|
Post by scooter on Jan 28, 2007 13:57:58 GMT -4
Well, maybe it's time to cut our 100's of billions in foreign aid, bring all of the troops home from everywhere, and quit exporting anywhere...and CD the UN building and let someone buid one in a "friendlier" country. (as LionKing is discovering, they are pretty well bluff and bluster, with no teeth) What are YOUR opinions of Butler? Outline the cockpit windows/canopy of the airplane...if it's so clear to you...prove it. You just really don't like us, do you David? ...and you don't even live in the US, don't know us as people, and you smear us, condemn us, malign us and don't even know us. I'm a pretty nice guy, but I really resent your blanket judgementalism and narrow, myopic focus.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 28, 2007 14:11:00 GMT -4
Why not? Before the crash it would have been extremely easy to plant plane parts, bodies, or anything inside the building--it's out of sight. This is way past silly. It has as much connection with reality as saying it was done by blue fairies.
|
|
|
Post by AstroSmurf on Jan 28, 2007 15:29:42 GMT -4
And what in the blazes do Butler and that other guy's opinion of US foreign policy have to do with the physical evidence of 9/11? It's a complete non sequitur.
I don't agree with the US foreign policy - in fact, I think Harold Pinter had a lot of valid points (though he tended to be very confrontational). This does not have any relevance whatsoever to my informed opinion of what happened on 9/11, so it should be ignored in such a discussion. The only reason for mentioning it at all that I can see is an intentional attempt to derail the debate.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 29, 2007 0:05:08 GMT -4
David, have you ever been to the Pentagon? Have you seen how there's a freeway very near it and a lot of great bloody lawns all around it? How in the names of Gods is that "out of sight"? I mean, for pity's sake, the crash site was visible from security buildings scattered in the vicinity. That's not out of sight.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Jan 29, 2007 8:26:05 GMT -4
The reason I started asking these questions to you people who say that Apollo wasn't a hoax is to see how objective you people are. I wanted to see how you analyzed this picture. www.hongpong.com/lib/images/plane77_contrast_adj.jpgI also want to see how you respond to articles about US imperialism in the third world. I want to talk about both things--not just the Pentagon. The fact that the US exploits the third world is just a basic fact outside of the US. Inside the US not too many people are aware of it as the american press keeps everybody in a protective bubble. I am an American by the way. I spent three and a half years living in Mexico City in the eighties and I've been living in Madrid since 93. Please address the questions I've asked--both about the Pentagon and US imperialism in the third world. I want to see how objective you are if I'm going to talk to you about Apollo in this thread. apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1169203802What he said in that speech reflects reality. www.theunjustmedia.com/major_general_smedley_butler.htmYou can read more here. www.thirdworldtraveler.com/I haven't learned to do that yet but it's not necessary. It's the object inside the circle. www.hongpong.com/lib/images/plane77_contrast_adj.jpgThe cockpit is out of site to the left. The picture only shows the nose of the craft. As I said before, I'm an American. I didn't leave the country until I was twenty eight. I'd learned a lot of what the US does in the third world just by talking to people who'd traveled at university campuses in California before I went to live abroad myself. When I went to live in Mexico City, I started to learn a lot more--mostly about Latin America. Here in Madrid there are people from the Philippines, Africa, Arabian countries, and Latin America. The stories they tell me are consistent with what the articles at this site say. www.thirdworldtraveler.com/I know Americans alright. The ones who support the government have good intentions and upside-down information. The ones who protest are mostly people who've been able to find out the truth about US foreign policy by travelling or talking to foreigners. I want to hear some opinions on this article too. www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2567Your post is way past silly. Inside, out-of-sight, it would have been very easy to plant almost anything. No, I haven't but there's the theory that a 757 overflew the Pentagon just as a smaller plane came in from another angle and crashed into it. There must be some explanation--if this picture isn't doctored, it proves that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon--the nose is too pointed. www.hongpong.com/lib/images/plane77_contrast_adj.jpgThis is so obvious that you people can't be speaking your true minds. You definitely are not to be taken seriously when you analyze footage and photos of Apollo. You have shown that you are capable of saying things that you know to be untrue. I suppose that you'll keep avoiding my questions about US imperialism. If you say that the US is the good guys in the world as the american press would have us believe, you'll be totally discredited. As far as I'm concerned you're totally discredited now just because of your analyses of the photo of the nose of the plane that hit the Pentagon.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 29, 2007 9:03:33 GMT -4
I hope you find time to answer my post, Rocky. Consider it a test of your objectivity. Why not? Before the crash it would have been extremely easy to plant plane parts, bodies, or anything inside the building--it's out of sight. Out of sight? Yes, that's how hundreds of witnesses saw the plane crash into the building. Tell me Rocky, could you and your friends carry enough plane parts, many that are close to 100 lbs, into a burning building without anyone noticing? If you anyone that could, I'd love to see 'em in action. In which case, I refer you to our pal, Occam's Razor. When do you plan on getting around to reading on it? Okay, exactly where in that CNN article does it say that the white blob you refer us to is the front of a plane? And yes, it's an article, not a video. Another screw up on your part. Oh, so whatever this Bulter guys says flies with the rest of the world? I suppose you'd believe him if he told you that garden gnomes were responsible for 9/11. In any case, this has nothing to do with our photo analysis. Again, nothing to do with the analysis. Straw man argument, and non sequiter. But not you, apparently. You don't have room to talk. You're only saying this because we don't agree with what you're saying. You say the white blob is the front of a plane. We have told you it's smoke from the damaged engine, and that the 757 itself is visible, albeit faintly (due to it's color scheme). You haven't shown that you have qualifications to properly analyze the photo (you even admitted to such), yet you say our analysis, which, depending on the individual, is either based on those that are qualified, or their own qualifications, is not to be taken seriously. That is a poor position for you to maintain. Not everyone thinks as you do. A lot of people have open minds, and don't question everyone that disagrees with their world view. If everyone thought as you did Rocky, there's a good chance computers, heck even electricity, wouldn't exist. Again with the non sequiter argument. You accuse us of tactics, yet here you use them yourself. Only your credibility is on the line, because you brought up the issue with the photo. You wanted it analyzed. We're doing that. Now, here you are bringing up issues on "the US is the bad guy". To what end? You just can't seem to stay on topic. It has nothing to do with objectivity. You make yourself look like a kid with ADD. Stay focused, why don't you? Make new threads for your mountains of topics. Take things one step at a time, discussing them in their place.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 29, 2007 9:18:09 GMT -4
Your post is way past silly. Inside, out-of-sight, it would have been very easy to plant almost anything. Easy to hide large airplane parts inside a working office building? Ya, pull the other one. Have any evidence for this idea? I didn't think so. By the way what were you trying to contrast objectivity with anyway?
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 29, 2007 11:07:18 GMT -4
You haven't stated questions. You merely showed us links. Nevertheless, here we are provided answers. So, what's the problem? Then make a new thread. One topic per thread, that's how it works. Until then, no deal. Then make a new thread for that. I even have a title for it: "The Pentagon and US Imperialism". There, the rest is up to you for making a new thread. Good for you, you're anti-US. Your political views won't change the laws of physics, probablility, or what a person has seen. How about this explaination: You are wrong; the white blob isn't the front of a plane, but smoke. The 757 is there. It just isn't highly visible for two reasons; one, it is moving too fast for the camera's resolution. Two, the color scheme of bare metal means that it reflects the color of the sky and ground, so it's hard to see. Now, why is this explaination not anymore plausible than your ideas, Rocky? So, because we don't agree with what you say, you think we are lying? Strange logic on your part. You say this even though that you don't have qualifications or training in photo analysis? This is why I have trouble with you being a layman and yet making statements like this. You merely say this because we don't agree with your worldview. Hogwash. What we're saying is based on our experience. Others here have qualifications and training in the relevent fields as well. Just because someone doesn't agree with your views doesn't mean they're lying. Only until you make a new thread for that topic. Well, that's your view. Not everyone thinks as you do. When you say "objective", I assume you're using this definition: Treating or dealing with facts without distortion by personal feelings or prejudices. If that's the case, then it is appearent that it is you that is not objective, Rocky. You are letting your anti-US views cloud your judgements of the issues. You take in anything that supports your views, and discard the rest as being "damage control", "not objective", or "not speaking your true mind". Let me tell you this: I can't stand the current US president. I agree that GWB ought to be fired, that he should've never gotten us into Iraq. I have no support for the man. I even have a more personal reason to hate the war he started; my cousin will be going over there. I fear for his life. Yet, despite these feelings, I do not share the ideas that you do. I do not invent explainations for how an "inside job" could've been carried out, nor do I invent reasons for why Apollo was a hoax. Nor do I take ideas of such spread by others as gospel truth and label those that disagree with my views as "disinfo agents", "non-objective", or saying that they "do not speak their true mind". Talk is cheap, Rocky. What I and my colleuges have on our side is science. Use it. Also, do not forget to look up Occam's Razor. You really need to include that.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jan 29, 2007 13:09:51 GMT -4
David, Something you don't seem to realize is the political infighting within the lower echelons of government. When a new administration takes power, the previous government employees are not given pink slips and shown the door. Mant of these employees are "loyal" to the previous administration and on occasion have been know to do what they can to resist policy changes. Buerecratic (ack, sp) inertia. Bush inherited many loyal Clinton employees in the FBI CIA NSA et al. Do you honestly think these folks would be sitting on their hands if there was the slightest hint of Administration involvement in 9/11? And don't cry "but it's Top Secret"...so was the eastern European prison, and "somebody" leaked that without recrimination. Checks and balances... I see a blur in the photo, and it would not be "easy" to pre- or post plant the wreckage...there were very many people in those offices, a lot of them died, many didn't. Witnesses...none reported folks wandering the area with plane wreckage before or after the impacts. Not exactly something you wouldn't notice. Am I objective? To some degree, yes. Can I admit when I'm wrong? Yes, definitely. Can you?
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Jan 29, 2007 14:06:23 GMT -4
If anything was found inside the Pentagon, it would have been extremely easy to plant it inside the building long before September 11 as the walls of the Pentagon block the view from the highway. You seem to be playing the devil's advocate here--this is pretty obvious. The stuff to be planted could have been brought in through another part of the Pentagon and carried inside to the crash site a few days before the crash. There was work being done at the crash site. It would have been easy to park a truck near an opening in the wall and sneak some parts in. They could have been covered or in containers. Just because the press says that doesn't mean it's true. video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6317630216235657870From what I've been reading most of them say they saw a 757 fly over but didn't see the actual crash. As I've said before--a 757 might have really flown over the Pentagon just as a smaller craft came in at another angle. Witnesses can be planted too. In a case like this a picture such as this one outweighs any witnesses. www.hongpong.com/lib/images/plane77_contrast_adj.jpgLook at the shadow line; it's consistent with the shadow of the Pentagon. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor My understanding of Occam's razor is that when there are multiple explanations for something, the simplest one is usually the correct one. So your explanation is the simpest, therefore it's the correct one. That's very flawed thinking. That wouldn't lead to the correct conclusion one hundred percent of the time. It's better to follow logic and common sense--sometimes the simplest explanation is not the correct one. You have to click here-(Watch what the cameras caught as the plane slams into the Pentagon -- 2:21) I just watched it. It took a little over two minutes to fully download. From my viewpoint the whole point of this thread is to check your objectivity. From your viewpoint the whole point of this thread is to talk about the Pentagon. I can start another thread but it wouldn't be as an efficient use of space as covering it on one thread. I'll ask you one more time to address the questions about american imperialism on this thread. If you still hold the same line, I'll start another thread. To me starting another thread seems pointless, but if that's the only way you'll address my questions, I guess I'll have to do it. To me it seems like you're just stalling because you want to avoid these issues. I've said before I know this to be true just from living abroad for 17 years. I'm asking you to respond to this in order to test your objectivity. If I'm going to talk to ten people about whether Apollo was a hoax or not, I have the right to test their objectivity, don't I? This photo from the other camera belies that theory. 0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htmThe tail of the plane is visible. You people go on about science but ignore logic. Some things are so basic that all it takes is common sense and logic. What do you think of what the guy on CNN says about the object being the front of the plane? I doubt that many of the viewers are taking you seriously. Those pictures say it all--whatever hit the Pentagon was not a 757--9/11 was an inside job. Anyone who takes the stand that you people take on those pictures is not to be taken seriously when it comes to analyzing the Apollo photos. Stop playing dumb. I've explained this on serveral replies--I want to see how objective you people are if I'm going to discuss whether Apollo was a hoax with you. From my point of view you are avoiding the issue because you are between a rock and a hard place. You can't go against the official government version of american foreign policy. If you give the official government version of things, you will be thoroughly discredited in the eyes of thinking people. I guess I'll have to start the other thread to get you to answer my questions although it's a pointless waste of time. The fact that it's plausible is enough to make it worthy of consideration. Planting stuff inside a building from the inside a day or two before the crash would be easy. The walls would block the view from the highway. It would appear that the parts were from the plane that crashed. The same is true of bodies. The DNA report could be falsified. I got what I wanted as far as the photo is concerned. You have shown yourselves to be much less than objective when it comes to photo analysis. Now I want to see how you react to articles about american imperialism in the third world. The whole idea is to test your objectivity before we get on with the discuss in the Apollo thread. apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1169203802This is a very simplistic response. Go live abroad for a few years and you'll come back thinking like I do. There's no connection between the physics of 9/11 and US foreign policy. It is possible to talk about two subjects on one thread though if my aim is to test your objectivity. I suppose it's only natural to be difficult and resentful if someone says he wants to test your objectivity. As I said above--this phote from the other camera belies that theory. 0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htmThe tail of the plane is visible and the smoke from what is probably a missile being fired looks like smoke. The object on the right of this picture looks nothing like the smoke in the other picture--it looks like the nose of a plane. img65.imageshack.us/img65/7304/pentagon01gif8hw.gifAll that's necessary to see that is commons sense--not a masters degree in physics. By the way--what are your qualifications? Not that it will mean much if you have a masters degree as it is possible to have a masters and be a con artist too. I've made this very clear several times. I want to see how you react to articles that explain american imperialism in the third world to see how objective you are before I get into a long debate about Apollo with you. If you try to play down the articles or avoid talking about them, it will be obvious to any thinking informed person that you are less than objective and don't want to admit that the US is the "Bad guy" in all the conflicts it gets into and that the official version is hogwash. Someone who takes that position can be expected to say things he knows to be untrue in a discussion about Apollo. From my perspective I'm using science and you guys are trying to obfuscate the facts when you say the object on the right of the photo is smoke, or it's too blurry to make out. See above. It would have been extremely easy during the construction that was going on there. I don't see how you can say that with a straight face.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 29, 2007 14:30:46 GMT -4
The fact that it's plausible is enough to make it worthy of consideration. It could become plausible when some evidence presented itself. But not hidden from the people working at the crash site in the building these were large parts for engines and landing gear. What would have happened it the "missile" had missed its mark by 100 feet. Oops the parts are in the wrong place. Don't multiply assumptions unnecessarily.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Jan 29, 2007 14:47:44 GMT -4
You're either playing the devil's advocate or you're not equiped to deal with these kinds of topics. It's plausible because it could be done easily. You are ignoring logic.
That's obvious. The people working there were especially selected--they were in on the plan. If it's plausible, it has to be considered.
It's plausible that the technology was high enough for that not to be a problem. Anyway, if the cleanup crew was in on the plan, they could have ignored the planted parts and bodies and the press would never have reported it.
I can't see why you would say this. If it's plausible, it has to be considered.
|
|
|
Post by AstroSmurf on Jan 29, 2007 14:51:33 GMT -4
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Jan 29, 2007 14:57:41 GMT -4
You're either playing the devil's advocate or you're not equiped to deal with these kinds of topics. It's plausible because it could be done easily. You are ignoring logic. That's obvious. The people working there were especially selected--they were in on the plan. If it's plausible, it has to be considered. It's plausible that the technology was high enough for that not to be a problem. Anyway, if the cleanup crew was in on the plan, they could have ignored the planted parts and bodies and the press would never have reported it. I can't see why you would say this. If it's plausible, it has to be considered. It is not 'plausible". It may well be "possible" but possible and plausible do not equate. Plausible implies a high probability and your senarios do not have the required evidence to make them highly probable.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Jan 29, 2007 15:20:05 GMT -4
When I say plausible I mean workable as a plan or method. That's the dictionary definition I remember from long ago. If I say it's plausible that evidence was planted before the crash I mean that it's a plan that could realistically be carried out. If it could have been carried out with enough people cooperating, the possibility of that having happened can't be ruled out. If a 757 plane part was found in the wreckage, that alone is mere evidence--not proof. I saw on "Loose Change" that some parts were found that could not have come from a 757. I don't remember exactly what the time mark was. www.question911.com/linksall.htmThat picture rules out a 757 unless it was doctored by the government before they released it so any 757 part found at the crash site must have been planted. img65.imageshack.us/img65/7304/pentagon01gif8hw.gifAlso, what do you think of what the CNN announcer says about the object being the nose of the plane? www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pentagon.video/index.htmlClick here after you open the link. (Watch what the cameras caught as the plane slams into the Pentagon -- 2:21)
|
|