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
-
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.
Falsifiable may have been a better choice of words than testable, but Diogenes definition is essentially correct.
Ask a scientist to formulate a falsifiable test regarding the Big Bang theory, and you've no problem. They can give you a test, which if the result is false, says that the Big Bang did not occur.
That is the essence of science - falsifiability. In a nutshell - if you cannot show something to be false, it is not scientific. Thus, when people ask (as an example) for proof that they have a theory that there were security cameras covering the Pentagon crash which showed it in detail, there's a problem as their assertion cannot be proven false. Instead, the scientific approach is to say that there were no cameras which captured the event in detail. This is falsifiable - you just have to produce one clear shot, or prove that a certain camera should (beyond reasonable doubt) have caught what is claimed, and there you go.
You could provide hours of coverage, from hundreds of cameras, all showing nothing, and all the unbeliever has to say is that they think one of the cameras has footage modified, or omitted, or that there are "obviously" more cameras who's footage was not included. Its not falsifable. Its not scientific.
Thus, if one says that they have a theory that a camera caught something, they cannot mean the term scientifically. However, one can have a theory that no camera caught something and mean it scientifically.
I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean that some are shown to be false, thats correct....some previously-accepted theories are shown to be false because falsifiability is a fundamental requirement of a theory. Once shown to be false, a theory is either modified, discarded, or accepted to be applicable within certain limitsSome of them are even discredited in time.
In fairness, there's a significant number of people who state that they saw a second plane - a C-130 flying in the area. There are few (if any) witnesses who claim the C130 hit the building, or that no plane hit the building but that the C130 fired a missile, or somesuch. Very few (if any) of the quotes claim the C130 flew behind the AA airliner. At least one claims it was directly overhead. Several claim it appeared / was noticed / was heard only shortly after the crash.But we also have a significant number of people who state they saw what they thought was a C-130H flying behind the plane,
I searched that link you gave for the term C130, and here's what we get:
Allen Cleveland says that "Soon after the crash (Within 30 seconds of the crash) I witnessed a military cargo plane (Possibly a C130) fly over the crash site".
Scott P. Cook says that "less than a minute after the explosion, we saw an odd sight that no one else has yet commented on. Directly in back of the plume, which would place it almost due west from our office, a four-engine propeller plane, which Ray later said resembled a C-130, started a steep decent towards the Pentagon
From the quote at6tributed to Kenneth McClellan, we get this gem: "C-130 crew saw Pentagon strike, official confirms".
John O'Keefe says he saw a plane he immediately recognised as an AA commercial airliner hit the Pentagon, looked for a second plane, and then "the plane -- it looked like a C-130 cargo plane -- started turning away from the Pentagon, it did a complete turnaround"
Phillip Thompson says that "I heard the scream of a jet engine and, turning to look, saw my driver's side window filled with the fuselage of the doomed airliner. It was flying only a couple of hundred feet off the ground - I could see the passenger windows glide by. ... The fireball that erupted upon impact blossomed skyward, and the blast hit us in a wave. ... What if 'dash two' was inbound to the Pentagon? Then a gray C-130 flew overhead, setting off a new round of panic."
The witness accounts give us reason to believe that an American Airlines passenger jet crashed into the pentagon, and that there was a C130 somewhere in the vicinity, somwhere around the same time. If you check the full quote for Kenneth McClellan, you'll see that its officially confirmed that there was a C130 somewhere in the vicinity, and that the crew of this plane were amongst the witnesses of the event.What this could mean is anyone's guess, but I think these witness accounts are significant.
As to what it means? It means there was a C130 in the area. No question. Its accepted. A few seconds with google provides this link which shows that the plane is known to have been there, that the reason for its being there is known, that where it came from is known, and where it was supposed to be going is known.
Eyewitness accounts match with established fact. Where is the problem? Why should we believe that this is sinister?
More importantly, can you identify the specific quotes that give you reason to believe there is some mystery about the C130? How many eyewitnesses can you find who's quotes will then support this mystery? I'm betting its not that many...
I think its completely fair that people say whatever they want. I do not agree, however, that Joe Q Public needs to be shown tapes that show nothing. It is up to someone to firstly establish that a camera (or cameras) should show something before there is anything to discuss....which brings us neatly full-circle to the notion of falsifiability. No-one can prove that no camera caught anything, and to that end, releasing the tapes can achieve nothing. Its a non-falsifiable test.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 -
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".
Hmmm seeing as you're the person who said just a few posts ago;Firstly, the word "theory" does not have a scientific meaning separate from any other meaning.
And its been shown that you didn't know that in science the word theory has a separate meaning than in every day usage, you'll pardon me, if I now disagree with your claim that you understand the concept of a scientific proof better than I.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.
You're also not saying why you deem it "significant". Is the sight of a military cargo plane over Washington DC so unusual that it is "significant"? You don't say. Perhaps you find it's timing "significant"? You don't say.
And you may have the humility to admit you don't know, but you also display the apathy to not research your own link as thoroughly as others.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.
But again Eeb, you miss the point, you don't offer examples of other instances when the FBI have given out evidence freely to the public? Why should they change just for this?0 -
Eeb answer me a question please... If all the camera footage was released by the FBI, showing nothing of note, would you then believe they weren't hiding anything?
As has been pointed out here several times security cameras point downwards not up into the sky. For me it would be quite suspicious given that most of the footage from these cameras would be fairly lo-res and short range (especially in 2001) if the FBI produced clear footage of flight 77 approaching the pentagon. The chances are this footage really does show nothing. As I mentioned previously my brother fits security systems so I asked him what he thought. He thinks it's very doubtful that unless someone caught it on their camcorder that any proper footage exists.0 -
Eeb answer me a question please... If all the camera footage was released by the FBI, showing nothing of note, would you then believe they weren't hiding anything?
You've reminded me of another question I meant to ask...
For anyone who believes that the Pentagon would not have used CCTV-quality (i.e. resolution, frame-rate, etc.) cameras for their CCTV coverage, but rather something more comparable to broadcast-quality....how do you interpret the fact that all footage released to date from Pentagon cameras have been CCTV-quality???0 -
-
Advertisement
-
The "plane" hit the ground floor! Hardly "up into the sky"...As has been pointed out here several times security cameras point downwards not up into the sky.
you have no basis for this assumption.For me it would be quite suspicious given that most of the footage from these cameras would be fairly lo-res and short range (especially in 2001) if the FBI produced clear footage of flight 77 approaching the pentagon. The chances are this footage really does show nothing.
well if your brother is doubtful... :rolleyes:As I mentioned previously my brother fits security systems so I asked him what he thought. He thinks it's very doubtful that unless someone caught it on their camcorder that any proper footage exists.0 -
if you can't see the possible significance then that's your problem. You just go back to fox and stay warm in the knowledge that everything's gonna be alright...You're also not saying why you deem it "significant". Is the sight of a military cargo plane over Washington DC so unusual that it is "significant"? You don't say. Perhaps you find it's timing "significant"? You don't say?0 -
"all the footage"!!!! are you serious? 2 cameras, 3mins of "footage"....?
I said all the footage released to date, so yes, I'm completely serious.
I'm so serious I'm willing to say that if you can show me released footage from fixed-position security cameras from the Pentagon which is of broadcast quality, I will agree not to post again on this forum.
If you believe there is non-released footage which is better than CCTV quality - which presumably you do - then the onus is on you to provide evidence that the footage exists and that it is better than CCTC quality. It still doesn't make my statement false, given that I referred explicitly to released footage.0 -
The "plane" hit the ground floor! Hardly "up into the sky"...
It hit the top of lampposts directly in front of the buliding. Judging by the impacts, which you can see in the pictures and video the plane may still have been two stories off the ground. This was only across the road so even slightly further out it would even higher up. So as security cameras point at the ground they would be unlikely to see anything. It's quite obvious, it doesn't take any real consideration.you have no basis for this assumption.
Yes it was an assumption that cctv was low-res and short-range in 2001 in the area of the pentagon. I can't say for sure what the set up was like in Washington DC in general at the time either. But I have no problem believing a plane hit the pentagon given all the well documented evidence. To prove your theory you need to show that there were hi-res long-range cameras in the area at the time, which you have failed to do. So you've told a nice story with no provable basis in fact.well if your brother is doubtful... :rolleyes:
He is what you might call an expert in these matters and he thinks it's very doubtful that these hi-res long-range cameras would have been in place at the time. They existed but where prohibitively expensive and were not in common use. Even now they are not in common use for building cctv.0 -
if you can't see the possible significance then that's your problem. You just go back to fox and stay warm in the knowledge that everything's gonna be alright...
My understanding is that there was something in the area of 3,000 planes in the skies over the US on 911. The US have the biggest Air force on earth. So I don't begin to see how a cargo plane being in the sky in area of an Air Force base is significant or any plane for that matter since Ronald Reagan international airport is close too. A cargo plane which had a known flight plan, which reported it's position as required and from which the pilots are known and have made witness statements. I'll tell you what would be significant... If there were NO planes in the air in such a busy part of the US at the time, that would be off.0 -
Advertisement
-
if you can't see the possible significance then that's your problem. You just go back to fox and stay warm in the knowledge that everything's gonna be alright...
Alternatively if you cannot explain the significance, go back to your paranoid fantasy websites and live in perpetual fear.well if your brother is doubtful..
Didn't you invent a "friend" who told you 1:1 video streaming to a pc was possible in 2001?
Of course you didn't seem to think about the fact that each camera, inside and out of the pentagon, would need it's own PC to record each video feed, from the cameras inside and outside the pentagon, and the miles of cabling this would require not to mention the vast bank of PCs needed to record all these video feeds.
Seems to me Clare guy you're quick to dismiss anyone's personal knowledge of something relevant, unless they're a "mate" of yours.0 -
Just a quick note on the talk of video streaming to PCs. Is it possible that if they did have video streaming PCs then the explosion of the plane that hit the pentagon wiped some of the data on the hard drives of these PCs due to EMP?
I've seen a few TV programs (for example Mythbusters) where they have small explosions that render their cameras out of service at the precise time the explosion happens. Therefore a larger explosion could very well do more damage.
Just a thought.0
Advertisement