the cases of the Pentagon or Shanksville outside of the demands of conspiracy theorists. So I wouldn't expect any, whether or not it is a conspiracy.
It must be said though, that much of the truth movement's evidence HAS been disproved at one time or another. Some of the disproved theories still continue to be used by the huge majority of the truth movement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:51 pm Post subject: Re: NPT hypocrisy |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Alex_V wrote: | Having had a look at the latest Loose Change film, it's astonishing how much they play down the Pentagon and Shanksville angles, which were such major parts of their previous films. Their Pentagon section actually seems to quietly promote the plane hitting the building over the no-plane theories.
As Stefan indicated, perhaps this is a sign that Pentagon and Shanksville are in the process of being quietly disowned by the truth movement. I predict that in a year's time few will question the official story on these locations. It would be an astonishing about-turn though. |
each plane part has an ID number which is associated with a specific plane, each new part added to a plane also has a ID number which is then associated with that specific plane.
they do this for a number of reasons.
all it would of took is for somebody to produce the evidence that the stated planes that hit each target were indeed identified via plane part ID numbers at the scene and were the planes that is stated hit each target and then producing that evidence for all to see.
that would of settled a lot of things a very long time ago. but 6 years on, i hear people moan about people questioning 9/11 but they don't seem to want to help or produce those facts that would disprove 9/11 inside job in a instant.
i don't think those questioning 9/11 are entirely to blame here, if anything i see alot of people fueling it, by either ridiculing, or not providing the information that would of setteled it a very long time ago, or just simply refusing to.
if only that information was put in the commission report, would we all be here now trying to find out whats what and what the hell is going of or trying to disprove this and that?
| Quote: | | It would be an astonishing about-turn though |
things change with new information, even i have changed my stance or discarded certain things as factual information as more information is brought to light.
the fact is though 6 years on nobody should here questioning anything, as it all could of been disproved years and years ago with actual evidence proving the said planes hit the said targets via plane ID numbers, rather than 'something' hit, but was it a plane or a different plane blah blah blah blah and on and on 6 years after and counting. |
I think much of that is fair comment - if official sources were to spend their time producing evidence that would refute conspiracy theorists, then some of the issues would have been resolved much more quickly. For example some of the evidence officials produced for the Moussaoui trial would have helped refute many allegations much more quickly.
However, I can understand why officials don't respond to conspiracy theorists - most are perceived as loonies, rightly or wrongly. This is why conspiracy theories don't get mainstream press coverage very often, not because of any secret agreement not to mention them. How would it look if officials presented evidence (if they have it) of ID numbers now? Firstly conspiracy theorists would denounce it as fake, and secondly it would look like officials would be pandering to discredited fringe movements. As indeed they would be.
I don't know of any plane crash where evidence has been presented 'confirming that the plane was actually involved in the crash'. No mainstream confirmation of this has ever been needed in the cases of the Pentagon or Shanksville outside of the demands of conspiracy theorists. So I wouldn't expect any, whether or not it is a conspiracy.
It must be said though, that much of the truth movement's evidence HAS been disproved at one time or another. Some of the disproved theories still continue to be used by the huge majority of the truth movement. |
OK Alex, here's a challenge for you. Prove to me that a large passenger airline crashed into the Pentagon. Then prove it was Flight 77. For the first part you can use any photos (or tv footage) you like, because photographers were snapping pretty quickly after the event. For the second part, you can use any method you choose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:23 pm Post subject: Re: NPT hypocrisy |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | OK Alex, here's a challenge for you. Prove to me that a large passenger airline crashed into the Pentagon. Then prove it was Flight 77. For the first part you can use any photos (or tv footage) you like, because photographers were snapping pretty quickly after the event. For the second part, you can use any method you choose. |
Again this fetish for visual evidence, particularly video. As you know there is a lack of visual evidence for the actual impact, and I would remind you that lack of evidence in that case is not evidence against the 'official' version of events.
There are lots of pictures of debris here (http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html). More here (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1). I think these confirm a passenger airliner beyond any doubt.
But if there is doubt let me mention witnesses. At least 45 witnesses saw a large plane at the scene - 25 of those specifically mentioned an American Airlines jet. 19 of them also saw the plane hit the lightpoles on its way towards the Pentagon. (NO WITNESSES saw a missile!)
Arguments that the entry hole was too small for a 757 have been effectively debunked. Loose Change Version 2 used a deliberately cropped image to make the entry damage seem less extensive, and the latest version of the film shies away from committing to the theory. One examination of the damage calculates the entry hole at about 30 feet, more than enough space for the 18 feet of the 757 (with landing gear up it was more like 13 feet). One of the conspiracy sites, 9-11 review, concedes that earlier estimations of the entry hole were wrong.
(http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/smallhole.html).
The damage caused to the front of the Pentagon spans 178 feet - a 757 at the official angle of approach would span 165 feet. Of all the planes alleged to have been involved with the Pentagon crash, the wingspan of a 757 fits most neatly with the actual damage to the building. (http://www.pehi.eu/disinformation/911/pentahole_dimensions_est.htm#5)
In terms of positively identifying flight 77, the evidence just cited supports that idea. If it wasn't flight 77, then which 757 was it? There is also the identification of the bodies (http://www.dcmilitary.com/dcmilitary_archives/stories/112901/12279-1. shtml). And the recovery of the black boxes (http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/14%5FAPboxes.html).
Hmm, I'll leave it there for now. Ok a similar challenge for you, KP50. Prove to me that a large passenger airline did not crash into the Pentagon. Then prove what it was and what happened to Flight 77. For the first part you can use any photos (or tv footage) you like, because photographers were snapping pretty quickly after the event. For the second part, you can use any method you choose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Another interesting question is "please suggest some conceivable evidence which anyone couldn't flippantly dismiss as faked/planted/lied about/fabricated/etc". Because if you want to, you can deny virtually anything if you feel like it, its quite easy.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 10:32 pm Post subject: Re: NPT hypocrisy |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | OK Alex, here's a challenge for you. Prove to me that a large passenger airline crashed into the Pentagon. Then prove it was Flight 77. For the first part you can use any photos (or tv footage) you like, because photographers were snapping pretty quickly after the event. For the second part, you can use any method you choose. |
Again this fetish for visual evidence, particularly video. As you know there is a lack of visual evidence for the actual impact, and I would remind you that lack of evidence in that case is not evidence against the 'official' version of events.
There are lots of pictures of debris here (http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html). More here (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1). I think these confirm a passenger airliner beyond any doubt.
But if there is doubt let me mention witnesses. At least 45 witnesses saw a large plane at the scene - 25 of those specifically mentioned an American Airlines jet. 19 of them also saw the plane hit the lightpoles on its way towards the Pentagon. (NO WITNESSES saw a missile!)
Arguments that the entry hole was too small for a 757 have been effectively debunked. Loose Change Version 2 used a deliberately cropped image to make the entry damage seem less extensive, and the latest version of the film shies away from committing to the theory. One examination of the damage calculates the entry hole at about 30 feet, more than enough space for the 18 feet of the 757 (with landing gear up it was more like 13 feet). One of the conspiracy sites, 9-11 review, concedes that earlier estimations of the entry hole were wrong.
(http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/smallhole.html).
The damage caused to the front of the Pentagon spans 178 feet - a 757 at the official angle of approach would span 165 feet. Of all the planes alleged to have been involved with the Pentagon crash, the wingspan of a 757 fits most neatly with the actual damage to the building. (http://www.pehi.eu/disinformation/911/pentahole_dimensions_est.htm#5)
In terms of positively identifying flight 77, the evidence just cited supports that idea. If it wasn't flight 77, then which 757 was it? There is also the identification of the bodies (http://www.dcmilitary.com/dcmilitary_archives/stories/112901/12279-1. shtml). And the recovery of the black boxes (http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/14%5FAPboxes.html).
Hmm, I'll leave it there for now. Ok a similar challenge for you, KP50. Prove to me that a large passenger airline did not crash into the Pentagon. Then prove what it was and what happened to Flight 77. For the first part you can use any photos (or tv footage) you like, because photographers were snapping pretty quickly after the event. For the second part, you can use any method you choose. |
Those photos don't really prove anything do they, much less a passenger plane "beyond any doubt"? Try using the ones from before the collapse as otherwise you have to prove that evidence wasn't planted.
There was undoubtedly a large plane that flew very low - There was also an E-4B (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-4B) spotted in Washington around that time, a fact that was left out of the Commission Report as it wasn't thought to be important (quoting Hamilton recently). Watch the vid here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gHOx5_rBM0
Many witnesses report that the plane they saw fly into the Pentagon did not fly anywhere near the poles that were seen lying on the ground. These witnesses are also proven to be exactly where they were at this time by CCTV at the Citgo station. These witnesses deduced the impact from the fireball that rose as the low-flying plane headed towards the Pentagon.
There are actually very few witnesses that claim to have seen the poles struck, many of the 19 you mention actually deduced the impact from seeing the poles on the ground. You also have the strange case of taxi driver Lloyd England and his astonishing ability to have his windscreen hit by a light pole without any damage to the bonnet - and for him and his unknown friend to have removed said pole even before the firemen reached the Pentagon. This was meant to be a busy highway yet his taxi allegedly skidded to a halt sideways and had no impact on the rest of the traffic. The highway was covered in federal officials in no time at all - why?
You have the topology of the Pentagon, it isn't sitting on a hill, it is down in a dip making the feat of flying level into the bottom of the building without hitting the ground an amazing achievement. The flight recorder supplied as being from Flight 77 does not show the flight ever being low enough to hit the Pentagon.
And for your final part, I cannot prove a negative. Nor can I prove what happened to Flight 77, I cannot even prove that it existed. This is not a level playing field here, you have your OCT and that shows the plane hitting low down, level after striking light poles. If any part of that can be shown to be incorrect, it is an inside job. I don't deny there are vast amounts of "evidence" after the fact that backs up the OCT, identification etc and you do unfortunately have to go down the road of realising that many people are either lying or else hiding the truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:38 pm Post subject: Re: NPT hypocrisy |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | Those photos don't really prove anything do they, much less a passenger plane "beyond any doubt"? Try using the ones from before the collapse as otherwise you have to prove that evidence wasn't planted. |
Well, they do prove that wreckage from a passenger plane WAS found after the collapse. What evidence do you have that it was planted, or how it was planted? What about the body parts? Isn't the most likely explanation of it that a passenger plane crashed there?
I agree you have some witnesses (2?) who say on a video that the plane was heading for the Pentagon on a different trajectory. You also have the altimeter readings on the FDR being wrong.
| Quote: | | And for your final part, I cannot prove a negative. Nor can I prove what happened to Flight 77, I cannot even prove that it existed. |
You cannot - crash investigators presumably did to their satisfaction. The presence of the body parts and plane wreckage would have been a dealbreaker for them no doubt. Along with all the witnesses who saw an American Airlines passenger plane crash there. Along with the accompanying information about the hijacked plane, black box recording, etc.
What would have persuaded these crash investigators that the plane didn't crash there? The existence of other planes in the sky? Witnesses who claim a different trajectory? Lack of clear witness testimony about the lightpoles? The altimeter settings in the black box? I don't think that would alter their conclusion - neither does it mine at this stage.
| Quote: | | I don't deny there are vast amounts of "evidence" after the fact that backs up the OCT, identification etc and you do unfortunately have to go down the road of realising that many people are either lying or else hiding the truth. |
My opinion is that we could say that about any plane crash in history that hasn't been caught on camera crashing - the wreckage and the human remains could be faked, and there may be anomalies surrounding the crash that lend an air of mystery to the situation.
Where is the motive for this conspiracy - you cannot claim shock and awe like some do at the twin towers (though it makes little sense there either). Even if it was a conspiracy, why not fly the plane into the Pentagon? - less risk, no tricky logistics over planting the evidence.
The weird thing about the Pentagon theories is that the best truther evidence came to light only relatively recently - the FDR altimeter and the CITGO witnesses. Truthers believed the no-plane theories for YEARS before this based on false accusations about the entry hole and lack of debris!!! Either they lucked out big time on some really crappy evidence, or the more recent developments are increasingly desperate attempts to make some sort of case.
Whatever, I believe flight 77 crashed there, and I hope others agree with me that ALL of the conclusive evidence supports that. It could all be fake, but the overwhelming probability is that it is genuine. In my opinion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
