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
Anomalies at the WTC and the Hutchison Effect
Options
Comments
-
It does actually, you claim that you don't want people who disagree with you to leave this forum, and then you explicitly say to me to leave this forum and post elsewhere.
Nowhere in the thread have I said anything except my opinion on the 9/11 inside job, so why are you attacking me with all this? I don't mind anyone disagreeing, it's fundamentalist skepticism I find unpalatable.Could you please supply an example of a single post of yours in the last six months that doesn't include a complaint about certain users of this forum, or the moderation policy of this forum?
I've had a look at a sampling of your posts on this forum and cannot see any, I can however see several threads you've started demanding certain posters don't post here.
Anyone can search for posts under my name. Needless to say there are many. Would you like to apologise for attacking me and using baseless allegations to do so?
Back on topic:
Remember folks, ignore the smokescreen of particle weapons, reptilians etc. This is probably disinformation to blacken the truth movement's name and weaken arguments. Exercise a little piece of the skeptic's often lauded Occum's Razor. But the conclusions which any serious researcher into 9/11 and world events will arrive at are that 9/11 was an inside job. Remember Northwoods. Remember Eisenhower's warning on the military industrial complex.0 -
So TV is considered "unbiased media" then?there was footage of the crashed plane on tv...
No, it's not. It's logical to assess the evidence, including evidence that they were armed (albeit with small knives, but more to the point with effective coercion techniques) and somewhat qualified.so it's logical to assume that some unarmed unqualified saudi guys took control of a modern jet and crashed it into a buliding...
Apart from getting personal, you're now demonstrating a lack of knowledge of structural engineering. If you don't understand why steel-reinforced concrete is stronger than steel alone, go find out and come back to me.are you thick? one of the goverments own excuses for the lack of damage is the amount of steel they put into the pentagon when they upgraded it!!!
i guess they should've used that "special" passenger jet proof steel in the twin towers!??
Ok, assuming the photographs of the damaged building do show cameras (they're not as clear as the "after" photograph, now all you have to do is demonstrate that they were looking in the right direction, and of a sufficient framerate and resolution to show anything useful.0 -
Nowhere in the thread have I said anything except my opinion on the 9/11 inside job, so why are you attacking me with all this? I don't mind anyone disagreeing, it's fundamentalist skepticism I find unpalatable.
You have once again ignored the part of your post that I quoted where you told me to essentially sod off and post on another forum.Anyone can search for posts under my name. Needless to say there are many. Would you like to apologise for attacking me and using baseless allegations to do so?
I stand over my claim, over the last six months your soul contribution to this forum is to complain about certain posters who contribute here.Back on topic:
Remember folks, ignore the smokescreen of particle weapons, reptilians etc. This is probably disinformation to blacken the truth movement's name and weaken arguments. Exercise a little piece of the skeptic's often lauded Occum's Razor. But the conclusions which any serious researcher into 9/11 and world events will arrive at are that 9/11 was an inside job. Remember Northwoods. Remember Eisenhower's warning on the military industrial complex.
Yes a military plan from over 50 years ago that was rejected out of hand and it's proponent fired is the most telling evidence for 911 being an "inside job".
:rolleyes:0 -
You have once again ignored the part of your post that I quoted where you told me to essentially sod off and post on another forum.
You have no interest in conspiracy theories, so Skeptics is a better choice for you. Not being rude.I stand over my claim, over the last six months your soul contribution to this forum is to complain about certain posters who contribute here.
But your claim is untrue. Do a search of my posts over the last 6 months and you will quite easily see this.Yes a military plan from over 50 years ago that was rejected out of hand and it's proponent fired is the most telling evidence for 911 being an "inside job".
What gives you the idea that Operation Northwoods was the most telling evidence? I never said that... Diogenes, you're rambling more and more these days, and clutching at straws in your arguments. I have no desire to argue with anyone. Read "The Road to 9/11" by Peter Dale Scott if you want to learn about 911.
http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/9959.html0 -
no, point is YOU SAW footage, I SAW footage. Get a life.oscarBravo wrote: »So TV is considered "unbiased media" then?
ok, i'll give you a taste of your medicine. show me evidence that the "hijackers" of FLIGHT 77 were armed, had "coercion techniques" and "somewhat qualified"you use No, it's not. It's logical to assess the evidence, including evidence that they were armed (albeit with small knives, but more to the point with effective coercion techniques) and somewhat qualified.
i am a mechanical engineer. you are showing your lack of knowledge. steel reinforced concrete is not "stronger" it has different properties. steel is good under tension, concrete is good under compression.Apart from getting personal, you're now demonstrating a lack of knowledge of structural engineering. If you don't understand why steel-reinforced concrete is stronger than steel alone, go find out and come back to me.
i predicted that once you were shown pics of the cameras then you'd question what they could've seen. you really are an idiot.Ok, assuming the photographs of the damaged building do show cameras (they're not as clear as the "after" photograph, now all you have to do is demonstrate that they were looking in the right direction, and of a sufficient framerate and resolution to show anything useful.
it must be great to live in blissfull ignorance of how the modern world works. you and diogenes sit in ivory towers with the rest of the sheep. calling people like me wackos coz we don't swallow the sh1t we're fed by "mass media"0 -
Advertisement
-
OK, so if you see film at 11, that's proof, but if you read literally hundreds of eyewitness accounts, they mean nothing unless backed up by video evidence.no, point is YOU SAW footage, I SAW footage. Get a life.
Uh huh.
It's well-documented that the hijackers used box cutters (aka Stanley knives) to kill hostages in order to gain control of the aircraft, and that several of them had pilot training.ok, i'll give you a taste of your medicine. show me evidence that the "hijackers" of FLIGHT 77 were armed, had "coercion techniques" and "somewhat qualified"
If by "evidence" you mean video footage, sorry.
...and steel-reinforced concrete exploits the differing properties of both materials, so it's good under tension and compression. Are you serious saying that steel-reinforced concrete isn't stronger than steel alone?i am a mechanical engineer. you are showing your lack of knowledge. steel reinforced concrete is not "stronger" it has different properties. steel is good under tension, concrete is good under compression.
Clear this up for me: do you seriously - seriously - believe a plane didn't hit the Pentagon that day? I honestly can't get my head around the type of thinking it takes to believe something like that.i predicted that once you were shown pics of the cameras then you'd question what they could've seen.
You're not doing a particularly good job of enlightening us.it must be great to live in blissfull ignorance of how the modern world works.
I didn't call you any names. On your last point, however, it amazes me that people unwilling to swallow the "mass media sh1t" are so eager to consume anything that "new media" throws at them.you and diogenes sit in ivory towers with the rest of the sheep. calling people like me wackos coz we don't swallow the sh1t we're fed by "mass media"
Take the site you posted earlier, with its loaded questions. Did you question any of the premises behind those questions, or cheerfully accept them at face value, just because there were pictures there?0 -
coz it's not evidence, it subjective comment.Why don't you accept the other evidence, like hundreds of eye witnesses who say that they saw the plane fly into the pentagon.
you're putting words in my mouth now. irrelevant.Or do you believe that the Washington Blvd an eight lane highway was deserted at 9:40 on a tuesday morning?
i've proven cameras are on the pentagon. if they are not of "suitable quality" or weren't looking in the right direction then there is no reason not to release them or at least tell us that.Furthermore you've yet to prove that there was cctv footage of a "suitable quality" even existed.
if that's the case the pentagon should say so.And again you've yet to prove that these and the pentagon footage wasn't at standard low res irr onto vhs.
the cost of storage in 2001 was about 1 or 2c per megabyte. only an idiot would believe that the us government and especially the us military would not be utilizing this technology.The US government have a system of infinite media storage? Really? You can prove this? And this system existed allowed the US to record an infinte number of video streams to unlimited storage back in 2001?
no-one cares where you've worked. irrelevant.Because I know from experience working at a 24 hr news station, massive international stations cannot provide unlimited storage for even 24 hrs of 12 differen video feeds onto a server. Usually overnight someone needs to arrange for archiving the most important material. Two or Three feeds are dropped to tape.
common sense.Perhaps you could explain where you get information that the pentagon had the ability to store dozens of video feeds to hardrive in 2001?
and...?And five and a half years before the creation of google video.
again it's common sense to assume they use the best available technology.where are Clare guy, again I hate to break it but your entire argument from personal incredibility is going old, fast. Unless you can provide evidence that high resolution hard drive recordings were standard in the US DoD, six years ago this is getting tiresome.
subjective hearsay.Oh and also I noticed you avoided the point, what about the hundred or so eyewitnesses who saw and went on the record about the flight flying over them and into the pentagon.
you heard/read these 8000+ accounts?Oh and my point about the 8,000+ emergency workers from dozens of agencies who were on the scene within minutes, hours and days of the crash. Thousands of men and women who collected wreckage, and body parts.
Were they in on it?
irrelevant. i'm only showing you a picture that was asked for. it's available on other sites.Firstly killtown? Really? Killtown is a vile excuse for a human being who has commited a campaign of harassment and abuse of Val Mc Clatchey who took the infamous photo of the smoke plum from United 93. If you think that a reprenhensible anonymous coward who abuses an innocent woman is an acceptable source, so be it.
Am... hello!... yes, people have questioned that cameras were on the pentagon.Secondly whats your point? Neither I or anyone else on this thread have ever disputed that there weren't camera on the pentagon. Never
are you following this post at all?! or are you just here to regurgitate "evidence" from mass media and tell us where you've worked..
"If I had armed Marines guarding my house, I don't think I'd bother with security cameras. Would you?"
"This begs the question: what exactly do you think the Pentagon needs CCTV for?"
"The question is, did they have CCTV watching the Pentagon?"
"Are you going to show pictures of cameras?" all oscarbravo
gerardkeating and bonkey have also questioned whether the pentagon had cctv.
like i've said many times, it's not a leap of faith to assume that the us military have access to the best technology.However what you've failed to prove is that cameras aren't fixed, what their focus is, or that these cameras have a 29.97fps rate and were archived to hardrive in 2001.
i never "cited" killtown, i showed a picture. you're putting words in my mouth again.Those are points you need to prove. And citing a contemptable coward like killtown highlights my contempt for your argument.
my bad.Incidently he was so sick of being misrepresented by the likes of you he recorded this message explicitly refuting conspiracy theorists about his intial report.
again subjective and none of the priests at the pentagon are quoted as to seeing what hit. irrelevant. plus, don't get me started on the religion conspiracy!:)Oh and just to complete the set I've decided I'll post some random links supporting the story that you disagree with I'll add a few each time I post;
A report into the priests and chaplains who were at the pentagon
Where they in on it Clare guy?
Um... maybe?! He was a communications officer for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Yeah he's a credible "eye-witness" oh and he was made a major afterwards.Captain Lincoln Lieber, who entered the inferno of the pentagon four times to help people out of the building
Was he in on it Clare guy?
again subjective. here's aquote from him...What about firefighter Alan Wallace?Is Alan lying, Clare Guy?
"So many people think Mark and I watched the plane hit the building. We did NOT."
are you citing these people as witnesses to what happened at the pentagon?How about this detailed PDF Clare Guy. It details the complex organisation logistical difficulties and the pain staking detail that went into identifying the passengers on American Airlines flight 77 and the Pentagon Staff who died.
Did the people who complied this report
and the staff who did the horrendous work finding and identifying the body parts.
Well Clare Guy were these people in on it?
they identified body parts in a lab...0 -
eh... hello!?! there is, like, a big white jet crashed at heathrow, they showed live footage... i didn't see any crashed plane at the pentagon...OK, so if you see film at 11, that's proof
have you read these supposed "hundreds of eyewitness accounts"?but if you read literally hundreds of eyewitness accounts, they mean nothing unless backed up by video evidence.
where is it "well-documented" what the "hijackers" of flight 77 had or did?It's well-documented that the hijackers used box cutters (aka Stanley knives) to kill hostages in order to gain control of the aircraft, and that several of them had pilot training.
i'm not saying anything about the relative strengths of either... and the pentagon was not built with steel reinforced concrete, steel girders were retrofitted to that part of the building. my point is, it was these steel girders that prevented the wings from entering the building, yet the twin towers were made from similar steel and the planes made gaping holes......and steel-reinforced concrete exploits the differing properties of both materials, so it's good under tension and compression. Are you serious saying that steel-reinforced concrete isn't stronger than steel alone?
I've already cleared up my position on this. do you read the posts? read post 172...Clear this up for me: do you seriously - seriously - believe a plane didn't hit the Pentagon that day? I honestly can't get my head around the type of thinking it takes to believe something like that.
i'm trying to but some people/sheep just prefer to go with whatever they're told...You're not doing a particularly good job of enlightening us.
i'm in good company......it amazes me that people unwilling to swallow the "mass media sh1t"...
It has become a sarcastic proverb that a thing must be true if you saw it in a newspaper. That is the opinion intelligent people have of that lying vehicle in a nutshell. But the trouble is that the stupid people--who constitute the grand overwhelming majority of this and all other nations--do believe and are moulded and convinced by what they get out of a newspaper, and there is where the harm lies.
Mark Twain "License of the Press" speech obviously papers were the "mass-media" of the time...
“The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses.” Malcolm x.
“People shouldn't expect the mass media to do investigative stories. That job belongs to the 'fringe' media.” Ted Koppel
"Early in life I had noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper" George Orwell.
"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing, but newspapers." Thomas Jefferson.
The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." William Colby (Former CIA Director)
"Assemble a mob of men and women previously conditioned by a daily reading of the newspapers; treat them to amplified band music, bright lights...and in next to no time you can reduce them to a state of almost mindless subhumanity. Never before have so few been in a position to make fools, maniacs, or criminals of so many." Aldous Huxley, “The Devils of Loudon”
"One of the intentions of corporate-controlled media is to instill in people a sense of disempowerment, of immobilization and paralysis. Its outcome is to turn you into good consumers. It is to keep people isolated, to feel that there is no possibility for social change." David Barsamian, journalist
"Politicians and the media have conspired to infantilize, to dumb down, the American public. At heart, politicians don't believe that Americans can handle complex truths, and the news media, especially television news, basically agrees." Tom Fenton, former CBS foreign correspondent
"In the technetronic society the trend seems to be toward aggregating the individual support of millions of unorganized citizens, who are easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities, and effectively exploiting the latest communication techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason....Power will gravitate into the hands of those who control information....Human beings become increasingly manipulable and malleable."
- Zbigniew Brzezinski, CFR member, first director of the Trilateral Commission, and President Carter's National Security Advisor in his 1970 book, Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era
i have read as much as i could, i have looked at as many images as i could, i still seek out new info and i ask myself "what makes sense?"Take the site you posted earlier, with its loaded questions. Did you question any of the premises behind those questions, or cheerfully accept them at face value, just because there were pictures there?
i've said already that i believe something hit the building, a missile doesn't make sense, i've never said i thought a missile hit it, the obvious cause was flight 77 i agree, it doesn't make any sense to me that there were so many cctv recordings confiscated and the only images were the ones released from the gate at the pentagon which show nothing.
if the other recordings show nothing, why won't they just release those?
i'm not looking for an argument, i don't understand how people like you can look at all of the information out there and not question the official story. there are so many holes...0 -
no, point is YOU SAW footage, I SAW footage.
...
calling people like me wackos coz we don't swallow the sh1t we're fed by "mass media"
No-one has called you a wacko, but I'm interested how you can say on one hand that footage constitutes evidence, and on the other hand, claim that the material shown to you by mass media is sh1t.
Who do you think showed you that footage?0 -
OK, I'm going to skip straight to this point. I didn't notice that you think it was probably Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, because you're asking all the same questions the people who don't believe it keep asking.
Because it won't shut people up. When they released the footage they did, some "truthers" claimed it had been doctored.i've said already that i believe something hit the building, a missile doesn't make sense, i've never said i thought a missile hit it, the obvious cause was flight 77 i agree, it doesn't make any sense to me that there were so many cctv recordings confiscated and the only images were the ones released from the gate at the pentagon which show nothing.
if the other recordings show nothing, why won't they just release those?
Then I'd respectfully suggest not calling people idiots.i'm not looking for an argument...
I don't consider the unreleased CCTV tapes a "hole". Most of the questions being asked are, like those in the site you linked, loaded and leading questions asked to further an agenda rather than to clarify anything....i don't understand how people like you can look at all of the information out there and not question the official story. there are so many holes...0 -
Advertisement
-
No-one has called you a wacko, but I'm interested how you can say on one hand that footage constitutes evidence, and on the other hand, claim that the material shown to you by mass media is sh1t.
Who do you think showed you that footage?
I think it's obvious that Clare_Guy is referring to the opinions and political spin portrayed by the mass media, rather than footage of an event. Footage of such an event would come out anyway, it's the Murdoch media machine that puts the spin into effect afterwards.0 -
You have no interest in conspiracy theories, so Skeptics is a better choice for you. Not being rude.
You are being rude. Consistently insisting I have no business posting here is being exceptionally rude.
As a former conspiracy theorist I think I have every right to post here. And unless the mods deem that I don't have a right to, you whinging is getting tiresome.But your claim is untrue. Do a search of my posts over the last 6 months and you will quite easily see this.
I have and I'm quite right.What gives you the idea that Operation Northwoods was the most telling evidence? I never said that... Diogenes, you're rambling more and more these days, and clutching at straws in your arguments.
I think your referencing a half baked and discredited military report from half a century ago, mixed with the collection of ad hominem's in the above post is the closed thing to an argument about conspiracy theories you've brought to this forum in months.I have no desire to argue with anyone. Read "The Road to 9/11" by Peter Dale Scott if you want to learn about 911.
http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/9959.html
Perhaps you might tell us what points in Dale Scott's work you find most relevant?
Personally I find anyone willing to work alongside morally and intellectually bankrupt cowards like Griffin and Jones (Dale edited Griffin's book which included Jones's discredited claims about thermite) dubious. And Scott's LIHOP, and tenuous and specious accounts of events like the indonesian war in the 70s doesn't provide hope for him. Perhaps Kernel you'd like to educate us as to why his book is a rewarding read?0 -
coz it's not evidence, it subjective comment.
you're putting words in my mouth now. irrelevant.
Neither is irrelevant. Nor is it subjective comment. Hundreds of people have come forward to describe witnesses AA 77 fly into the Pentagon, how do you explain that.i've proven cameras are on the pentagon. if they are not of "suitable quality" or weren't looking in the right direction then there is no reason not to release them or at least tell us that.
They've released footage, which was dismissed as fake.
I ask again what evidence would satisfy you?if that's the case the pentagon should say so.
the cost of storage in 2001 was about 1 or 2c per megabyte. only an idiot would believe that the us government and especially the us military would not be utilizing this technology.
And the camera which write direct to hardrive? And the bandwidth to record multiple (dozens) of streams of video at 1:1 resolution? They existed?no-one cares where you've worked. irrelevant.
Yes I can see how a background in video post production and media storage is completely irrelevant in a discussion about these exact issues. :rolleyes:common sense.
and...?
again it's common sense to assume they use the best available technology.
I'm sorry what? "Common Sense"? It's not common sense, its speculation and hypothesizing based on a limited understanding of Video technology.subjective hearsay.
I'm sorry what? Simple yes or no answer please to the following question;
Are the hundreds of people who directly witnessed AA 77 fly into the pentagon telling the truth?you heard/read these 8000+ accounts?
Again if there is evidence that something other than AA 77 flew into the pentagon where is it? Why haven't emergency workers come forward to say "It was really weird watching those guys strew body parts and airplane wreckage into the crash zone?"
like i've said many times, it's not a leap of faith to assume that the us military have access to the best technology.
It's a leap of faith to assume that the cctv room in the pentagon has CSI miami like technology.
Clare guy what about reports of US soldiers going into battle with sub standard or non existent body and HMV armour. If they are the US military surely they'd have the best technology? Right? How about how one of the most effective tools in spotting improvised IAP devices is silly string sent by civilians to soldiers? They're the US military, why haven't they got the best technology?i never "cited" killtown, i showed a picture. you're putting words in my mouth again.
I'm just letting you know what kind of appalling human being propagates these conspiracy theoriesmy bad.
Very good you're admitting at least one of your eye witnesses, actually doesn't believe a missile hit the pentagon, but in fact AA 77. Perhaps you should now go back and examine other "eyewitnesses" that CTers claim support their missile theory.again subjective and none of the priests at the pentagon are quoted as to seeing what hit. irrelevant. plus, don't get me started on the religion conspiracy!:)
Riiiight. Clare guy you understand that thousands of people worked on the scene, coming across plane wreckage and the remains of passengers. These people were there in the seconds after the plane crash. Many of them required counseling afterwards, these priests gave this counseling. Are they and the people who counseled them, lying.Um... maybe?! He was a communications officer for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Yeah he's a credible "eye-witness" oh and he was made a major afterwards.
How many people are in on this according to you Clare guy?
You're accusing a man of lying because he received a small pay rise and promotion in the years following this.
Is your opinion of humanity so low that you feel someone can be bought for so cheap a price?again subjective. here's aquote from him...
"So many people think Mark and I watched the plane hit the building. We did NOT."
are you citing these people as witnesses to what happened at the pentagon?
they identified body parts in a lab...
I'm bunching these together because your point is becoming beyond credulous.
I ask again Clare guy where is your evidence the AA 77 did not hit the pentagon?0 -
Neither is irrelevant. Nor is it subjective comment. Hundreds of people have come forward to describe witnesses AA 77 fly into the Pentagon, how do you explain that.
Subjective is defined as, "Based on personal feeling or interpretation; not objective."
Any "eye witness" reports are subjective. How ever many reports there are, each one is different, each one is relative to that persons point of view. It may or may not be accurate because people see things differently.
As evidence it's questionable at best, in the context of this discussion it's irrelevant.
Where are you getting your information? There are not "hundreds of people" who have come forward claiming they "saw" flight 77 fly into the
pentagon.
You asked me....
"Or do you believe that the Washington Blvd an eight lane highway was deserted at 9:40 on a tuesday morning?"
I never said i thought this, therefore it's irrelevant...They've released footage, which was dismissed as fake.
I ask again what evidence would satisfy you?
Did you see a plane hit the pentagon in that footage? I certainly did not. If it clearly showed a plane it would be evidence.And the camera which write direct to hardrive? And the bandwidth to record multiple (dozens) of streams of video at 1:1 resolution? They existed?
I asked a friend in the cctv business and he said all of that was possible in 2001. Expensive and uncommon but not impossible.
The camera dosen't write direct to the hard-drive, the controller/p.c. does.
Who said anything about dozens of streams? The pics clearly showed 3 cameras on that side, 2 were on the corners, so that would make 10 cameras on the walls.Yes I can see how a background in video post production and media storage is completely irrelevant in a discussion about these exact issues. :rolleyes:
If this were a technical discussion then perhaps it'd be relevant, as far as i can see your just trying to look clever. It's not working.I'm sorry what? "Common Sense"? It's not common sense, its speculation and hypothesizing based on a limited understanding of Video technology.
The military is at least 10 years ahead of commercial release of technologies. It is "speculation" because i'm no expert on cctv technology (and from some of your statements i very much doubt whether you are either) but "common sense" tells me they had access to the technology (if they simply hadn't the technology to capture anything why don't they just say that and release the tapes?) and it's been confirmed to me by a friend in the cctv business.I'm sorry what? Simple yes or no answer please to the following question;
Are the hundreds of people who directly witnessed AA 77 fly into the pentagon telling the truth?
1. it's not "hundreds"
2. each one of them saw something different, it's subjective.Again if there is evidence that something other than AA 77 flew into the pentagon where is it? Why haven't emergency workers come forward to say "It was really weird watching those guys strew body parts and airplane wreckage into the crash zone?"
Subjective comment again. People were killed while working in the pentagon, when it got hit, their body-parts were in the crash zone.It's a leap of faith to assume that the cctv room in the pentagon has CSI miami like technology.
Who said anything about CSI miami?!! It certainly is a leap of faith to say that diogenes....Clare guy what about reports of US soldiers going into battle with sub standard or non existent body and HMV armour. If they are the US military surely they'd have the best technology? Right? How about how one of the most effective tools in spotting improvised IAP devices is silly string sent by civilians to soldiers? They're the US military, why haven't they got the best technology?
What about these reports, diogenes? Where are these reports? If there is a shortage of this equipment surely it's a supply issue or a priority issue? Are you really trying to say the us military DON'T have ACCESS to these items?I'm just letting you know what kind of appalling human being propagates these conspiracy theories
This is now your subjective comment. Irelevant.Very good you're admitting at least one of your eye witnesses, actually doesn't believe a missile hit the pentagon, but in fact AA 77. Perhaps you should now go back and examine other "eyewitnesses" that CTers claim support their missile theory.
I won't make excuses for anyone else.Riiiight. Clare guy you understand that thousands of people worked on the scene, coming across plane wreckage and the remains of passengers. These people were there in the seconds after the plane crash. Many of them required counseling afterwards, these priests gave this counseling. Are they and the people who counseled them, lying.
"thousands of people" were on the scene in "seconds"? don't be ridiculous.
Some people may very well have needed counselling it was a shocking event, what do you suppose caused these people distress? the bodies and body parts of the victims? people were killed while they were working that day in the pentagon, the plane supposedly vaporised, do you think the passengers bodies and parts didn't vaporise but carbon fibre and aluminium did?How many people are in on this according to you clare guy?
A surprisingly small number of people...
.You're accusing a man of lying because he received a small pay rise and promotion in the years following this
I'm not accusing him of anything, i'm simply saying if any of your cited "thousands" of witnesses would be biased/compromised it was captain/magor lieber.Is your opinion of humanity so low that you feel someone can be bought for so cheap a price?
I hold humans in the highest regard. How do you know what the price was?I'm bunching these together because your point is becoming beyond credulous.
These are all your chosen "witnesses" and there's no credibility in any of your responses...I ask again Clare guy where is your evidence the AA 77 did not hit the pentagon?
The only evidence presented as i see it is the video footage released by the pentagon and that is at best inconclusive and at worst fraudulant.
It seems to me you are happy to accept the reported (by "mass-media") story without question, hardly someone who should be on a conspiracy forum. This is a forum for "like-minded" individuals. Or even simply individuals, not sheep.
It's ironic really, seeing as your name is supposed to stand for cynicism, and that the original Diogenes believed wisdom and happiness belong to the man who is independent of society. Whereas you seem to run with the "mob". Your name seems wasted on you...0 -
Are you aware that the OP in this thread is citing someone who claims that no planes hit the twin towers? That the TV footage was completely faked?Did you see a plane hit the pentagon in that footage? I certainly did not. If it clearly showed a plane it would be evidence
Says who? Planes don't vaporise....the plane supposedly vaporised...0 -
Like i've said elsewhere, thet footage was at best inconclusive and at worst fraudulent. If it was conclusive no-one could argue, if they didn't have the technology fitted to the pentagon to capture it, why don't the say that and show the tapes?, if the confiscated tapes don't show anything why don't they release them?oscarBravo wrote: »Because it won't shut people up. When they released the footage they did, some "truthers" claimed it had been doctored.
You're always gonna have people who claim stuff was doctored, is that a good reason not to release such evidence? I don't think so.
My theory is the footage does show flight 77 hitting the pentagon but it possibly shows incriminating stuff like miltary planes shadowing/controlling the jet, or even worse that the plane was shot down?
There are extreme views, from both sides, out there and some of the more crazy ideas (no planes, "light weapons", osama/al-queda acted alone) are so far out you have to question whether it's disinformation?
Sorry. If you had read my earlier posts completely perhaps you would've seen where i was coming from and i wouldn't have gotten so frustrated. Sorry.Then I'd respectfully suggest not calling people idiots.
As far as i can see, it's THE hole.I don't consider the unreleased CCTV tapes a "hole".Most of the questions being asked are, like those in the site you linked, loaded and leading questions asked to further an agenda rather than to clarify anything.
Everybody has an opinion/point of view/agenda it's a matter of taking it all in and asking ones self, "what makes sense to me?"0 -
I am aware of that, yes.oscarBravo wrote: »Are you aware that the OP in this thread is citing someone who claims that no planes hit the twin towers? That the TV footage was completely faked?
It is widely reported by the government and especially by anti CT sites.oscarBravo wrote: »Says who? Planes don't vaporise.
The only video i can find when you google "plane hits conrete" is;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl0MhOdkREQ
"...suggest that the entire aircraft disintegrated rapidly..." Pentagon Building Performance Report
"On October 12, we started taking the stone off the building. We took down approximately 2,400 pieces of stone, a lot of which had melted aluminum from the plane embedded in it." Rich Bartram worker in renovation of pentagon.0 -
"Disintegrated rapidly" is a completely, totally, utterly different thing from "vaporised". I'm not being pedantic or dwelling on a minor semantic issue: it's quite simply not the same thing at all."...suggest that the entire aircraft disintegrated rapidly..." Pentagon Building Performance Report
Of course there was melted aluminium on the stonework, given the force of the impact and the intensity of the subsequent fire. That's still a completely different thing from saying that the plane vaporised."On October 12, we started taking the stone off the building. We took down approximately 2,400 pieces of stone, a lot of which had melted aluminum from the plane embedded in it." Rich Bartram worker in renovation of pentagon.
I'm dwelling on this point to highlight the fact that it's such a blatant straw man. "Truthers" ask questions like "how come remains were identified if the plane vaporised", when the plane just simply didn't vaporise.0 -
I'm trying to understand your full point here Clare_Guy. We all seem to agree that no high quality video exists of the plane hitting the pentagon. Or if it does exist no one in the wider world has seen it, although I'd be very doubtful it did considering the video technology mainly in use at the time and it would be to the benefit of the American government to release it if they had it. Whether any evidence is subjective or objective, the vast majority of it supports a large AA plane hitting the pentagon. There is no evidence, subjective or objective of military jets in the air over the pentagon at the same time as the plane hit, so why believe there was? I love a good story but that all that is, a story without foundation in fact.
You say if conclusive video existed then it would put an end to it. But that is patently ridiculous as two planes hit the twin towers, filmed from multiple directions by multiple people and still there are lots of people who say the damage wasn't caused by planes. Millions watched it live on TV and still... Why release such rubbish footage from the pentagon when they could fake up some decent video?
So lets look at this objectively...
1. Literally hundreds of people say they saw a plane.
2. Exactly where the plane was supposed to come in from the lamp posts are smashed to the ground... exactly. There are pictures and video of this.
3. Most of these lamp posts have nice dints near the top where something hit them hard. Check the pictures/video.
4. The generator in front of the building has a nice chunk out of it just where the plane would have come through. Again it's on the pictures and video.
5. There is a chunk out of the concrete right in front of the building just where a plane engine would have hit, and it's a semi circular chunk missing. Pictures and video.
6. Hundreds maybe thousands of people worked on the site after the event and there is testimony after testimony of plane wreckage and bodies.
So what I'd like to know is how you think a plane could be shadowed/controlled by military jets so that it would crash into a building? Would survival instinct not take over, even if the pilots were threatened by a jet would they actually fly into a building where they are sure to be killed, it doesn't make sense. Where is there evidence of this ever happening, since there is none at the pentagon? Handy that if the plane was shot down it flew directly into the front of the pentagon. In the reconstructions I've seen of planes being shot down they came down like a stone.
Planes don't vaporise... but aluminium burns at high temperature, the British had harsh experience of that during the Falklands war when their ships were hit by Argentinian missiles.
You can argue back and forth here until the cows come home but your theories have no evidence at all to support them directly.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
oscarBravo wrote: »What theories? Truthers don't have theories. Certainly they don't have anything approaching coherent hypotheses.
I was being nice
0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »Truthers don't have theories.
Sure they do....as long as you accept that the word "theory" has a meaning seperate from the scientific interpretation of the term.
As far as I can see, Clare_Guy has no alternative hypothesis. Indeed, I'm not entirely sure that CG rules out that a plane did hit the Pentagon. Rather, he is using a variation of "pics, or it didn't happen" to argue that video is an absolute requirement to establish that something occurred.
To put this in context...imagine a situation at a local sports event. The entire town has turned out to see two local GAA clubs play in a local Derby. Sometime during a stoppage of the game, a guy runs on to the pitch, walks up to a player, pulls out a gun, and puts a bullet through his head, killing him instantly. He then turns the gun on himself, blowing the back of his own head off.
Clare_guy's argument is akin to saying that if this wasn't captured on video there is no way of establishing that this is what happened. It doesn't matter how many of people watching the game testify that they saw Joe Bloggs walk on to the pitch, pull a gun on Fred Smith, hold it to his head, and pull the trigger, then do the same to himself.
It doesn't matter that Fred Smith verifiably died of a gunshot to the head, that Joe Bloggs tested positive for GSR, that the gun was found in his dead hands, nor that the bullets in both of them matched to the gun.
None of this matters. Because there was no video of the event, we are supposed to believe that we cannot know what happened.
If we take this analagy a bit further, we can also say that if it were the case that Fred Smith were a public servant, then the police shouldn't have been allowed investigate, as there was the possibility that Fred Smith was killed by parties unknown for political reasons.
Furthermore, we couldn't even say Smith died of a gunshot, because the coroner didn't test for traces of explosives inside his helmet. Indeed, the coroner is also a public servant and therefore inherently untrustworthy in this case and shouldn't be who carried out the autopsy at all.
Similarly, Neither Smith nor Bloggs were examined to see if an energy-based beam weapon could be to blame. That no-one can show such a weapon exists is irrelevant, as we cannot rule out that the very government Smith worked for would have secret development projects years ahead of what we in the public would know about.
Now...consider this....
If Bloggs did not commit suicide as described, but rather allowed himself to be apprehended...do you think that the above constitutes a reasonable defence? The lack of independant investigation....the lack of video evidence....the lack of considering explosives and beam-weapons as causes of death...should it get Bloggs off?0 -
he he he I like it Bonkey.0
-
Sure they do....as long as you accept that the word "theory" has a meaning seperate from the scientific interpretation of the term.
As far as I can see, Clare_Guy has no alternative hypothesis. Indeed, I'm not entirely sure that CG rules out that a plane did hit the Pentagon. Rather, he is using a variation of "pics, or it didn't happen" to argue that video is an absolute requirement to establish that something occurred.
To put this in context...imagine a situation at a local sports event. The entire town has turned out to see two local GAA clubs play in a local Derby. Sometime during a stoppage of the game, a guy runs on to the pitch, walks up to a player, pulls out a gun, and puts a bullet through his head, killing him instantly. He then turns the gun on himself, blowing the back of his own head off.
Clare_guy's argument is akin to saying that if this wasn't captured on video there is no way of establishing that this is what happened. It doesn't matter how many of people watching the game testify that they saw Joe Bloggs walk on to the pitch, pull a gun on Fred Smith, hold it to his head, and pull the trigger, then do the same to himself.
It doesn't matter that Fred Smith verifiably died of a gunshot to the head, that Joe Bloggs tested positive for GSR, that the gun was found in his dead hands, nor that the bullets in both of them matched to the gun.
None of this matters. Because there was no video of the event, we are supposed to believe that we cannot know what happened.
If we take this analagy a bit further, we can also say that if it were the case that Fred Smith were a public servant, then the police shouldn't have been allowed investigate, as there was the possibility that Fred Smith was killed by parties unknown for political reasons.
Furthermore, we couldn't even say Smith died of a gunshot, because the coroner didn't test for traces of explosives inside his helmet. Indeed, the coroner is also a public servant and therefore inherently untrustworthy in this case and shouldn't be who carried out the autopsy at all.
Similarly, Neither Smith nor Bloggs were examined to see if an energy-based beam weapon could be to blame. That no-one can show such a weapon exists is irrelevant, as we cannot rule out that the very government Smith worked for would have secret development projects years ahead of what we in the public would know about.
Now...consider this....
If Bloggs did not commit suicide as described, but rather allowed himself to be apprehended...do you think that the above constitutes a reasonable defence? The lack of independant investigation....the lack of video evidence....the lack of considering explosives and beam-weapons as causes of death...should it get Bloggs off?
Firstly, the word "theory" does not have a scientific meaning separate from any other meaning. A scientific theory is not more likely to be "true" than any other theory. Your taking the high "scientific" ground is not only unwarranted, but not even apt.
Secondly, your analogy is very disingenuous. It would be more fitting if
i) it was believed the GAA could have something to gain by framing the incident as a suicide
ii) there were a considerable number of conflicting reports
iii) it was known that there many cameras trained on the pitch that subsequently had their tapes confiscated by the GAA.0 -
Firstly, the word "theory" does not have a scientific meaning separate from any other meaning.
No sorry you're wrong. In Science a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess, as it can in common usage. In Science, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable.A scientific theory is not more likely to be "true" than any other theory.
A scientific theory is presented a something that is logical and testable.
A conspiracy theory is series of guesses conjecture and and speculation.Your taking the high "scientific" ground is not only unwarranted, but not even apt.
Oh its most apt. It sums to the difference in approach take by either sides in this debate.ii) there were a considerable number of conflicting reports
But to bring this back to the original point. There isn't a considerable number of conflicting reports about flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. There aren't even a significant number of conflicting reports.
The vast majority of people state they saw a large passenger jet, some even identified the airlines markings, fly overhead towards the pentagon, and either witnessed the plane hit the pentagon or the fireball, and the wreckage.
As to people who conspiracy theorists claim differ from the accepted majority it's regularly found out that they are being misquoted by the conspiracy theorists. An excellent example is Mike Wallace who Clare Guy cited earlier, who has gone on the record to state his account is being abused and he is being misquoted.
If a large number of witnesses saw an event and their accounts did not suffer some small inconsistencies I would be very surprised. To go back to our analogy if someone saw Joe shove Fred before Joe fired, or others saw Fred trip before Joe pulled his gun. But overall all eyewitnesses report the same, Joe walked onto the pitch shot Fred then himself
Like in the pentagon instance all the accounts are pretty much uniform, however they suffer from some minor discrepancies, but overall in the majority they all support the physical evidence, such as, damage to lightpoles, the generator, and the concrete all match the eyewitness accounts. As do photos of the wreckage, and the accounts of emergency workers who describe finding wreckage and body parts from the jet and passengers.
iii) it was known that there many cameras trained on the pitch that subsequently had their tapes confiscated by the GAA.
Hmmm a better analogy to describe the CT position is the conspiracy theorists arguing that because RTE have great cameras and RTE record GAA matches, RTE must have a broadcast quality copy of video of the murder.0 -
Secondly, your analogy is very disingenuous. It would be more fitting if
i) it was believed the GAA could have something to gain by framing the incident as a suicide
ii) there were a considerable number of conflicting reports
iii) it was known that there many cameras trained on the pitch that subsequently had their tapes confiscated by the GAA.
i) What did the American gain exactly from 911? With the republicans in charge they wouldn't have had to go even a fraction as far as happened on 911 to start a war. The Americans were left with egg on their faces and could have started a war over much less provocation so why the big conspiracy?
ii) As Diogenes says, there isn't a considerable amount of conflicting reports. There's about as much as you'd expect with so many different eye witnesses. But one thing is for sure they don't support a conspiracy.
iii) Let's look at it this way. What if the murder took place in the stands and the cameras point at the pitch. Would we believe it didn't happen even if hundreds of people in the stand saw it. The reason I mention the stands is that security cameras point downward, they don't point into the sky. My brother fits security systems and it is unusual even now for these systems to be 1:1 at high fps. In 2001 this would have been highly unusual. Add this to the fact you've got armed soldiers watching a building 24/7 I don't see the issue with poor footage, it would be expected. Stating or implying, as some have, that US military is 10 years ahead of everybody, at all times, in every location, at everything is a total joke.0 -
Secondly, your analogy is very disingenuous. It would be more fitting if
i) it was believed the GAA could have something to gain by framing the incident as a suicide
ii) there were a considerable number of conflicting reports
iii) it was known that there many cameras trained on the pitch that subsequently had their tapes confiscated by the GAA.
Dealing with these in order....and applying more accurate interpretations...
i) No. The GAA are saying what the witnesses say they saw. Joe Bloggs shot Fred Smith. The defence are saying that a third gunman shot both, and that the GAA are covering up an assassination of one of the men, for some totally unrelated reason. The government are also in on it, and consequently the forensics and coroner reports are not to be trusted in saying it was a handgun at close range.
ii) There are conflicting reports. Some people say they saw the guy use a small caliber handgun. Some say it was a Desert Eagle .45. Three people say it was a sub-machine gun, and one says he saw no gun, but heard a gunshot. Meanwhile, about 150 say they saw a black, squarish handgun, and of those, 35 know enough about guns to say that it looked like a Glock 9mm. They made their statements before it was released that the gun in Bloggs hand was a Glock 9mm, with 2 shots missing from the barrel, testing of which matched - as said earlier - with the bullets dug out of both corpses). Some people think Smith was wearing a jacket. Others say it was a pullover. Three say it was a t-shirt. The colour was either dark blue, brown, or maybe some other dark colour. The defence say that this degree of uncertainty proves that no-one really knows what anyone saw, and thus, Bloggs cannot be said for sure to have shot Smith.
iii) The defence are insisting that the security cameras in the office-block overlooking the stadium must have caught the event. They are saying that because the GAA have security staff inside and outside the grounds and are known to have security cameras at the gates, that its reasonable to say the GAA have cameras covering everything, and that the event - which took place in the middle of the pitch - must be recorded. Despite not identifying the location of a single camera which even has the pitch in its field of vision, they still insist that the lack of video proves that the video exists, and that its suppression proves that Bloggs is innocent.0 -
Diogenes,
Next time you see a scientist, ask him to test the Big Bang theory for me. Scientific theories are not all "systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable", as you put it. Some of them are even discredited in time.
As for all the other stuff, it is interesting to read witness accounts of the event. I think one has to accept that the overwhelming majority of witnesses saw a plane hit the Pentagon. But we also have a significant number of people who state they saw what they thought was a C-130H flying behind the plane, according to this site:
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html
What this could mean is anyone's guess, but I think these witness accounts are significant.
Also, it is reported that the FBI took tapes from 84 cameras around the Pentagon on the day. If people are saying they think they should be allowed to see what's on those tapes I think that's absolutely fair enough. In the case of most tapes, I'm sure you're right - there's probably nothing to see. But that is not the point. The tapes should be released.0 -
Diogenes,
Next time you see a scientist, ask him to test the Big Bang theory for me. Scientific theories are not all "systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable", as you put it. Some of them are even discredited in time.
As an aside the big bang theory is currently proven by the analysis of the spectrum of light from galaxies, which reveal a shift towards longer wavelengths proportional to each galaxy's distance in a relationship described by Hubble's law. IE that the galaxies are still expanding, a central tenant of the big bang theory. In 1964 cosmic background radiation was discovered, which was also theorized by the proponents of the big bang theory.
Thats not to say that the big bang theory is infallible, it is however a working scientific theory, which could in time replace the big bang theory. However this later theory would not be a guess but again a piece of
"systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable".
Suggesting anything else displays an ignorance of the scientific model of thinking and of the scientific definition of the word theory.As for all the other stuff, it is interesting to read witness accounts of the event. I think one has to accept that the overwhelming majority of witnesses saw a plane hit the Pentagon. But we also have a significant number of people who state they saw what they thought was a C-130H flying behind the plane, according to this site:
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html
What this could mean is anyone's guess, but I think these witness accounts are significant.
The last line is the most telling and brings me back to the point I'm making above, you don't know why it is significant, but you just think it is. You're just guessing, you're using the conspiracy theory definition of the word theory, not the scientific one .
If you had watched the history channel documentary on 911 conspiracy theories it interviews the actual pilot of the plane, who was ordered to tail
AA 77, but because his plane carried no weapons he was unable to do anything but watch.Also, it is reported that the FBI took tapes from 84 cameras around the Pentagon on the day. If people are saying they think they should be allowed to see what's on those tapes I think that's absolutely fair enough. In the case of most tapes, I'm sure you're right - there's probably nothing to see. But that is not the point. The tapes should be released.
Okay. Simple question, why?
Why should the FBI release the tapes just because some people are curious,? Are the FBI in the usual habit of releasing material relating to a criminal act that could be used as part of trial, or as evidence, just to satisfy the morbid curiosity of a few CTers.
Some video has been released, it does not satisfy the CTers, and in the case of CB_Brooklyn our thread starter, no video evidence would ever satisfy him.
How many hoops does the FBI need to jump through?0 -
Advertisement
-
You are too rude to continue corresponding with but just so you know, the Big Bang theory has not been "proven" and (to paraphrase yourself) suggesting otherwise displays an ignorance of the scientific model of thinking and of the scientific definition of the word "prove".
And I wasn't guessing. I have no guesses. What I have is the humility to recognise there are things I don't know. I'm not using any definition of the word theory when I say I find this significant - you are.
Why should the FBI release the tapes? Well, if you think it's just dandy that they should be held from the public for no apparent reason, that's fine for you. I don't.
The FBI jumping through hoops? Jesus Christ.
I shouldn't have bothered. It's like talking to a rottweiler.0
Advertisement