9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom :: View topic

FAQ

Memberlist

Chat

Usergroups

Calendar

Profile

Litmus test..
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

KP50
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 8:31 pm Post subject:

sam wrote:

KP50 wrote:

sam wrote:

KP50 wrote:

Constructing a flightpath from witness statements presumes that a witness can exactly place the aircraft ...

No it doesn't. It's perfectly normal scientific practice to examine a range of possible scenarios to determine whether a theory is consistent somewhere within the boundaries of those scenarios.
---
Scientific analysis destroys their case, they know it, so they refuse to get involved with it.

It doesn't destroy their case - the witness statements are still their statements - are you saying CIT should get the witnesses to change their statements?

My bolding.

No, CIT need to realise that:
1) the statements are mutually contradictory in that their very own witnesses confirm the plane hit the Pentagon. If the witnesses are wrong (according to CIT) about that, why would the part about the NoC flighpath be reliable?
2) there is no NoC flighpath that is physically possible.

Their case depends on turning known science on its head and calling their own witnesses wrong in a major respect. Their case destroys itself and would be ripped to shreds within minutes if it ever came to court.

I'm still waiting for some proof that the NoC flightpath is impossible by the way, repeating it endlessly does not constitute proof. Be sure to factor in all variables in speed, direction as it passes over the navy annex and location of the plane when it reaches the Pentagon (not to mention the actual identity of the plane itself is in doubt).

In court, you would then be trumped by the impossiblity of the official flightpath backed by just your solitary taxi driver - who you seem to believe based on the lightpoles being curved. Or are you going to make a better attempt on the physics of that collision?

telecasterisation
Banned
Banned

Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 8:45 pm Post subject:

sam wrote:

telecasterisation wrote:

Anyway, the fact cars are not flying around is proof there was no aircraft.

This point about cars not being affected by the jet exhaust was addressed quite easily earlier on. Now you have proof of no aircraft at all? You sound like you're just plain trolling. Or drunk, or something.

Addressed quite easily? Oh yes;

Quote:

We have no idea what the power setting of the engine were.

That'd be it.

Or do you mean when I asked;

Quote:

How high was the plane when it struck the light poles?

To which you replied nothing.

I was most clear in my own special thread that you started for me - you know, the one I replied to that you then ignored - see the recurring pattern?

The entire Pentagon subject is riddled with so many questionable aspects that this is a prime example of. Gliding passenger jets, piloted by inexperienced hijackers wielding stanley knives? I find it really incredible that anyone can just accept that, and you argue like you really believe it all!

Having used this section of this thread to illustrate the daftness of the entire debacle - you then play the 'troll' card because it is difficult to move forward, for as I have already pointed out, if evidence of a plane was forthcoming, it would already be on the table and these types of interchange simply would never exist.

How can such a huge event still be open to question years later? I am at a loss to explain why this is all allowed to continue, why are we not shown all the evidence - technology should be able to nip this in the bud. Instead, all the 'evidence' was instantly smothered, locked away, or dropped into the ocean. What harm would there be in showing it to the world now - silencing the detractors once and for all?

Your focus on me is really quite odd. You now imagine me drunk - should I slip some suspenders on too?
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC

sam
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343

Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 8:57 pm Post subject:

telecasterisation wrote:

sam wrote:

telecasterisation wrote:

Anyway, the fact cars are not flying around is proof there was no aircraft.

Addressed quite easily? Oh yes;

Quote:

We have no idea what the power setting of the engine were.

That'd be it.

Wibble's point - the one you have quoted above - is perfectly true, but my own response was this :

Quote:

Yes. In addition, the video shows a plane and a truck, both on the ground and very close together. AA77 passing even 30' over the cars near the Pentagon doesn't put them in line with the jet exhaust. And by the time AA77 was low enough it was much more distant from the road than the situation shown in the video. So, all in all, not much of a cause for puzzlement really.

Anyway you are now an admitted "Pentagon no-planer" ? How weird. What do you think caused the explosion and inwards damage at the Pentagon on 9/11, then?

And please stop obsessing about your own imaginary state of dress.
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.

telecasterisation
Banned
Banned

Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 9:05 pm Post subject:

sam wrote:

Anyway you are now an admitted "Pentagon no-planer" ? How weird. What do you think caused the explosion and inwards damage at the Pentagon on 9/11, then?

I don't know what happened - I will not guess. At this moment I do not believe it was a jet airliner piloted by an inexperienced pilot based upon what we have been told.

I can't make it any clearer - the evidence from The Pentagon is far too sketchy to draw any definitive conclusions.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC

sam
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343

Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 9:14 pm Post subject:

telecasterisation wrote:

sam wrote:

Anyway you are now an admitted "Pentagon no-planer" ? How weird. What do you think caused the explosion and inwards damage at the Pentagon on 9/11, then?

So would you like to disown

telecasterisation wrote:

Anyway, the fact cars are not flying around is proof there was no aircraft.

, or do you stand by that statement?
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.

telecasterisation
Banned
Banned

Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 9:54 pm Post subject:

sam wrote:

So would you like to disown

telecasterisation wrote:

Anyway, the fact cars are not flying around is proof there was no aircraft.

, or do you stand by that statement?

Given that;

1) I have already clearly stated that based upon the 'official' evidence available of an aircraft.

2) Your total and absolute reluctance to identify the height of the aircraft at the time it struck the poles.

&

3) Your total and absolute adherence to only tackle subjects you can Google an answer for - your MO is to avoid anything that is slightly dubious - an example being my question about the 'OT' adding an element of the 'theoretical' to your stance which is an obvious no-no. I see this time after time - you are a cherry-picker, only selecting a specific section of a post to reply to. You identify the potential icebergs and steer way clear every time.

So yes, I totally stand by my statement that no packed jet airliner flown by pocket knife carrying hijackers hit The Pentagon.

I am now late for scales - 60 minutes minimum every night before beddy-byes. Tonight, the wonders of lydian and mixolydian soloing.

I am on early turn tomorrow, so will not be looking here any time soon.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC

marky 54
Mega Poster

Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 9:54 pm Post subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LjXlUpHnso discuss. just adding it to the debate, i don't hold a postion as to wether this should of occured on 9/11, as im uncertain if flying 'low' to the ground would have the same effect.

A Sharp Major
9/11 Truth critic

Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 237
Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.

Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 10:31 pm Post subject:

Keep up Marky. I posted your answer on the previous page.

The 'cars being blown away' demo planes are not taxiing let alone flying. The implications should be obvious.

As for telecasterisation's trouble:

Quote:

2) Your total and absolute reluctance to identify the height of the aircraft at the time it struck the poles.

No higher than the top of the poles?
_________________
"It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko

http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

marky 54
Mega Poster

Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 11:28 pm Post subject:

A Sharp Major wrote:

Why no cars sailing through the air as the plane crossed the highway? I'm sure this has been answered.

This aircraft isn't going as fast as the Pentagon plane but it is doing something significant compared to the one tc linked. No flying cars or people.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/663030/insane_747_400_landing/

Can you tell what it is yet?

ah here it is.

it shows it is possible for a plane to fly low without blowing over cars and people whilst traveling slower than the pentagon plane was traveling(not full power like the demo on the tarmac).

therefore im still uncertain. thanks for pointing out your previous post.

although the plane on the tarmac version(i linked, and in the video sharp major linked) has 4 engines.

did'nt the planes involved in 9/11 have 2?

if so that will surely effect the amount of blowback from the thrust, therefore the demo on the tarmac is void on that one basis alone.

but im no expert, so i cannot confirm or unconfirm it. and i dont know how many engines flight 77 had.

A Sharp Major
9/11 Truth critic

Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 237
Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 6:51 am Post subject:

Maybe the differences between an aircraft flying and one braked on the tarmac are not so obvious. Keep thinking marky, nothing to do with how many engines. _________________ "It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

sam
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 7:20 am Post subject:

KP50 wrote:

In court, you would then be trumped by the impossiblity of the official flightpath backed by just your solitary taxi driver - who you seem to believe based on the lightpoles being curved. Or are you going to make a better attempt on the physics of that collision?

My bolding.

That comment is either a deliberate lie or based on pure ignorance. For example (and it isn't the only one) :

"At the time of the explosion, Rosati couldn't see the cause but Wanda Ramey, a DPS master patrol officer, had a clear view. Ramey stood at the mall plaza booth when she saw a plane flying real low.

"I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post and it made the plane slant. Then the engine revved up and crashed into the west side of the building," she said. "It happened so fast. One second I saw the plane and next it was gone."
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.

marky 54
Mega Poster

Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 7:28 am Post subject:

Quote:

Maybe the differences between an aircraft flying and one braked on the tarmac are not so obvious.

the differences of a plane flying and one braked on tarmac are obvious.

the differences in output power of the engines and wether a low flying plane would effect ground objects that are not bolted to the floor are not so obvious.

however you linked a video showing it could be possible for a low flying 4 engined jumbo jet to not effect ground objects, although the plane was traveling no where near the speed(= less power output) of the pentagon plane.

so by all means please explain what the difference is of the engine output when on the ground and thrusted up to full power during a demo for top gear compared to slightly above the ground like seen in the pentagon footage and traveling around 500mph (presuming full power/near full power at least).

Quote:

nothing to do with how many engines.

really? so why bother with 4 engines? all planes may as well have 2. it would save money.

more engines = more power and more area which is effected by the blowback, usually to move heavier bigger objects or for greater speeds. some planes have more capacity = more load = need more power.

it dos'nt matter anyhow. the planes on 9/11 had 2 engines as far as im aware. = less power and less area.

therefore would have less effect on ground objects compared to a 4 engined jumbo jet, so the demo on the tarmac is void on that much more simple basis.

pepik
Banned
Banned

Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 9:40 am Post subject:

Marky, the issue is already dead. Engines could blow a car over, but planes can fly pretty close and not blow any cars over. So it could, but it doesn't have to. Therefore, you have nothing. _________________ "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.

marky 54
Mega Poster

Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 7:46 pm Post subject:

Quote:

you have nothing.

i never claimed to have something. i dismissed it on my own terms in a much more certain way. all i did really was point out that the demo in question had 4 engines the plane on 9/11 im pretty certain had 2. therefore another reason to dimiss the demo.

but critics want to argue.

KP50
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 8:31 pm Post subject:

sam wrote:

KP50 wrote:

I would say she is the only witness left on Arabesque's list who actually (in her statements) claims to have seen a lightpole struck. As there have been no further interviews with her, we do not know whether she actually saw the strike or deduced it after the fact. We do know that her view would have been similar to that of Sean Boger in the heliport tower and he states that the plane came in over the Navy Annex.

sam
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 9:13 pm Post subject:

KP50 wrote:

1) I have no clue who "Arabesque" is.
2) She says she saw the strike, so why do we need a re-interview? The original is perfectly clear.
3) if you say she's the last(?) witness who claimed to have seen the lightpoles hit, do you stand by that statement? Might be good if you could clarify what you mean by "last" though.
4) "deduced it after the fact" applies to all witnesses including the so-called NoC witnesses, does it not? Be even-handed here ..

p.s did you read Pickering's demolition of the "faked flight path" over on the other thread? Do you really believe the perps climbed up somehow and strimmed a tree to perfect the fake flight path evidence?
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.

pepik
Banned
Banned

Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 9:24 pm Post subject:

where's this tree bit? link please _________________ "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.

KP50
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 9:36 pm Post subject:

sam wrote:

KP50 wrote:

1) Arabesque had a list of lightpole witnesses which Alex quoted on one of these threads.
2) For the same reason that McGraw, Lagasse etc were re-interviewed where it was discovered that they didn't actually see the lightpoles struck, they just deduced it from later information.
3) Again going back to Arabesque's list of lightpole witnesses. Some have been re-interviewed, some were describing what happened when they weren't actually at the Pentagon at the time of the incident. Feel free to investigate this yourself.
4) No idea what you mean by being even-handed.

PS - please stop spamming one thread from another, it is confusing enough to keep up with them all.

sam
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 9:48 pm Post subject:

pepik wrote:

where's this tree bit? link please

Separate thread here in CC: "pentagon debunking". A tree was hit by an engine nacelle and a lump carved out of it. Leaves were scattered over the road in the region of Lloyd's cab. *Or* MiB went up in a cherry-picker (at some point and out of sight?) and strimmed a lump out of the tree and threw leaves over the road, by way of 'evidence'. You gotta laugh. However, Pickering's demolition of the "faked flight path" theory in those posts of his are almost scary in both their ferocity and accuracy. And he's a CTist.

The entire thread is a 'must read'. Seriously. Save every image. Save the whole damn thing. I did months ago.
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.

Last edited by sam on Tue May 06, 2008 9:52 pm; edited 1 time in total

sam
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 9:50 pm Post subject:

KP50 wrote:

PS - please stop spamming one thread from another, it is confusing enough to keep up with them all.

I replied directly from a post of yours within this thread, using the "quote" function. So I have no idea what you're saying here.
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.

KP50
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 9:54 pm Post subject:

sam wrote:

KP50 wrote:

PS - please stop spamming one thread from another, it is confusing enough to keep up with them all.

I replied directly from a post of yours within this thread, using the "quote" function. So I have no idea what you're saying here.

The PS was a response to your PS - that is PSing obvious.

A Sharp Major
9/11 Truth critic

Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 237
Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.

Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 11:17 am Post subject:

Marky, if you don't get the difference I refer to, that's fine. I'm not posting for the benefit of truthers and I'm certainly not giving them science and engineering lessons.

Quote:

really? so why bother with 4 engines? all planes may as well have 2. it would save money.

You could do with the lessons though. And know the difference between effect and affect. Do you want medication to affect the cure or effect the cure? Like the paragraphs that you got sorted, it's important.
_________________
"It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko

http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

marky 54
Mega Poster

Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 11:58 am Post subject:

Quote:

it's important.

some people could'nt give a stuff about grammer on a forum which is basically general chit chat about various issues.

im 1 of thum, hence will not double check on every post. i agee my poosts sould bee readable, butt it weally is'nt THAT important.

A Sharp Major
9/11 Truth critic

Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 237
Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.

Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 12:10 pm Post subject:

It is important if if the wrong word changes the meaning of what you intend to say. Review is also important. But if you say that isn't important, that's good too. Thank you for your co-operation in discrediting the truthiness movement. Good lad _________________ "It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

marky 54
Mega Poster

Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 1:56 pm Post subject:

Quote:

It is important if if the wrong word changes the meaning of what you intend to say.

even in general chit chat? it would be important if i was producing a document or writing an article. however we are simply chatting.
people make errors. 9/10 it is very obvious what the person meant.

are you saying it is'nt obvious which of the two effect/affect i meant?

effect.

–noun 1. something that is produced by an agency or cause; result; consequence: Exposure to the sun had the effect of toughening his skin.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/effect

what i said.

Quote:

the differences in output power of the engines and wether a low flying plane would effect ground objects that are not bolted to the floor are not so obvious.

i fail to see how it is misleading. exposure to the planes engines could surely have an effect on ground objects. it would be as a result of, or consequence.

critics are very picky over nothing.

maybe i should of said:

"the differences in output power of the engines and wether a low flying plane could cause a consequence on ground objects that are not bolted to the floor are not so obvious.
"

to avoid confusion.

sam
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343

Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 2:12 pm Post subject:

KP50 wrote:

And there you have created yourself a very cosy castle to hide in, eh? Except that to require me to cover every variable of speed, heading, turn radius and flyover point would require thousands of calculations and is a demonstrably unreasonable request. On other forums NoC proponents have taken the exact same attitude. What are you frightened of?

I, on the other hand, only request one calculation from you. One that works for NoC.
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.

Display posts from previous:

	9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Page 5 of 5

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum