Not another 911 thread

alastair

nullzero wrote: »

For every piece of information that makes the official version look like it's true something else makes it look stupid (passports floating to the ground at the WTC anybody?).

And what causes you difficulty in believing that? Quite a few paper objects from the planes were recovered in the rubble and surrounding streets.
http://www.allbusiness.com/transportation/freight-package-postal-shipping-service/12932002-1.html

Bog Warrior

^ Lots of name-calling and not much debunking in that video.

There are many anomalies presented in September Clues series and this video comes nowhere near addressing any major portion of them.

Bog Warrior

If they found passports surely they found the black boxes? Right?

nullzero

alastair wrote: »

And what causes you difficulty in believing that? Quite a few paper objects from the planes were recovered in the rubble and surrounding streets.
http://www.allbusiness.com/transportation/freight-package-postal-shipping-service/12932002-1.html

If you want to believe that you're welcome my friend.

alastair

Bog Warrior wrote: »

If they found passports surely they found the black boxes? Right?

Why would that follow?

humanji

Threads Merged

alastair

nullzero wrote: »

If you want to believe that you're welcome my friend.

Cheers.

nullzero

alastair wrote: »

Cheers.

You're very welcome.

alastair

nullzero wrote: »

You're very welcome.

Just curious - you have problems with paper surviving the crash, or you have problems with all the plane debris found in the area because the 'truth is there wasn't a plane - but a secret technology ball fired at the building'? Just need to know which flavour of delusion is at play here.

Bog Warrior

alastair wrote: »

Why would that follow?

Perhaps because a black box is designed to withstand aircraft crashes being made of metals and such, passports being made of paper are less likely to survive.

Di0genes

Bog Warrior wrote: »

If they found passports surely they found the black boxes? Right?

That doesn't necessarily have to true.

Di0genes

Bog Warrior wrote: »

Perhaps because a black box is designed to withstand aircraft crashes being made of metals and such, passports being made of paper are less likely to survive.

Again a fallacy.

Bog Warrior

Di0genes wrote: »

That doesn't necessarily have to true.

I never said it had to be true, why, did they never find the black boxes? How about the pentagon and Pennsylvania ones?

Bog Warrior

Di0genes wrote: »

Again a fallacy.

Care to elaborate? Or should I just take it a blind fact?

Di0genes

Bog Warrior wrote: »

I never said it had to be true, why, did they never find the black boxes? How about the pentagon and Pennsylvania ones?

They found both the pentagon and United 93's black box.

And it's a fallacy because you're stating because they must have found X they also must have found Y. Paper is stronger than Bone right? Sound ergo the passengers should have survived. It's a juvenile tactic.

And so what if they didn't find the black boxes. What's your point?

espinolman

So , it was flying saucers that hit the twin towers . :eek:

Bog Warrior

Di0genes wrote: »

They found both the pentagon and United 93's black box.

And it's a fallacy because you're stating because they must have found X they also must have found Y. Paper is stronger than Bone right? Sound ergo the passengers should have survived. It's a juvenile tactic.

And so what if they didn't find the black boxes. What's your point?

This is a ridiculous response. For a start you are mis-quoting me. Read it again. I said the logic follows that it is more likely that a box designed to withstand impact and fire would be found at a crash site than a passport made of paper.

This has got no relation to your illogical statement about bone or passengers surviving the impact.

You stated that it's a fallacy that a black box is more likely to survive than a passport. If you can't explain your claim then we''ll leave it there.

Di0genes wrote: »

Again a fallacy.

alastair

espinolman wrote: »

So , it was flying saucers that hit the twin towers . :eek:

Don't be ridiculous - it was a secret technology flying ball, seamlessly disguised on hundreds of images by a cgi plane. Or a a hologram. Just ignore the missing planes, the calls from the planes, the radar tracking of the planes, the bits of plane debris, the bodies in the pentagon, the hundreds of eywitnesses, video and photos, and it all makes perfect sense - either a ball or a hologram.

alastair

Bog Warrior wrote: »

You stated that it's a fallacy that a black box is more likely to survive than a passport.

Which it is - you don't know the specifics of what either impacted, what forces were applied to either, and where they ended up in relation to the subsequent fire and building collapse. The fallacy is to presume that both were subject to anything like the same stresses.

Bits of undercarriage were thrown clear of the building - and last I heard rubber ought to burn rather more easily than metal, and yet there it is - intact and unburned.

Di0genes

Bog Warrior wrote: »

This is a ridiculous response. For a start you are mis-quoting me. Read it again. I said the logic follows that it is more likely that a box designed to withstand impact and fire would be found at a crash site than a passport made of paper.

And I'll think you'll find that black boxes aren't designed to survive being flown intentionally into buildings.

This has got no relation to your illogical statement about bone or passengers surviving the impact.

No it was perfectly logically.

You stated that it's a fallacy that a black box is more likely to survive than a passport. If you can't explain your claim then we''ll leave it there.

Pedantry appears to be your only response.

You don't seem interested in explaining why you think the black boxes are significant.

My name is URL

alastair wrote: »

Or if you'd like the scientific explanation for why nutjob Baslamo is wrong:
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/Sept11/Balsamo/balsamo2.html

I'm not going to let on that I know what most of that means, but I smiled at the bit where he accused Balsamo of arguing from authority, and then attacked his character

Clinger PhD (MIT, 1981, mathematics) has no experience in flying airliners

alastair

My name is URL wrote: »

I'm not going to let on that I know what most of that means, but I smiled at the bit where he accused Balsamo of arguing from authority, and the attacked his character

Clinger PhD (MIT, 1981, mathematics) has no experience in flying airliners

What's the problem with Balsamo being both wrong and disingenious? - it's not an 'either, or' scenario, and the science doesn't change even if he's the nicest chap you'd ever meet.

Bog Warrior

Di0genes wrote: »

And I'll think you'll find that black boxes aren't designed to survive being flown intentionally into buildings.



No it was perfectly logically.



Pedantry appears to be your only response.

You don't seem interested in explaining why you think the black boxes are significant.

Having visited boards for the past month or so, I can identify your role and purpose on this CT forum. You create ongoing, looping arguments based on false logic and unsubstantiated claims with the intention of distracting the focus and attention from the debate. You do not address challenges to your logic or back up your claims.

The net effect is people become embroiled in a perpetual nonsensical argument with you, diverting their thought and energy from the real questions at hand and slowing down the process of enlightened debate.

That I should be asked to explain why I think that black boxes are significant is another bewildering example. Any rational thinker should be able to identify the significance of the data held in the black boxes. It seems you haven't worked it out. If this data were available, open and verifiable, it would put and end to the 'no planes' theory for a start.

I will not engage in roundabout arguments with you and hope other CT forum visitors will see past your diversions.

My name is URL

alastair wrote: »

What's the problem with Balsamo being both wrong and disingenious? - it's not an 'either, or' scenario, and the science doesn't change even if he's the nicest chap you'd ever meet.

There's no problem with him being wrong at all. I just found humorous the language Clinger used to diminish Balsamo's position while at the same time accusing him of arguing from authority.

I haven't even watched the video tbh, what's the point

Di0genes

Bog Warrior wrote: »

Having visited boards for the past month or so, I can identify your role and purpose on this CT forum. You create ongoing, looping arguments based on false logic and unsubstantiated claims with the intention of distracting the focus and attention from the debate. You do not address challenges to your logic or back up your claims.

The net effect is people become embroiled in a perpetual nonsensical argument with you, diverting their thought and energy from the real questions at hand and slowing down the process of enlightened debate.

Thats really impressive the way you attack my character and arguments claiming I engage in ad hominems, in one long winded ad hominem of your own.

That I should be asked to explain why I think that black boxes are significant is another bewildering example. Any rational thinker should be able to identify the significance of the data held in the black boxes. It seems you haven't worked it out. If this data were available, open and verifiable, it would put and end to the 'no planes' theory for a start.

See the people arguing the "no planes theory" are claiming that the footage of the plane hitting the towers was faked.

How exactly would producing the black box data convince them otherwise. Surely they'd claim this data was also faked?

King Mob

Bog Warrior wrote: »

Having visited boards for the past month or so, I can identify your role and purpose on this CT forum. You create ongoing, looping arguments based on false logic and unsubstantiated claims with the intention of distracting the focus and attention from the debate. You do not address challenges to your logic or back up your claims.

The net effect is people become embroiled in a perpetual nonsensical argument with you, diverting their thought and energy from the real questions at hand and slowing down the process of enlightened debate.

That I should be asked to explain why I think that black boxes are significant is another bewildering example. Any rational thinker should be able to identify the significance of the data held in the black boxes. It seems you haven't worked it out. If this data were available, open and verifiable, it would put and end to the 'no planes' theory for a start.

I will not engage in roundabout arguments with you and hope other CT forum visitors will see past your diversions.

Passports are made of a light flexible material called paper. This paper can be easily blown about by explosions and fire, even clear of the crash site.
A black box on the other hand is made of heavy bomb proof metal and is not easily blown around.
The passport could have easily have been blow out of the plane and building into the street, like many other light objects. The black box would have been trapped in the building and buried in the resulting rubble.
The reason they didn't find is likely because it was smashed beyond all recognition and the crews probably had more important things to worry about, like finding survivors.

But assuming that all the nonsense no planes bollox was true, why didn't they find the blackbox?
Why not just fake it like you think they faked everything else?

But if the people who believe there wasn't any planes despite the videos, the witnesses and wreckage, a black box won't convince them.
Some people are just too closed minded.

Bog Warrior

Di0genes wrote: »

How exactly would producing the black box data convince them otherwise. Surely they'd claim this data was also faked?

It should be obvious that the disclosing of all information, opening it to verification and close examination, would support the disclosure of the truth and only help the US government, if the truth is as they say it is.

Why not release to scrutinisation the black box information from the pentagon and Pennsylvania? Passenger lists? CCTV of the hi-jackers in the airports? CCTV of the Pentagon Plane?

beans

The 'September Clues' video presents a lot of false claims as the truth (eg the 'nose out' bit), so I don't value it much, but it's an interesting watch all the same.

The most interesting unexplained aspects of the footage to me is the anomalous object on the belly of the second plane to hit the towers. Does anyone have a good theory to explain it, because such a bump shouldn't be there on a normal passenger craft, as far as I know.

Looks like the kind of bump you might see on a plane with lots of radar capabilities to me.



Ok, here's a theory to explain that bump

One of the clearest, most widely seen pictures of the doomed jet's undercarriage was taken by photographer Rob Howard and published in New York magazine and elsewhere (opening page and at right). PM sent a digital scan of the original photo to Ronald Greeley, director of the Space Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University. Greeley is an expert at analyzing images to determine the shape and features of geological formations based on shadow and light effects. After studying the high-resolution image and comparing it to photos of a Boeing 767-200ER's undercarriage, Greeley dismissed the notion that the Howard photo reveals a "pod." In fact, the photo reveals only the Boeing's right fairing, a pronounced bulge that contains the landing gear. He concludes that sunlight glinting off the fairing gave it an exaggerated look. "Such a glint causes a blossoming (enlargement) on film," he writes in an e-mail to PM, "which tends to be amplified in digital versions of images--the pixels are saturated and tend to 'spill over' to adjacent pixels." When asked about pods attached to civilian aircraft, Fred E. Culick, professor of aeronautics at the California Institute of Technology, gave a blunter response: "That's bull. They're really stretching."

Bog Warrior

King Mob wrote: »

Passports are made of a light flexible material called paper. This paper can be easily blown about by explosions and fire, even clear of the crash site.
A black box on the other hand is made of heavy bomb proof metal and is not easily blown around.
The passport could have easily have been blow out of the plane and building into the street, like many other light objects. The black box would have been trapped in the building and buried in the resulting rubble.
The reason they didn't find is likely because it was smashed beyond all recognition and the crews probably had more important things to worry about, like finding survivors.

But assuming that all the nonsense no planes bollox was true, why didn't they find the blackbox?
Why not just fake it like you think they faked everything else?

But if the people who believe there wasn't any planes despite the videos, the witnesses and wreckage, a black box won't convince them.
Some people are just too closed minded.

I understand that very well and can see how a passport could be found, yet the black box destroyed. However, very often the black box is the only artifact to survive a crash. I maintain that the black box is more likely to survive any crash than a passport.

I don't believe they faked the planes. I do think there are strange things about the footage on 911 like vanishing backgrounds and missing heliopters.

alastair

beans wrote: »

Does anyone have a good theory to explain it, because such a bump shouldn't be there on a normal passenger craft, as far as I know.

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html