Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Debunking 911 conspiracy theories

24

Comments

  • #52
    partyguinness
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,203 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    DamagedTrax wrote: »
    what about the eye witness accounts of the mystery plane above washinton as the pentagon went boom?


    bluespot.jpg



    e4boverWhiteHouse.jpg

    those markings look familiar, dont they?

    e5.jpg


    So what are you saying?


  • #53
    partyguinness
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,203 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    This pretty much sums up my position:

    "In the absence of having every single thing about that day explained, conspiracy theories arise among the paranoid and narcissistic."

    "The fact at the end of the day is that you’ll never explain every single thing about 9-11. Some questions will always remain unanswered, either because those who have the answers are dead, or because those who have the answers have legitimate national security reasons to remain silent, or because life is full of anomalies that require no nefarious reason for their existence. To require that every single thing about 9-11 be wrapped up tight with ribbons and bows is to require the impossible. Real life doesn’t work that way. For the Truthers, anomalies or the few unexplained aspects of 9-11 are room for irresponsible conjecture and accusations. For the rest of us, the adults in the room, it’s hardly remarkable that there are things about that day that remain unexplained. Real life does work that way."

    Taken from http://hotair.com/archives/2007/09/13/cnn-looks-into-9-11-white-plane-mystery/


  • #54
    Seanachai
    Registered Users Posts: 2,544 ✭✭✭Seanachai


    partyguinness wrote: »
    Did a university educated male clutching the Irish Times recently walk past you on the street and not drop a few coins into your cup??:D

    I read the letters section sometimes , there's some interesting information from time to time especially health professional's rebuttals of James Reilly's policies. I also like to check in on Hillary Fannin's hectic middle class life from time to time and her side splitting anectodes , she really is the living end!!. I take it from the tone of your response that you object to having to see beggars on the street. Have you ever spoken to any of them?.


  • #55
    Seanachai
    Registered Users Posts: 2,544 ✭✭✭Seanachai


    partyguinness have you ever read the architects and engineers for 9/11 truth research? - www.ae911truth.org/.

    Globalresearch.ca also has some interesting pieces on 9/11


  • #56
    partyguinness
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,203 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    Seanachai wrote: »
    I read the letters section sometimes , there's some interesting information from time to time especially health professional's rebuttals of James Reilly's policies. I also like to check in on Hillary Fannin's hectic middle class life from time to time and her side splitting anectodes , she really is the living end!!. I take it from the tone of your response that you object to having to see beggars on the street. Have you ever spoken to any of them?.

    Mate relax...it was very much tongue in cheek..:D


  • #57
    partyguinness
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,203 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    Seanachai wrote: »
    partyguinness have you ever read the architects and engineers for 9/11 truth research? - www.ae911truth.org/.

    Globalresearch.ca also has some interesting pieces on 9/11


    Yes and I have seen plenty of docs on youtube and where ever else and I admit they are very convincing.

    But what snaps me back to reality pretty quick is when I consider that the architects and engineers are speaking from the theory of what should have happened when they evalute their desktop data versus what did happen.

    Fact remains, the crash into the WTC was unprecedented and what happened in reality was quite different to the desktop analysis.

    That's why I laugh at computer generated weather predictions that dont work out...who are the kidding.

    Yes, I know some people dont want to believe something as banal s this but....engineers and architects got it wrong. Just like the Titanic should not have gone down so quick (according to desktop calculations). Guess what....it did!!


  • #58
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,558 ✭✭✭weisses


    partyguinness wrote: »
    Fact remains, the crash into the WTC was unprecedented and what happened in reality was quite different to the desktop analysis.

    That's why I laugh at computer generated weather predictions that dont work out...who are the kidding.

    What kinda plane crashed into WTC7 ?

    Fact is also NIST fabricated a computer generated hypothesis model to explain how building 7 collapsed but when experts asked for the data they used to reach their conclusions .. that request was denied

    So when using your own reasoning the official story should be laughed at ... Who are they kidding right


  • #59
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,558 ✭✭✭weisses


    partyguinness wrote: »
    This pretty much sums up my position:

    "In the absence of having every single thing about that day explained, conspiracy theories arise among the paranoid and narcissistic."

    "The fact at the end of the day is that you’ll never explain every single thing about 9-11. Some questions will always remain unanswered, either because those who have the answers are dead, or because those who have the answers have legitimate national security reasons to remain silent, or because life is full of anomalies that require no nefarious reason for their existence. To require that every single thing about 9-11 be wrapped up tight with ribbons and bows is to require the impossible. Real life doesn’t work that way. For the Truthers, anomalies or the few unexplained aspects of 9-11 are room for irresponsible conjecture and accusations. For the rest of us, the adults in the room, it’s hardly remarkable that there are things about that day that remain unexplained. Real life does work that way."

    Taken from http://hotair.com/archives/2007/09/13/cnn-looks-into-9-11-white-plane-mystery/


    Ahh for a second i thought you found footage showing a plane hitting the pentagon ..... hotair claim indeed

    Was a long shot anyway ... specially when there were only a couple of dozen of cameras recording it


  • #60
    partyguinness
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,203 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    weisses wrote: »
    What kinda plane crashed into WTC7 ?

    Fact is also NIST fabricated a computer generated hypothesis model to explain how building 7 collapsed but when experts asked for the data they used to reach their conclusions .. that request was denied

    So when using your own reasoning the official story should be laughed at ... Who are they kidding right


    No...they denied the request for information. You are somewhat jumping the gun with that conclusion.

    "request was denied" = "fabricated"..interesting nexus.:rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    partyguinness
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,203 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    weisses wrote: »
    Ahh for a second i thought you found footage showing a plane hitting the pentagon ..... hotair claim indeed

    Was a long shot anyway ... specially when there were only a couple of dozen of cameras recording it


    Unfortunately, on my work computer, video content & youtube is blocked by employers is I can't link in videos.


  • #62
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,558 ✭✭✭weisses


    partyguinness wrote: »
    No...they denied the request for information. You are somewhat jumping the gun with that conclusion.

    "request was denied" = "fabricated"..interesting nexus.:rolleyes:

    Data used by NIST to how they reached their conclusion was witheld ... Even a FOIA couldnt change that. More then 3000 pages were not published

    But you don't care anyway ... The official conclusion was largely made up by using computer generated models .... you know the kind of stuff you laugh at

    And yes they build (fabricated) a computer model that supported their hypothesis

    So a request was made to release what data was used (for peer review) and that request was denied


  • #63
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,558 ✭✭✭weisses


    partyguinness wrote: »
    Unfortunately, on my work computer, video content & youtube is blocked by employers is I can't link in videos.

    No rush .. Weekend is long enough


  • #64
    partyguinness
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,203 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    weisses wrote: »
    Data used by NIST to how they reached their conclusion was witheld ... Even a FOIA couldnt change that. More then 3000 pages were not published

    But you don't care anyway ... The official conclusion was largely made up by using computer generated models .... you know the kind of stuff you laugh at

    And yes they build (fabricated) a computer model that supported their hypothesis

    So a request was made to release what data was used (for peer review) and that request was denied


    No, I'm afraid you are twisting my point. You provided links to how certain architects and engineers state that (in a nutshell) that there is no way the buildings should have collapsed like that based on analysis from what is essentially desktop studies which no doubt included computer models.

    My point is that exactly- they are desk top studies- theory, projections, simulators etc. It shows that theory and reality very often diverge.

    "Well, our calculations show XYZ so the reality must be wrong and there must be another more sinister explantion"

    Utter nonsense. Goes back to my earlier post, we are not as smart as we think we are and some people decide to take comfort in theory over reality. Heaven forbide that they got it wrong. It's arrogant, conceited and dillusional.

    The US didnt think Hurricane Cathrina could happen...but it did! The ice cap sld not be melting at such speed...but it is!!

    It's like the saying which derides French philosophy:

    "That's all very well in reality but will it work in theory."


  • #65
    partyguinness
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,203 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    weisses wrote: »
    No rush .. Weekend is long enough

    No chance you'll find me here at the weekend...:D


  • #66
    Seanachai
    Registered Users Posts: 2,544 ✭✭✭Seanachai


    This is great piece on die hard skeptics , I borrowed some of his phraseology in an earlier post.

    http://subversivethinking.blogspot.ie/2012/05/stephen-bond-and-why-i-am-no-longer.html

    Also

    http://subversivethinking.blogspot.ie/2013/01/william-lane-craig-on-bertrand-russells.html

    I'm not a big William L Craig fan but his argument seems sound


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    DamagedTrax
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭DamagedTrax


    partyguinness wrote: »
    So what are you saying?

    all i'm saying that an airforce jet (cabable of long range weapons control) was flying around a no fly zone at the same time as the flight that hit the pentagon.

    the same flight that hit the pentagon and completely disintegrated, leaving a circular hole with no visible signs of damage from wingspan, and hit the exact area of the building that was being renovated at the time.

    all i'm saying is that the only footage of the 'plane' hitting the building is a 1 frame shot of bright exhaust.. that looks suspiciously like the exhaust a missile gives off and not a jet.

    im saying that a highly trained pilot wouldnt attempt the approach that was needed if you believe the official story... but an amateur pilot managed it?

    purdue1_sim.jpg


  • #68
    partyguinness
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,203 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    DamagedTrax wrote: »
    all i'm saying that an airforce jet (cabable of long range weapons control) was flying around a no fly zone at the same time as the flight that hit the pentagon.

    That is mere speculation that there was a plane flying around. Afterall it was (or at least you are implying) that it was AirForce One. Where was AirForce One at that time? Was it not down in Florida with Bush? Plus as has been suggested, it took time for all commercial jets to find adequate landing slots at short notice.

    Finally, AirForce One launched a missile at the Pentagon with the Secretary for Defence sitting at his desk...really now, that is wishful thinking?

    the same flight that hit the pentagon and completely disintegrated, leaving a circular hole with no visible signs of damage from wingspan, and hit the exact area of the building that was being renovated at the time.

    Ah come on now....you are being incredibly selective with your 'circular hole' theory. Even a quick search of google images shows the extent of the damge. I would post a pic but dont know how:obut this should do it: http://www.superstock.com/stock-photos-images/2061-607

    all i'm saying is that the only footage of the 'plane' hitting the building is a 1 frame shot of bright exhaust.. that looks suspiciously like the exhaust a missile gives off and not a jet.

    You must remember the plane was flying at, oh lets just say several hundred miles an hour, with the aid of gravity and a pretty full fuel load. The plane was prob exceeding MAC1?

    There never happened before so we have no comparable.
    The speed was too much for the camera (a standard low resolution CCTV). Just a shame David Attenborough wasnt there with some HD camera equipment which could slow it down in slow mo.

    im saying that a highly trained pilot wouldnt attempt the approach that was needed if you believe the official story... but an amateur pilot managed it?

    purdue1_sim.jpg

    This was a pilot hell bent on suicide afterall and trained himself to do exactly what he did. I can't imagine that flying into the Pentagon is standard course material at pilot school!!

    I watch 'Air Crash Investigations' on Discovery (bit of a fascination of mine). I can't quite remember the exact flight but there was a 'successful' crash landing (nothing to do with 9/11 obviously) and the pilot managed to bring the plane down safely.

    The exact same conditions (it was a mechanical failure) were reproduced in a flight simulator and NOBODY succeeded in bring the plane down safely in the same manner that pilot did. Point being that just because it shouldnt happen doesnt mean it didnt.


  • #69
    DamagedTrax
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭DamagedTrax


    partyguinness wrote: »
    This was a pilot hell bent on suicide afterall and trained himself to do exactly what he did. I can't imagine that flying into the Pentagon is standard course material at pilot school!!

    I watch 'Air Crash Investigations' on Discovery (bit of a fascination of mine). I can't quite remember the exact flight but there was a 'successful' crash landing (nothing to do with 9/11 obviously) and the pilot managed to bring the plane down safely.

    The exact same conditions (it was a mechanical failure) were reproduced in a flight simulator and NOBODY succeeded in bring the plane down safely in the same manner that pilot did. Point being that just because it shouldnt happen doesnt mean it didnt.

    just a bit of a coincidence that on the same day another hijacker over the wtc performed a turn so tight that it had pilots questioning the possibility of it and the terrorist's actual flight instructor stating that there was no way that guy could fly that approach, that he could barely keep a light aircraft on a straight approach.

    everything in this sorry mess can be put down to coincidence but when you tie it all together it, calling it all a coincidence becomes less & less plausible.


  • #70
    jimeryan22
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,170 ✭✭✭jimeryan22


    Inside job... Pure and simple...
    Sure 6 of the 12 of the commission said they were lied too and never got all facts..
    NORAD ordered to stand down..
    Drills of the exact same thing going on at the same time... But yet bush stood there and lied and said no body could of foreseen it....
    The towers were designed to take "multiple" air liner direct hits...
    Witnesses not even interviewed for the "official" report, including the last person out of the towers..
    All the firsts... First buildings of the type construction to fall due to fire..
    First time buildings of type to fall in free fall speed.....
    First time black boxes never found... 4 of them
    Etc etc etc
    The actual lab used by the commission for analysis of dust said explosive substance in dust, guy fired... Someone Ryan, not sure of first name...
    Etc etc etc etc.. Really if your still believing official story....... Your not sane..

    http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/07/12/313399/conspiracy-theorists-vs-govt-dupes/


  • #71
    jimeryan22
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,170 ✭✭✭jimeryan22


    May as well post this here too, in case anyone missed it...
    ;-)


    http://youtu.be/KoJGCU2XVyw


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    partyguinness
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,203 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    jimeryan22 wrote: »
    Inside job... Pure and simple...
    Sure 6 of the 12 of the commission said they were lied too and never got all facts..
    NORAD ordered to stand down..
    Drills of the exact same thing going on at the same time... But yet bush stood there and lied and said no body could of foreseen it....
    The towers were designed to take "multiple" air liner direct hits...
    Witnesses not even interviewed for the "official" report, including the last person out of the towers..
    All the firsts... First buildings of the type construction to fall due to fire..
    First time buildings of type to fall in free fall speed.....
    First time black boxes never found... 4 of them
    Etc etc etc
    The actual lab used by the commission for analysis of dust said explosive substance in dust, guy fired... Someone Ryan, not sure of first name...
    Etc etc etc etc.. Really if your still believing official story....... Your not sane..

    http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/07/12/313399/conspiracy-theorists-vs-govt-dupes/


    Absolutely it is so obvious. Who needs all the facts anyway. Case closed.


  • #73
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,558 ✭✭✭weisses


    partyguinness wrote: »
    Absolutely it is so obvious. Who needs all the facts anyway. Case closed.

    Fact is you are here during weekends despite yor stating you weren't

    Now that you're here maybe cou can link to that video showing an aircraft hitting the pentagon


  • #74
    partyguinness
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,203 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    Now for all you crazies out there...

    I know that one of the main agruments for a missile hitting the Pentagon was the apparent lack of plane debris...and basically..."There should be more plane egro it must have been a missile"

    Now watch this video which shows a F4 crash test...might provide some explantions for you....;)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rWdcVo6zIYI


  • #75
    DamagedTrax
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭DamagedTrax


    partyguinness wrote: »
    Now for all you crazies out there...

    I know that one of the main agruments for a missile hitting the Pentagon was the apparent lack of plane debris...and basically..."There should be more plane egro it must have been a missile"

    Now watch this video which shows a F4 crash test...might provide some explantions for you....;)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rWdcVo6zIYI

    great but we're still waiting on the video you promised of the plane hitting the pentegon.


  • #76
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,558 ✭✭✭weisses


    partyguinness wrote: »
    Now watch this video which shows a F4 crash test...might provide some explantions for you....;)

    We'll it explains what happens when a small plane carefully aimed at a special designed piece of concrete... Even in this video pieces of the wing survives.

    So I can conclude that despite more then 80 cameras would have captured the plane on approach or hitting the pentagon.The only thing released are these 4 frames. If questioning or finding that strange defines me crazy .... Then I am very happy being crazy

    You providing that link showing a plane hitting the pentagon is not gonna happen I'm afraid ...

    4 months has past since I asked and all you come up with is a f4 phantom hitting a concrete wall in a desert


  • #77
    Dude111
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,771 ✭✭✭Dude111


    Why do you think they QUICKLY took the footage from the cams around there???

    BECAUSE THIER OFFICIAL STORY IS BS!!!!!! -- No plane hit that bldg!!


  • #78
    partyguinness
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,203 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    weisses wrote: »
    We'll it explains what happens when a small plane carefully aimed at a special designed piece of concrete... Even in this video pieces of the wing survives.

    So I can conclude that despite more then 80 cameras would have captured the plane on approach or hitting the pentagon.The only thing released are these 4 frames. If questioning or finding that strange defines me crazy .... Then I am very happy being crazy

    You providing that link showing a plane hitting the pentagon is not gonna happen I'm afraid ...

    4 months has past since I asked and all you come up with is a f4 phantom hitting a concrete wall in a desert

    Yeah, the footage was to show you what happens when.....ah forget it..:rolleyes:

    Obviously, it's not a Boeing 757-223 with 58 passenger on board flying into the pentagon at supersonic speed. Unsurprisingly there wasn't much take up for that experiment....;)


  • #79
    partyguinness
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,203 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    Dude111 wrote: »
    Why do you think they QUICKLY took the footage from the cams around there???

    BECAUSE THIER OFFICIAL STORY IS BS!!!!!! -- No plane hit that bldg!!


    ...so what happened to AA Flight 77Boeing 757 with all the passengers and crew?


  • #80
    partyguinness
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,203 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    There you go....crystal clear...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzFqXbfv_yg

    Here are some points to ponder:

    1. Government buildings - particularly in 2001 - were not festooned with the kinds of very high-speed, high definition camera's aimed at the sky for what reason) that would have been REQUIRED to capture a useful image of Flight 77 flying at supersonic speed.

    2. Primary security at the Pentagon was and still is foot patrols by the Pentagon Police, not some flunky sleeping behind a video monitor. Camera's are placed low where people enter and exit the building, not randomly at the sky.

    3. The whole "where is the video" meme is a deliberate deception. It's purpose is to distract the credulous from the fact that:
    a). 6 Radar sites positively tracked Flight 77 from take-off to impact with the Pentagon.
    b). The Flight Data Recorder for Flight 77 was recovered at the Pentagon and its 25 hours of data exactly matches the radar data.
    c). Large quantities of clearly identifiable aircraft debris positively identified with Flight 77 were recovered at the Pentagon site.
    d). The DNA of every passenger and crew aboard Flight 77 were recovered from the Pentagon site. Some passengers were still strapped in their seats.
    e). The impact path (downed light poles, a sheared-off tree, the dislocated power generator on the Pentagon lawn) all are consistent with impact by a Boeing 757.
    f). 136 witnesses are on record as seeing Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. More importantly, zero witnesses are on record seeing ANYTHING else.

    I could keep going but hopefully you get the idea. The real question then is, why are you deliberately ignoring this overwhelming and irrefutable eyewitness and physical evidence and whining about non-existent video that no reasonable person would expect to exist?

    It's also amazing how people turn into flight analysis experts, structural engineers, physics professors, explosive and ballistics experts when posting on the internet...:rolleyes:


  • #81
    DamagedTrax
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭DamagedTrax


    so you've shown us an old video that most of us have seen many times before, that has 1 frame showing 'something' that (given the depth of the entire picture) is nowhere near the size or shape of a commercial passenger plane.

    im sorry but you've brought nothing new to the table in the video or your supporting argument. for every point you make there is an abundance of experts that has bebunked them.

    and so the roundabout continues...


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,558 ✭✭✭weisses


    partyguinness wrote: »
    There you go....crystal clear...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzFqXbfv_yg

    Here are some points to ponder:

    1. Government buildings - particularly in 2001 - were not festooned with the kinds of very high-speed, high definition camera's aimed at the sky for what reason) that would have been REQUIRED to capture a useful image of Flight 77 flying at supersonic speed.

    2. Primary security at the Pentagon was and still is foot patrols by the Pentagon Police, not some flunky sleeping behind a video monitor. Camera's are placed low where people enter and exit the building, not randomly at the sky.

    3. The whole "where is the video" meme is a deliberate deception. It's purpose is to distract the credulous from the fact that:
    a). 6 Radar sites positively tracked Flight 77 from take-off to impact with the Pentagon.
    b). The Flight Data Recorder for Flight 77 was recovered at the Pentagon and its 25 hours of data exactly matches the radar data.
    c). Large quantities of clearly identifiable aircraft debris positively identified with Flight 77 were recovered at the Pentagon site.
    d). The DNA of every passenger and crew aboard Flight 77 were recovered from the Pentagon site. Some passengers were still strapped in their seats.
    e). The impact path (downed light poles, a sheared-off tree, the dislocated power generator on the Pentagon lawn) all are consistent with impact by a Boeing 757.
    f). 136 witnesses are on record as seeing Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. More importantly, zero witnesses are on record seeing ANYTHING else.

    Just to add

    Highly convenient that none of the cameras actually captured the plane....

    It was 2001 ... not the stone age ... they had proper cameras

    Supersonic speed is 768 mph

    Plane apparently flew 460 mph

    How could people still be in their seat while you showed anF4 phantom disintegrate on a concrete wall suggesting that happened to flight 77 ... The plane vanishes but there are still people found strapped in their seat .....

    partyguinness wrote: »
    I could keep going but hopefully you get the idea. The real question then is, why are you deliberately ignoring this overwhelming and irrefutable eyewitness and physical evidence and whining about non-existent video that no reasonable person would expect to exist?

    You said you had that video...:o:o

    partyguinness wrote: »
    It's also amazing how people turn into flight analysis experts, structural engineers, physics professors, explosive and ballistics experts when posting on the internet...:rolleyes:

    Yeah pick one

    http://patriotsquestion911.com/

    Or are you counting yourself as one of these experts ?? you pretense suggest that anyway


  • #83
    partyguinness
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,203 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    DamagedTrax wrote: »
    so you've shown us an old video that most of us have seen many times before, that has 1 frame showing 'something' that (given the depth of the entire picture) is nowhere near the size or shape of a commercial passenger plane.

    im sorry but you've brought nothing new to the table in the video or your supporting argument. for every point you make there is an abundance of experts that has bebunked them.

    and so the roundabout continues...

    What experts? The ex army guys and other such who were not at the scene and had nothing to do with the investigation. Basing their opinion purely by sitting at their desktop. An event of this nature never happended before so they are basing their opinion on pure speculation and absolutely no comparative. They have debunked nothing.

    So basically the 'no plane' argument is based on you not being convinced that the object in the security footage looks like a plane.....is that it? A not very important part of the building did not have hundreds of high res cameras trained at that particular point or if the cameras exist, of course they have been smuggled away by the bad guys. Wow.

    Lets just ignore:

    1. The 100+ first hand eye witness accounts and sworn testimony that saw the plane, its approach and attended on the scene in the immediate aftermath;
    2. The cargo plane pilot who visually tracked the plane flying low and dropping into Washington;
    3. The plane disappearing from radar over Washington at the same time it hit the building;
    4. The photographic evidence of plane debris.
    6. The black boxes were recovered;
    7. The passengers were recovered and all positively identified via DNA;
    8. Family member visited the morgue.
    9. Passengers who rang while on the flight to say they had been hijacked.

    Now, I am no expert on this but if it was a missile then somebody or possible a few trained military personal had to lock in the coordinates and launch the missile. Do you seriously think there are people out there today keeping this little nugget of information a secret from the rest of the world?

    If the alleged conspirators went to this level of effort to create the illusion that a plane had crashed into the Pentagon, why then use a missile? Using a plane would be simpler (as you already have one ready for the task), and there wouldn't be the risk of discovery.

    Most importantly, not one single first hand account or witness statement exists that supports the 'missile' theory. Absolutely nothing (sorry of course there is, it's just being suppressed).

    You claim that I have brought nothing to the table....what have you brought in support of the 'missile' theory besides:

    - 'Well it doesnt look like a plane so it must have been a missile.'; and
    - 'There should be more footage I]why should there be and I have addressed that point already[/I out there and it must be surpressed to cover up the 'missile''

    That is it. That is all you have. Great. Clearly the reality is far too mundane for you so why not join in the Hollywood blockbuster version of events. Far more exciting.

    Actaully, why don't you make contact with the victims families and those who actually visited the scene and the morgue to identify bodies and tell them that it was a missile.

    Then explain where the plane and the bodies have been stashed...;)

    Now I have to get back to reality and i have no more interest in repeating my points then to have them ignored, cherry picked and twisted. It was fun. I may come back here in a few years when you kids decide to grow up.


  • #84
    DamagedTrax
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭DamagedTrax


    well then you should probably come with some new evidence, rather than repeating the same tired theories ad nauseam.

    we've all read what you've just repeated a hundred times before and we dont accept it. if you have something new then show us. if not then you're right, you are wasting your time.


  • #85
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    So why didn't they just use a plane?

    Why did they need to use a missile, which apparently is very obvious?
    And if they did need to use a missile, why couldn't they just fake the video footage?


  • #86
    degrassinoel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,751 ✭✭✭✭degrassinoel


    He won't be able to reply to either of you for a week via this forum - if he decides to answer at all.


  • #87
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    partyguinness wrote: »
    What experts? The ex army guys and other such who were not at the scene and had nothing to do with the investigation. Basing their opinion purely by sitting at their desktop. An event of this nature never happended before so they are basing their opinion on pure speculation and absolutely no comparative. They have debunked nothing.
    Not this Pentagon employee and victim of the attacks,

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIy9hjB3DGk

    Nor this reporter on the scene,

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH7qbrKwhQA

    partyguinness wrote: »
    So basically the 'no plane' argument is based on you not being convinced that the object in the security footage looks like a plane.....is that it? A not very important part of the building did not have hundreds of high res cameras trained at that particular point or if the cameras exist, of course they have been smuggled away by the bad guys. Wow.
    That particular point? Come on! We are talking about not recording the arrival of an object which must be 40 feet high and 70 feet wide not being recorded striking the HQ of the most advanced military in history.
    partyguinness wrote: »
    Lets just ignore:

    1. The 100+ first hand eye witness accounts and sworn testimony that saw the plane, its approach and attended on the scene in the immediate aftermath;
    I would encourage everyone to watch this video to see before their own eyes one of these being caught out in a lie, breaking down, admitting this is a concern for "men with money" and essentially admit a cover up that he is too afraid to divulge.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2Shn7b90pY

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5mT8Jbcd-A
    partyguinness wrote: »
    2. The cargo plane pilot who visually tracked the plane flying low and dropping into Washington;
    We should ignore this. Aside from being the first I've heard of it it's not relevant to what did or did not strike the pentagon.
    partyguinness wrote: »
    3. The plane disappearing from radar over Washington at the same time it hit the building;
    Again, ignore. A plane can switch off it's own tracking device.
    partyguinness wrote: »
    L4. The photographic evidence of plane debris.
    Which is far from conclusive.
    partyguinness wrote: »
    6. The black boxes were recovered;
    Only one was functional and the information within contradicted the official story. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon
    partyguinness wrote: »
    7. The passengers were recovered and all positively identified via DNA;
    ... by the US Military.
    partyguinness wrote: »
    8. Family member visited the morgue.
    Not sure about this. I was of the understanding the passengers, along with most of the plane had been vapourised hence the DNA tests.
    partyguinness wrote: »
    9. Passengers who rang while on the flight to say they had been hijacked.
    This gives no indication what did or did not hit the pentagon.
    partyguinness wrote: »
    Now, I am no expert on this but if it was a missile then somebody or possible a few trained military personal had to lock in the coordinates and launch the missile. Do you seriously think there are people out there today keeping this little nugget of information a secret from the rest of the world?
    Far more likely to keep the secret than organise a press conference to admit their guilt only to given the death sentence for treason if they aren't instantly beaten to death.
    partyguinness wrote: »
    If the alleged conspirators went to this level of effort to create the illusion that a plane had crashed into the Pentagon, why then use a missile? Using a plane would be simpler (as you already have one ready for the task), and there wouldn't be the risk of discovery.
    I agree here.

    partyguinness wrote: »
    Most importantly, not one single first hand account or witness statement exists that supports the 'missile' theory. Absolutely nothing (sorry of course there is, it's just being suppressed).

    Here is some to get you started.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SujyK7UZmpM

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_K9SfCwWzFI

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5mT8Jbcd-A


  • #88
    poteen o hooley
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 92 ✭✭poteen o hooley


    Dude111 wrote: »
    Why do you think they QUICKLY took the footage from the cams around there???

    BECAUSE THIER OFFICIAL STORY IS BS!!!!!! -- No plane hit that bldg!!

    So the wreckage - engines, flight data recorders, wheels etc plus DNA of passengers of AA Flight 77Boeing 757 was planted there you think?
    By who?
    The dozens of eye witnesses who saw the airliner take down the street lamps immediately before impact were.........?
    part of the whoooooole plot?


  • #89
    poteen o hooley
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 92 ✭✭poteen o hooley


    DamagedTrax wrote: »
    well then you should probably come with some new evidence, rather than repeating the same tired theories ad nauseam.

    we've all read what you've just repeated a hundred times before and we dont accept it. if you have something new then show us. if not then you're right, you are wasting your time.


    "and we dont accept it"................

    You don't accept what any person with a scintilla of common sense would accept as irrefutable proof that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon?
    And you expect normal people to take anything you assert seriously?
    I'm afraid if you told me the sky was blue I'd start to think I was colour blind.
    You're away with the fairies my friend.


  • #90
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,213 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Post deleted.

    poteen o hooley, I suggest you read the forum charter (HERE) before posting again and consider whether your post breaches it before submitting it. Any more abuse, sweeping generalisations or needless antagonism will result in a ban.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    DamagedTrax
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭DamagedTrax


    poteen o hooley wrote: »
    "and we dont accept it"................

    You don't accept what any person with a scintilla of common sense would accept as irrefutable proof that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon?
    And you expect normal people to take anything you assert seriously?
    I'm afraid if you told me the sky was blue I'd start to think I was colour blind.
    You're away with the fairies my friend.

    show me your irrefutable truth and i will find you an equally irrefutable contrary opinion.

    throwing a word like irrefutable around in this situation is ridiculous. there are experts on both sides. which expert that you choose to believe doesnt make them/you right, it just says that you believe their version.

    and thats all 9/11 boils down to - which group of experts you believe.

    is it really that ridiculous not to believe experts chosen by the bush administration? ill say that again, the BUSH administration? :confused:


  • #92
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    poteen o hooley wrote: »
    So the wreckage - engines, flight data recorders, wheels etc plus DNA of passengers of AA Flight 77Boeing 757 was planted there you think?
    I've already explained that:
    1. The wreckage is inconclusive.
    2. That is flight date recorder, singular, which contradicts the official story.
    3. A - Any supposed DNA was analysed by the US Military. B - DNA evidence can be faked.
    poteen o hooley wrote: »
    The dozens of eye witnesses who saw the airliner take down the street lamps immediately before impact were.........?
    part of the whoooooole plot?
    I've posted an interview with one of these so-called witnesses who is proven on camera to be lying. I have also posted interviews with credible witnesses who contradict the official story.

    Can you please explain to me why should believe without question one set of witnesses and completely disregard another?


  • #93
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Can you please explain to me why should believe without question one set of witnesses and completely disregard another?
    • The majority of witnesses report a plane.
    • A tiny minority of witnesses report specifically and directly that it was a missile and not a plane.
    • There is no additional evidence that it was a missile.
    • All of the available evidence points to a plane.
    • The most likely explanation is that it was a plane.
    • There are no witness reports of the things that would follow if it was a missile (such as the planting of wreckage or of the fallen street lamps.)
    • A massive nonsensical conspiracy isn't required to explain why a small minority of people make erroneous witness reports. Such a conspiracy is required to explain why so many people reported a plane if there was none.

    So since people are saying that the only thing that would convince them is footage of the plane, can we see footage or pictures of the government planting the wreckage of the plane?
    After all it was an attack on one of the most famous buildings in the world, and it was right next to a freeway and in the open. So I assume that there was tons of cameras and witnesses able to see.
    So why no reports or evidence of the wreckage being planted?


  • #94
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,558 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    After all it was an attack on one of the most famous buildings in the world, and it was right next to a freeway and in the open. So I assume that there was tons of cameras and witnesses able to see.
    So why no reports or evidence of the wreckage being planted?

    Would that be the same cameras the footage was confiscated from by government officials never to be seen again ?

    It was not only one of the most famous buildings it is also one of the best protected ones .. with dozens and dozens of cameras recording every move ... and all that was released where 4 frames with no plane visible

    One of the reasons used to explain that the technology used in 2001 somehow was incapable of registering a plane hitting the pentagon.

    Why is the government feeding the conspiracy regarding the Pentagon attack ?


  • #95
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Would that be the same cameras the footage was confiscated from by government officials never to be seen again ?
    No. No one has ever claimed they had the footage showing that the wreckage was being planted. The government did not confiscate video from bystanders witnessing the aftermath.

    Even so, this would not stop witness reports of it. There are none.
    Why do you think this is?
    weisses wrote: »
    It was not only one of the most famous buildings it is also one of the best protected ones .. with dozens and dozens of cameras recording every move ...
    You are assuming that they would have these cameras. Have you anything to actually show this was the case?

    There isn't any good reason to assume that there would be a camera in the right place to capture the images you want.
    weisses wrote: »
    One of the reasons used to explain that the technology used in 2001 somehow was incapable of registering a plane hitting the pentagon.
    Most security cameras at the time (and some now) have a lower frame rate to conserve power and tape.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiPaLkcRx7c

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9HrwTONo4k Note the police car jumping across the frame.
    This is adequate for capturing images of cars and people walking through a security gate.
    The plane was simply traveling to fast for it to be captured very well.

    So why exactly were they unable to fake the footage you are asking for?


  • #96
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,558 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    You are assuming that they would have these cameras. Have you anything to actually show this was the case?

    63ax9xg.jpg

    King Mob wrote: »
    There isn't any good reason to assume that there would be a camera in the right place to capture the images you want.

    84 and none produces a picture of a plane
    King Mob wrote: »
    Most security cameras at the time (and some now) have a lower frame rate to conserve power and tape.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiPaLkcRx7c

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9HrwTONo4k Note the police car jumping across the frame.
    This is adequate for capturing images of cars and people walking through a security gate.
    The plane was simply traveling to fast for it to be captured very well.

    So why exactly were they unable to fake the footage you are asking for?

    If all the cameras where operating at exactly the same frame rate at the same time you would have a point ... But that is highly unlikely


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,753 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    I have to say I'm getting a tad confused on the last few posts.

    Weisses - Are you saying that a plane did not hit the Pentagon? And that it was in fact a missile? You don't have any evidence that it was a missile but seem to be basing you arguement on the fact that there are apparent inconsistencies in the plane theory.


  • #98
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    84 and none produces a picture of a plane
    And what view did those cameras have exactly?
    Can you show that they had a clear view of the run up to the crash site? Or is that another assumption?
    weisses wrote: »
    If all the cameras where operating at exactly the same frame rate at the same time you would have a point ... But that is highly unlikely
    What is unlikely exactly?
    The camera that did capture the plane was of that frame rate.
    Have you something to show that the other cameras in the building had higher frame rates?

    Again, you are assuming these things out of nothing and are using those assumptions to declare something an impossibility.

    No video security system in the world was or is designed to capture images of a plane crashing into a building.
    It's not a strange thing for such a system to not capture any images.


  • #99
    Dude111
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,771 ✭✭✭Dude111


    King Mob wrote:
    The government did not confiscate video from bystanders witnessing the aftermath.
    No of course not..... They were paid to provide BOGUS INFO!!!!


    Anyone who was involved in helping aid thier crime should be brought up on major charges!!


  • #100
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,558 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    And what view did those cameras have exactly?
    Can you show that they had a clear view of the run up to the crash site? Or is that another assumption?

    Dont know what view they had ..They were confiscated.. probably for a reason ... The ones on the pentagon looks like 360 degree cameras.
    King Mob wrote: »
    What is unlikely exactly?
    The camera that did capture the plane was of that frame rate.
    Have you something to show that the other cameras in the building had higher frame rates?

    Unlikely is that all the cameras capturing the same frames which conveniently don't show a plane hitting the building
    King Mob wrote: »
    Again, you are assuming these things out of nothing and are using those assumptions to declare something an impossibility.

    And you think it is perfectly normal that 84 cameras could not produce 1 single frame that identify's a plane hitting or about to hit the best protected building in the world
    King Mob wrote: »
    No video security system in the world was or is designed to capture images of a plane crashing into a building.

    They are designed to capture and record things normal tv is 24 fps plenty of cctv record at 30 fps If we have to believe your assumption we couldn't be able to watch the planes hitting the twin towers.

    And this was not your average gas station that was monitored it was one of the most secure buildings in the world an a top priority for any terrorist
    King Mob wrote: »
    It's not a strange thing for such a system to not capture any images.

    Actually it is ...


  • #101
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Dont know what view they had ..They were confiscated.. probably for a reason ... The ones on the pentagon looks like 360 degree cameras.
    So you don't know what view they had and they only look like 360 degree cameras to you.

    You are assuming that they all had a clear view on the crash site and the run up to it, but you've nothing to base this assumption on.
    weisses wrote: »
    Unlikely is that all the cameras capturing the same frames which conveniently don't show a plane hitting the building
    No one is arguing this.
    weisses wrote: »
    And you think it is perfectly normal that 84 cameras could not produce 1 single frame that identify's a plane hitting or about to hit the best protected building in the world
    You've shown only three cameras.
    And yes, it's perfectly normal for lower frame rate cameras to have trouble getting a clear picture of a fast moving object.
    weisses wrote: »
    They are designed to capture and record things normal tv is 24 fps plenty of cctv record at 30 fps If we have to believe your assumption we couldn't be able to watch the planes hitting the twin towers.
    Can you show any low frame rate CCTV footage of the planes crashing into the twin towers?
    weisses wrote: »
    And this was not your average gas station that was monitored it was one of the most secure buildings in the world an a top priority for any terrorist

    Actually it is ...
    But the video actually showing the impact is from a low frame rate camera:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9HrwTONo4k
    Again, note the police car before the impact.

    Why would the most secure building in the world bother with such a low frame rate camera at all?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement