Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 29, 2007 16:41:16 GMT -4
rocky said:
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. And where is the evidence of this?
In regards to Occam's Razor, it is used to cut away elements of theories which cannot be observed.
Therefore, without evidence of this planting, then it's a moot point.
You can invent any number of possible explainations, regardless of how radical they may seem.
But with no evidence to support the claims, they hold no merit.
Your idea requires masses of people that have a hell of a motivation to carry out the tasks described.
But for what purpose?
There are easier ways for the govt to have framed the Arab world, if that's what you suggest with the "inside job" hypothesis. Why would the govt choose one that had a million to one odds in suceeding?
It just doens't hold up.
Just because the press says that doesn't mean it's true.
And yet, you believe the dozens of websites you link us to.
So, what makes conspiracy websites and videos any more believable than what "the press" says?
From 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.
People would know a difference between a 757 that merely flies overhead as opposed to one that heading for the Pentagon mere feet above the ground.
And why did no one spot this alleged smaller craft? It would have been tracked on radar, as well as being visible.
Witnesses can be planted too.
Again, Occam's Razor. No evidence of planted witnesses, no evidence of anyone being paid off or threatened.
In a case like this a picture such as this one outweighs any witnesses.
www.hongpong.com/lib/images/plane77_contrast_adj.jpg
Look at the shadow line; it's consistent with the shadow of the Pentagon.
So the shadow is the make or break for you? Is that the best you have to offer?
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.
Why not? Works for Einstien.
It's better to follow logic and common sense--sometimes the simplest explanation is not the correct one.
Good thing forensics don't follow that thinking style.
Logic is of little use without knowledge.
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.
I found it.
It doesn't support what you say.
The CNN commentor at no time says the white blob was the plane. The highlighted area just encompasses the smoke cloud and the plane itself.
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.
Well, look at the subject line. We're just following the topic.
I can start another thread but it wouldn't be as an efficient use of space as covering it on one thread.
That's just an exuse for you not to start another thread.
One is expected to remain on topic with a thread. Deviating from the topic makes it frustrating and over sized.
I'll ask you one more time to address the questions about american imperialism on this thread.
Keep on asking, because I won't do it on this thread.
Since politics is a weak point of mine anyway, I won't answer it at all. Ask someone else that knows more on politics than I do.
To me it seems like you're just stalling because you want to avoid these issues.
Yes, I want to avoid them because I'm not knowledge in them.
You'd do the same if someone asked you to talk about quantum gravity.
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?
If only that was your real aim, which I doubt it is.
I believe JayUtah covered that subject in the other thread about these "objectivity" tests.
It seems more like you see what our beliefs our concerning other subjects.
I can assure you, what I speak about Apollo, I only say from knowledge I have about the subject. My personal feelings do not come into play regarding my debunking of claims.
Happy now?
This photo from the other camera belies that theory.
0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm
The tail of the plane is visible.
You people go on about science but ignore logic.
Oh no, we use logic too. We just use knowledge along with it, where you seem to skip knowledge, and go straight to speculation.
Anyway, your pointed blob in the first frame of that photo is now shaped like a curly fry.
It also seems that in the photo you like to refer to, you ignore the blurry colored object in front of the white blob. Do you have a reason for that?
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?
In this manner, common sense and logic do not work.
We're dealing with a low res security camera and a high speed object.
In addition, logic dictates that one just doesn't rely on a single piece of the picture to derive the whole situation.
That's what we're doing; we don't rely on the photo of the plane impact. We also consider the plane parts, the DNA evidence, witnesses, radar tracking, ect.
The main difference I see with you is that you have to make claims of planted evidence and witnesses for your ideas to be correct. Of course, you can present no evidence to support your claims, aside from that one photo.
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.
From what I gather, your type are a minority.
The majority of people don't imagine death squads, planted witnesses, planted evidence, ect.
Nor do they hold a double standard between qualified individuals and conspiracy theorists.
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.
So, whoever doesn't agree with your view on the photo is discredited?
And what qualifications do you have to support your statement?
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.
Now that's one thing I agree with.
The fact that it's plausible is enough to make it worthy of consideration.
Problem there is that without one iota of evidence, it's not worth 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.
So show us the evidence that any of this might have happened.
Better yet, show any case prior cases that this was carried out.
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=1169203802
apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1169203802
We know how to find the thread; there was no need for you to link to it.
Anyway, it seems you made your mind up already.
You know, you could've read prior posts on the forum, rather than go through all this nonsense. Why didn't you do that?
Is it because you feel like such an expert at the "Inside job" hypothesis that you feel that's the only way you can truely know what a person thinks?
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.
No, it's resentful if someone changes topics in a specific thread.
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.
So if it doesn't mean much, why ask about it?
Oh well, I'll bite.
I have six years of experience as a diesel technician in the navy.
From 2002 to 2005, I worked on an aircraft carrier.
When it comes to planes, I go by what I've read in books, by what qualifed individuals say, as well as stuff I learned from watching various episodes of "Seconds from Disasters".
Should I go on?
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.
So, you test us with 9/11 and with ideas about Imperialism?
Why don't you just create a long test sheet and put it in a thread?
There are easier ways to see how objective a person is. Just read the past posts. And don't say you don't have the time; you have time to write the stuff you do as well as providing all these links. In the amount of time it takes to do that, you can read several posts in various threads.
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.
Straw man arguement.
If this is how you think, then why bother with the Apollo thread at all if you won't believe a thing we tell you about it after you form your opinions?
This "holier than thou" and "in your face" arguement is a very frustrating. It has nothing to do with our views. It has everything to do with our loosing paitence with you because of this ridiculous manner you choose to debate.
Debating doesn't consist of asking several non sequiter questions that have nothing to do with the topic, just to test objectivity.
It consists of staying on topic and not losing focus.
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.
No, you're not using science.
You're swallowing a steady diet of CT links and websites, and making speculations without seeking evidence and testing your hypothesis.
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.
We can say that because you have no evidence to support your claim.
Show us the evidence.
Also, you ought to consider this list, originally made by JayUtah:
- Unwillingness to agree conclusively to a begged question does not deny objectivity.
- Objectivity is not a requirement of reasoned debate.
- The lack of objectivity is not ipso facto bias.
- Saying something is obvious isn't a substitute for proof.