|
Post by gwiz on Feb 18, 2007 9:00:52 GMT -4
Are you familiar with the crash of flight 427 of USAIR? It also was a vertical impact like like flight 93 is said to have been. How do you explain the contrast between these two sites? Speed alone IMO does not account for all the discrepancies. As already posted, speed is certainly the major factor. Remember that kinetic energy varies as speed squared, so twice the speed gives four times the energy available to break the aircraft structure.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Feb 18, 2007 10:03:06 GMT -4
I'm still going with the theory that the conspirators dug the hole a few days before 9/11, put explosives at the bottom and piled plane parts on top and scattered other plane parts around the area. That would explain the way the explosion looked from a distance. See question 3 here. killtown.911review.org/htb2.htmlwww.youtube.com/watch?v=K6qHDT_k0ic&mode=related&search=Even if it had been shot down, there would have been much more burned area from the fuel. www.youtube.com/watch?v=znFaoz9Do5UWhat do you think turbonium? I think the crash site isn't even consistent with the way it would look if only part of the plane had hit the ground. There would have been plane parts visible all around the hole, if part of a plane big enough to make that hole had crashed there. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg1uyRJjqaQ&mode=related&search=The official story that it simply crashed isn't at all consistent with the crash site. I think a good contoversy over whether or not fighters had shot down flight 93 would be good to distract people from the possiblility that there was no crash at all. That was probably the way they planned it.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Feb 18, 2007 10:17:37 GMT -4
I'm still going with the theory that the conspirators dug the hole a few days before 9/11, put explosives at the bottom and piled plane parts on top and scattered other plane parts around the area. That would explain the way the explosion looked from a distance. So that involves many more people who would have to be in on it. How many thousands of people were involved in your world? And don't forget that they still have a 757 to get rid of. Wouldn't it have been simpler to actually use that 757?
|
|
|
Post by wingerii on Feb 18, 2007 10:47:15 GMT -4
I see that the conspiracy theory arguments all hinge on the available photographs of the crash site. Am I to believe that this is the only evidence of the crash?
When investigators go to the scene of a murder, do they simply take some pictures, then leave?
Why postulate some implausible theory when it is likely that your view of the total body of evidence is quite narrow?
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Feb 18, 2007 11:14:16 GMT -4
Do you people think the crash scene is consistent with the crash of a large jetliner after having seen those videos of the crashes in my last post?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 18, 2007 16:17:19 GMT -4
Why postulate some implausible theory when it is likely that your view of the total body of evidence is quite narrow? We've discussed this before; it also includes why they postulate implausible theories when their knowledge of a relevant field is also quite limited. It's ideological. David, here, has never made any secret of his utter distaste for the US government, and so for him, they have to be involved in anything he thinks is shady. As to why he goes to such implausible lengths, well, it's probably the "I know something you don't know" impulse, but why that would preclude "the CIA paid the hijackers; they weren't al-Qaeda at all" idea, I don't know. I'm also never sure what, if anything, would serve to convince these people. This is where goalposts on rollers come in. Quite frequently, they say "if only I had x evidence, I would be convinced!" Then, they are presented with x evidence, and yet somehow, they still aren't convinced. It's actually all quite tedious. In another thread, I asked David about his familiarity with primary sources--ie, not videos posted on the web!--in the Kennedy assassination, since he's so certain in the face of the evidence. He never answered; I strongly suspect the answer is "not at all."
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 18, 2007 16:48:02 GMT -4
Do you people think the crash scene is consistent with the crash of a large jetliner after having seen those videos of the crashes in my last post?Yes I do think it was entirely consistant with a large jetliner hitting the ground in a steep nose first dive, causing the plane to impact almost vertically. Now if you can find photos and video showing that this sort of crash wouldn't leave the sort of wreckage that was found at Shanksfield and is shown in the photos I posted, including the one of the hole with bits of aircraft all over it and the engine that was burried so deeply that it needed a digger to extract it, then you might have a case. Showing images of aircraft that have impacted at a shallow angle and scattered over a large area are irrelevant. the engine broke off, bounced up and landed over a mile away.No, it was found 300 yards away, about 600-700 feet in the direction of travel. It's not unusual either since the engine mounts are a weak point that will separate in a crash and engines have been found some distance from crashes in the past, and at the speed of impact the engine would have travelled the distance in under two seconds. So, if you could - please cite the sources that convinced you that 95% of the plane was recovered. Otherwise, they'll just accuse me of being a GCT!Sure, though I doubt it'll be any use to more than the lurkers since you'll just claim that they are lying. LO, please turn this one into a URL link if you deem it inappropriate.
|
|
|
Post by wingerii on Feb 18, 2007 17:00:33 GMT -4
An excellent explanation, gillian. David is the first 9/11 CTist I've ever interacted with, because this CT has never piqued my interest. I agree, it's getting a little aggravating.
David, I know you probably won't believe me, but I'm probably the most likely person here to believe a 9/11 CT, if it is supported by the evidence. I came into this forum with next to no knowledge of 9/11 conspiracy theories, and I like to think of myself as a pure scientific skeptic. I am prepared to test, on factual and logical grounds, any argument or evidence that you present to me. If I find that the evidence supports a hoax, I will be inclined to believe the hoax occurred. I tried to explain this to you in another thread, but you dismissed it and said that I was "playing games". Please understand that I will not accept anything you say on faith, and also that I know with whom the burden of proof lies.
So far, I have found that most of your claims fail on logical grounds alone. If I can see this, I am no longer required to examine the details of your argument.
Now, please respond to the questions I posed above.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Feb 19, 2007 6:49:37 GMT -4
I got a little busy with work and lost track. I haven't read the actual Warren report but I've seen some analyses on it. According to one analysis I read they ignored all the evidence that didn't fit their forgone conclusion. I saw a documentary on PBS back in the early ninties that said there were about twenty journalists who were killed after the assasination; their apartments were thoroughly searched. They had all been investigating the assasination with the idea that the Warren report was a lie. Then there's the footage that shows the shot from the front. You can see it here. video.google.es/videoplay?docid=-15461212678527290187 min. 50 sec. mark Wasn't the body tampered with on the plane? I've seen that explained but I'll have to look for the video. Some things are so obvious that relevant knowledge is not necessary. Look at this video. www.youtube.com/watch?v=znFaoz9Do5UNow look at questions 2 and 3 in this link. killtown.911review.org/htb2.htmlDo you the ground at the crash site is consistent with a plane crash? Look at all the fuel that burned when the B-52 crashed. Do you think the cloud shown in question 3 is consistent with a fuel fire that comes after a crash? The cloud is consistent with an explosion--not a fuel fire. Evidently they did it somehow; the photo evidence shows that there was no crash, but an explosion. Knowing why they chose to do it this way is important but it's of secondary importance. It would have been easy to land flight 93 at some military base, kill the pilot and passengers with some kind of poison gas while they were still on the plane, take the bodies off and do whatever was necessary to make them look like they'd been in a crash and send the parts to the morgue. It would have been easy to do a chop job on the plane in a hanger. There are a lot of realistic scenarios here--nothing impossible. I don't call the no-crash theory implausible after seeing the crash of the B-52 and comparing it to the picture of flight 93 the crash site and comparing the cloud to the cloud of an explosion. You people are really stretching your imaginations of you insist a large airliner crashed there. My argument is that the hole where the plane was supposed to have crashed would have had a very large circle of burned area around it instead of tall unburned grass. It's also quite possible that the engine had been planted where it was found a few days before 9/11. Everything you posted there is consistent with the theory that the conspirators dug the hole, placed explosives and plane parts in it, put some more plane parts all around the area and set off the explosives with the idea to start a controversy over whether or not the plane had been shot down, or crashed whole in order to distract the public from the idea that there was never a crash. The lurkers and viewers are the only reason bother posting stuff here. My objective is not to convince you people; that would be an impossibility. Your minds seem to already be made up as evidence doesn't seem to sway you. I can modify my opinion when I see new evidence. I'm showing what I've found. If any of you lurkers have something, please join and post it. If you say a plane crashed at the Pennsyvania site after seeing the site and the crash of the B-52, I seriously wonder if you believe what you're saying yourself. I can only think of three explanations. www.learningandteaching.info/learning/dissonance.htmwiki.cotch.net/index.php/Invincible_Ignorancewww.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222 You also brushed off this picture of the nose of the plane that hit the Pentagon which is obviously too pointed to be the nose of a 757. www.hongpong.com/lib/images/plane77_contrast_adj.jpgEven the CNN anouncer said it was the front of a plane. www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pentagon.video/index.htmlI don't see how you can say this with a straight face. You people can pretend all you want but I think most of the viewers are dying of laughter when they read your posts.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 19, 2007 8:05:49 GMT -4
I got a little busy with work and lost track. I haven't read the actual Warren report but I've seen some analyses on it. According to one analysis I read they ignored all the evidence that didn't fit their forgone conclusion. Whose analysis was that? What were the qualifications of the person performing the analysis? What aspects form the area of their expertise? Hmm . . . PBS . . . that's the same American media that never says anything that contradicts an official government version of anything, right? That being said, I doubt you got that from a PBS documentary; if you did, it was wrong. Given your inordinate fondness for links, I'm sure you won't mind if I provide the following one for you-- mcadams.posc.mu.edu/deaths.htm. In short, all reports of "mysterious deaths" are at best exaggerations; often, such lists contain the "mysterious" deaths of people such as octogenarians in poor health and Jack Ruby, trusting his medically impossible claim that he was "injected with cancer cells and given cancer." It also includes people of varying aliases under all of their aliases, sometimes with multiple dates and causes of death, and people who aren't in so many words dead. Also notable is the fact that literally dozens of major conspiracy theorists--including, oh, Oliver Stone--are still alive; of those who are dead, most were the aforementioned old people in poor health. And some of the "witnesses" who were killed were acquaintances of Jack Ruby's who worked in fields with statistically higher homicide rates. But yes, when mob bosses are shot, that's so unlikely! What's your expertise in balistics, that you can say that with certainty? Are you aware that people with actual expertise in human reactions to gunshot wounds state categorically that it shows Kennedy being shot from behind? Don't bother. It's wrong. You see, David, if you were more in the habit of trusting primary sources instead of videos that you found on YouTube, you would discover that it would have been logistically and physically impossible for the body to have been tampered with, given the specifics of how it was placed in the coffin and the fact that the body was strapped into the plane and never left alone. This is why I don't take your arguments in any other field seriously. I'm hardly an expert in Kennedy minutiae. However, all of your arguments are so flawed that even I know they are. Next, I'm sure, you'll be citing a video that speculates that Kennedy was in fact shot from one of the storm drains, despite the fact that people who examined the possibility discovered that a) one of the storm drains cited didn't exist in 1963, and b) the others did not provide a possible shot, much less a clear one. So tell me, David. Given that you have yet to explain how it's possible that the evidence "could have been planted," how it's possible that literally dozens of eyewitnesses and hundreds of first responders "could have been planted," why in the name of all that is holy they would have released a "smoking gun" clip without bothering to doctor it if it showed what you maintain it does, why should I believe anything you say? Why, if the PTB go around killing people who contradict the Official Theory, are you and Turbonium still alive? Have you encountered MIBs telling you that you'd better agree Or Else? Of course not! You'd have told us! Oh, of course, you're in Europe, so the jurisdiction of the MIBs doesn't extend there. Which totally explains why there have yet to be reports from organizations of European structural engineers explaining that the WTC was obviously a controlled demolition, and why examiners of European plane crashes have failed entirely to issue reports that Shanksville was obviously fake. That is, if it's so obvious that someone with no expertise in any relative field can work it out. Right, David?
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Feb 19, 2007 9:41:49 GMT -4
Since you brought up the picture from the pentagon again, why don't you respond to this picture And keep in mind that when I blew it up, I did not add any information to it. What you see is what you get.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Feb 19, 2007 9:46:57 GMT -4
They do sometimes. I saw a documentary on PBS that explained how the CIA helped to overthrow the Iranian government back in the fifties. www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/l30iran.htm I saw a documentary about the Faulkland Island war that explained how the British took the islands from Argentina long ago. It said that when the British first arrived to the Faulkland Islands there was a settlement of Argentines living there; they were forced to leave. That's not what the press said back in 82. People with expertise lie all the time. If companies can pay experts to lie for them, the government certainly can. An expert's saying something is no proof. Please post something about that. Please address this.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Feb 19, 2007 9:48:31 GMT -4
Why you can somehow think that would be easier or smarter than just crashing the freaking plane into the ground is beyond me. For your theory, you have to have many more people in on it. Do you really think you can get multiple people to kill civilians and cut up a passenger plane and keep quiet about it? If you do, then you are full of it. Every time you post you add more and more insiders yet somehow not a single one of these has come forward.
As far as the B-52 compared to the Shanksville crash. The B-52 carries a lot more fuel in its wings. It hit at less of an angle and was likely at a slower speed.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Feb 19, 2007 9:55:56 GMT -4
The more something is blown up, the fuzzier it gets. Of course it's fuzzy. Stop this video at the 21 second mark. (You have to click on another link) www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pentagon.video/index.htmlIt's clearly a nose that's too pointed to be that of a 757. You can even see the shadow under it. It's consistent with the shadow of the Pentagon. The announcer says it's the nose of a plane. It's not blurry or fuzzy. Please comment so the viewers will know what you think.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Feb 19, 2007 10:01:33 GMT -4
It still wouldn't have looked anything like the crash site. killtown.911review.org/htb2.htmlThe area around the hole would have been burned. Scroll down about 15 percent of the way in this link. killtown.911review.org/flight93.htmlThere is a diagram that shows the fuel tanks of a 757. There would have been burning fuel all over the place if a 757 had crashed there intact.
|
|