|
Post by turbonium on Mar 1, 2007 1:17:59 GMT -4
And the white plane seen in the vicinity was a figment of everybody's imagination. Did any of the witnesses see the white plane shoot at Flight 93? Seeing the plane fly overhead and actually seeing it shoot down Flight 93 are two different things. It appears you have reached that conclusion without any evidence to support it. Hold on a minute - I have not reached any conclusion on Flt. 93. There are several witness accounts I cited (in post #81) that tend to support the theory that Flt.93 was shot down. The debris field further lends support to a shoot down. But I did not claim it was conclusively proven, nor that I have reached this conclusion. If anything, it appears that you have managed to reach your own conclusion about my position. I hate when conspiracy theorists "connect the dots". Just because there may have been a second plane in the area does not mean it is responsible for the crash. If you are going to make claims like that I want to see supporting evidence. If you believe a Global Hawk crashed into the Pentagon prove it. If you believe there were demolition bombs in the WTC then prove it. Accusations are meaningless without proof. Of course, the official claims for what hit the Pentagon, and what caused the collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7, are also meaningless without proof. Since we have been waiting to see that proof for well over five years now, it's painfully obvious that such proof does not exist. Otherwise, it would have been shown to us by this time. This is the most important point to consider, before going forward to look into alternative explanations. One of the main problems I have with GCT's is that they will not accept that their theory is entirely devoid of valid evidence. They accept official claims on nothing but unsubstantiated statements. The 9/11 Commission Report, the FEMA and NIST Reports, are considered the last word on the events of 9/11. The fact that these reports are rife with inconsistencies, leaps in logic, outright fallacies, and omissions of contradictory evidence, does not deter the GCT from supporting them. And because the official claims are indefensible, they simply turn the question around and ask for evidence for alternative theories. Uncovering the truth about 9/11 means looking into all[/i] the evidence. That is what continues to be done by many researchers, despite the suppression of so much evidence by the government itself. Hands down, they are the greatest hindrance to the discovery of the truth about 9/11. GCT's insist that the destruction, confiscation, and suppression of enormous amounts of evidence have not been the result of intentional acts of government malfeasance. They come up with all sorts of "reasons" to support their actions, such as... "They are withholding evidence for reasons of national security" "The evidence they haven't released won't show anything different" "If they released it, you'd only claim it's been faked / altered by the government, anyway" There's always one lame excuse or another, it seems....
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 1, 2007 2:24:48 GMT -4
"If they released it, you'd only claim it's been faked / altered by the government, anyway" There's always one lame excuse or another, it seems.... Actually, that isn't a lame excuse. Seriously--what released evidence haven't you claimed has been faked/altered by the government?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 1, 2007 3:23:50 GMT -4
Nomuse handled that pretty well. You missed your calling as a pretzel maker! Well done! After using your own sources to actually go over every witness account, I was convinced your argument had been utterly falsified. But you've really outdone yourself this time. Sheer brilliance! You do know that the person who actually took the 911 call and the caller’s brother (who heard the tape) said Edward Felt said no such thing. www.911myths.com/html/explosion_and_smoke.html None of the numerous people who saw the plane crash or shortly before it crashed reported any signs of the plane being damaged "Numerous people" did not see the plane crash. And several witnesses reported seeing debris falling for miles around the area. If the debris wasn't from damage to the plane, then please explain where else it could have been from... - Odd that if there was a plot they didn’t alter the FDR Not odd, considering the many other glaring mistakes that were made. There is no such thing as a "perfect" crime, or so the saying goes. And a crime of such massive proportions is bound to leave overlooked evidence, despite the very determined efforts made to destroy, confiscate, and suppress it all. - The reports aren’t that inconsistent, it is normal for witness accounts to vary on details (the famous Rashemon effect) also some witnesses saw the plane at different moments. Those that reported seeing it dive to the ground are pretty consistent. The accounts vary quite significantly, indeed - across the entire event. There are only two witnesses who claim to have actually seen it hit the ground, and even those reports are dubious. But it's incorrect to claim the witnesses consistently saw it dive straight down into the ground. Sure, some claim they saw it do a vertical nose dive. But other witnesses say it did everything from multiple somersaults to backward flips to radical wing fluttering before it crashed. The accounts are far from consistent in any regard. -If we had for example 20 witnesses who said it crash at close to 90 degrees and none say it did so at 45 the most logical conclusion would be that there was a problem with the FDR or the interpretation of the data. Perhaps it would help lend credence to such an argument. But since this isn't what happened, it's not relevant to the issue. But I agree the plane probably crashed at around 40 degrees though the possibility it did at 90 can not be discounted. Well, that's something encouraging to note (perhaps). That brings us to the hole at Shanksville, then. Do you find it consistent in any way with a 40 degree crash? If so, how? No one disputes the white jet was in the area. ?? Other than the proponents of the official story! The 9/11 Commission made no mention of another plane (white or otherwise) in the vicinity of Flt. 93 at the time. You disagree with the official account in this regard, then. Citations AFAIK no one reported seeing a pre-crash explosion. Several reported booms but a passenger jet flying low and erratically at 580 mph might be expected to do that. They normally only fly so fast at high altitude where air pressure is much lower There were reports of falling debris, however.... Meanwhile, investigators also are combing a second crime scene in nearby Indian Lake (2.5 miles from main crash site), where residents reported hearing the doomed jetliner flying over at a low altitude before "falling apart on their homes."
"People were calling in and reporting pieces of plane falling," a state trooper said. Jim Stop reported he had seen the hijacked Boeing 757 fly over him as he was fishing. He said he could see parts falling from the plane.(Pittsburgh Tribune, 9/13/01) - can't find link online. It's hard to imagine the plane wasn't responsible for the falling debris. Paper and seat covers etc 8 miles downwind and beyond the flight path New Baltimore is 8 miles from the purported crash site, and separated by a mountain ridge. There was a "..nine-knot wind"www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010916otherjetnat5p5.aspThe wind wasn't strong enough to blow debris eight miles away, and over a mountain ridge! The author(s) say the hole is inconsistent but offer no evidence to back his-her-their claim. Only two of the group’s members claim to have any crash investigation experience but there are no indications they wrote or helped write the article you’d think if they did it would say something like “Joe Blow with 20 years of crash investigation experience says ‘the hole is inconsistent with a 40 degree crash’ ”. The fact they couldn’t get either member with relevant credentials to say such a thing is telling. The official account is that the plane was near vertical when it crashed nose first into the ground. The hole at Shanksville was reported to be 15-20 feet wide by 10 feet long. The depth has been variously reported to be 5-6 feet, or 10, or 15 feet, or greater. This is entirely inconsistent with a 40 degree impact from a large aircraft, such as Flt. 93. In fact, it's downright impossible. A 757 is about 155 feet long, with a wingspan of almost 125 feet.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 1, 2007 3:28:37 GMT -4
"If they released it, you'd only claim it's been faked / altered by the government, anyway" There's always one lame excuse or another, it seems.... Actually, that isn't a lame excuse. Seriously--what released evidence haven't you claimed has been faked/altered by the government? The 236 steel samples, for one thing (well, for 236 things). The UL floor model tests, for another.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Mar 1, 2007 7:49:22 GMT -4
turbonium, I've noticed that you have some goofy logic where whenever somebody refutes one of your arguments you claim that it was never your position or that the refutation didn't exactly match the wording of one of your statements. All of your arguments are supporting one of two positions yet you refuse to declare your stance.
Not only that, but your two positions are entirely contradictory. One one hand, you are arguing that eyewitness testimony and debris dispersal points to a shoot-down or at least a mid-air breakup causing the plane to crash. But on the other hand you are arguing that the crash site is inconsistant with a plane crash at all! Which is it, turbonium? Was the plane shot down or was there no plane? If it was shot down it had to go somewhere. It wouldn't just be vaporized or disappear from thin air. If it wasn't a plane then what was it? And where did the plane that all those witnesses saw go? If the crash site was not caused by Flight 93 then where did Flight 93 go?
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Mar 1, 2007 7:56:42 GMT -4
And another thing, why do you discount some eyewitness testimony but rely on others? When the eyewitnesses say they saw the plane drop into a nose dive and crash into the ground, you say their testimony is dubious. But when the eyewitnesses say they heard explosions and saw debris coming off the plane, you take ther testimony much more seriously. You base the reliability of eyewitness testimony on whether it supports your theory or not.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Mar 1, 2007 7:59:24 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 1, 2007 8:03:30 GMT -4
I still can't get over how when a witness says they saw the plane totally out of control and in a impossible position to sustain flight at very low altitude, and then that they heard an explosion and saw smoke, he can somehow come to the conclusion that the plane didn't crash. The witness testimony makes it quite clear the plane was unrecoverable.
I also love how that fact that the witnesses differ is suspicious. In a real investigation the investigators all get suspicious not when testimony doesn't match, but when it does. The odds of two people giving the exact same recollection of an event is not far above zero and if they do, that is evidece of collusion., but to the CT it's when they don't line up that they get suspicious, they're going the wrong way.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Mar 1, 2007 12:27:16 GMT -4
I won’t waste my time going over all Turbonium’s nonsense point by point. I don’t recall whether or not the white jet was mentioned in the 9-ll Commission report or not but I doubt they deny it. As reported extensively in truther and debunking sites the FBI later identified the aircraft as an executive jet sent by ATC’s to verify the coordinates of the crash. If the plane had been shot down we would expect debris to have been found along it’s flight path but we have no reports of this. Indian Lake and New Baltimore are all beyond the flight path. Perhaps Turbonium can tell us how tall the mountain ridge is and how long it took paper from the plane to show up 8 miles away. It also should be noted that the force of the crash would have been another factor in distributing debris. “Well done! After using your own sources to actually go over every witness account, I was convinced your argument had been utterly falsified. But you've really outdone yourself this time. Sheer brilliance!”I don’t think you convinced many people you’d “utterly falsified” my point several witnesses said the plane flying erratically just before hearing the crash or seeing it’s affects some saw it dive to the ground. Your hair splitting was rather unconvincing. “But other witnesses say it did everything from multiple somersaults to backward flips”Hyperbole? Or can you cite some examples? "People were calling in and reporting pieces of plane falling," a state trooper said. Jim Stop reported he had seen the hijacked Boeing 757 fly over him as he was fishing. He said he could see parts falling from the plane”This is the only report I’ve seen suggesting debris falling from the plane before it crashed.That we have no reports of debris actually being found along the plane’s flight path suggests that either a) Jim Stop and any other (if there were any other) people who said this were mistaken OR b) The pieces that fell off before the crash were very small. I wouldn’t be surprised if some small parts were shaken off a 757 flying as erratically and as fast at low altitude as flight 93 was reported to have. “(Pittsburgh Tribune, 9/13/01) - can't find link online”www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_47536.htmlThat took about 5 seconds with Google “That brings us to the hole at Shanksville, then. Do you find it consistent in any way with a 40 degree crash? If so, how?”My experience regarding crash scene investigation like yours and presumably the author of the Pilots for Truth article is close to zero. It’s not that different from the United 585 and American Eagle sites. “The official account is that the plane was near vertical when it crashed nose first into the ground.”40 degrees nose down is about halfway between perfectly vertical and perfectly horizontal “The hole at Shanksville was reported to be 15-20 feet wide by 10 feet long. The depth has been variously reported to be 5-6 feet, or 10, or 15 feet, or greater.”Citations for the cited dimensions of the hole please. I would expect the fuselage to fragment and or compress and the wings to shear off and fragment. Your theory seems to be the 757 that wasn’t really there was shotdown.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 1, 2007 13:39:57 GMT -4
Hold on a minute - I have not reached any conclusion on Flt. 93. There are several witness accounts I cited (in post #81) that tend to support the theory that Flt.93 was shot down. Not a single witness you quoted saw the white plane shoot down Flight 93. Just because someone says "hey, I bet that second plane shot it down!" doesn't mean there is any validity to that theory, and I don't care if they were actually there, if they didn't see it happen then their claim is just as credible as anyone else's. It would be like me reporting a red car to the police just because I saw a red car pass me on the street moments before the nearby bank was robbed. There is no reason to connect the two. Since neither one of us is a crash scene expert I really don't think we're qualified to say what Flight 93's debris field should or shouldn't look like. Then why bring it up? I have a theory too: Flight 93 was hit mid-air by a meteor. I have no evidence to support that, but if all we're doing is sharing theories then I might as well tell you about it. You have made it clear enough what you believe and now you're trying to backpedal. You have been given all sorts of evidence but you totally disregard it because it contradicts your pet theory. The fact that you still doubt a plane hit the Pentagon is incredible. Entirely devoid? Are you serious? So the witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon are not valid? The plane parts found are the scene are not valid? The fact that the plane and all of the people aboard are missing is not valid? The problem with your theories is that they are entirely devoid of logic. They don't make sense. And what evidence do you have? Where's the evidence that magical thermite demolition charges were planted in the WTC? Like I said, if you're going to make a claim like that then prove it. It's easy to invent explanations like that but you have to be able to show that is what actually happened before I will believe you. That is rich. Hello? You're the king of "unsubstantiated statements"! Show me proof that thermite bombs were planted in the WTC. Sounds more like you're describing the conspiracy theorists who use crackpot websites to support them. What, you don't think you're required to prove your alternate theories? We're supposed to just take your word for it? This is how it works: innocent until proven guilty. You're accusing people of crimes... they are innocent until you prove your case. It is not enough to just make a claim. If you can't prove it I will ignore it.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 1, 2007 13:49:10 GMT -4
Not odd, considering the many other glaring mistakes that were made. There is no such thing as a "perfect" crime, or so the saying goes. And a crime of such massive proportions is bound to leave overlooked evidence, despite the very determined efforts made to destroy, confiscate, and suppress it all. Oh, come on! If we're to believe you then the government had been planning those attacks for at least 30 years (since the construction of the WTC when the thermite charges were planted, remember?). Forgetting about something as obvious as the flight data recorders is an incredibly stupid mistake. Besides... the government has the FDR. Why would they release the data if it doesn't support their plan? They could have easily said the recorders where destroyed in the crash and no one would doubt it. It's like the moon hoax theory: why would NASA provide access to pictures that contain evidence that the whole thing was a hoax?
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Mar 1, 2007 21:08:14 GMT -4
It's like the moon hoax theory: why would NASA provide access to pictures that contain evidence that the whole thing was a hoax? Sure. Where have you been? 1 word: whistleblower
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 2, 2007 2:16:44 GMT -4
turbonium, I've noticed that you have some goofy logic where whenever somebody refutes one of your arguments you claim that it was never your position or that the refutation didn't exactly match the wording of one of your statements. The only "goofy logic" is when my position is consistently mistaken and misinterpreted. And quite often, it is because my statements are twisted or misconstrued. Not only that, but your two positions are entirely contradictory. There is no contradiction, as I'll point out next. One one hand, you are arguing that eyewitness testimony and debris dispersal points to a shoot-down or at least a mid-air breakup causing the plane to crash. Yes, that's what the evidence most strongly indicates to me, from what I've seen so far. But on the other hand you are arguing that the crash site is inconsistant with a plane crash at all! This isn't a contradictory point. The Shanksville hole is inconsistent with a crash from an intact 757. But it isn't inconsistent with the impact of smaller objects - such as debris (ie: an engine) from a 757. Which is it, turbonium? Was the plane shot down or was there no plane? Once again, my position is that the plane was shot down. If it was shot down it had to go somewhere. It wouldn't just be vaporized or disappear from thin air. Of course not. The debris was scattered for miles.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 2, 2007 2:25:52 GMT -4
And another thing, why do you discount some eyewitness testimony but rely on others? When the eyewitnesses say they saw the plane drop into a nose dive and crash into the ground, you say their testimony is dubious. But when the eyewitnesses say they heard explosions and saw debris coming off the plane, you take ther testimony much more seriously. You base the reliability of eyewitness testimony on whether it supports your theory or not. No. Only two witnesses (I'm aware of) claim to have seen the plane actually crash into the ground. One of those two accounts is very dubious, as I pointed out earlier. Witness accounts run the gamut, as I also mentioned. Of course, the accounts that support my position are discounted at least as much, and probably moreso, than the opposite. For example, you dismiss the accounts that mention debris from the plane falling from above into Indian Lake. But there were several independent witnesses that said they saw the same thing. Do you claim that they are all lying or mistaken?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 2, 2007 2:49:01 GMT -4
For example, you dismiss the accounts that mention debris from the plane falling from above into Indian Lake. But there were several independent witnesses that said they saw the same thing. Do you claim that they are all lying or mistaken? Is the only explanation for debris falling from the plane that it was shot down? Or could the plane have suffered structure failure due to maneuvers that may have exceeded design limits? Since no one saw the plane get shot down I don't know how you can honestly say that eyewitness testimony points in that direction. And since you aren't a professional crash site investigator I don't believe you're qualified to say what the crash site should look like.
|
|