911: Planes Hijacked? Crashed into buildings? So where is the evidence?

[KokomoJojo]

BmanMcFly,

The Flight Data Recorder was recovered.

What is "ambiguous" about this?

you mean invented left overs from simulations inserted as the real event.

Agency planned exercise on Sept. 11 built around a plane crashing into a building

By John J. Lumpkin, Associated Press

WASHINGTON — In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings. But the cause wasn't terrorism -- it was to be a simulated accident.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Thanks for the reply

One could say it is you who does not accept the most logical explanation.

The argument that you would call the "logical explanation" is very selective in what it considers as fact. So, by definition is not true logic.

Seriously, it's at a point where the only thing that matters to most of the debunkers is to maintain the narrative, and simply do not care how they will refute parts of their explanation so long as it defends that narrative.

finally, if I were wrong, showing how and where I am wrong would be a simple matter... the fact that 10 years into this, I have not been shown wrong on very much. Really, it's only been to the extent that Pentagon I view as ambiguous either way, as opposed to being plainly obvious as not a plane (or at least not the plane we are told).

I can say I have looked at what is available. I have looked at sites that support the Pentagon was hit by the commercial jet to those who disagree (ie. "truther") sites.

I also have gone through the "hoops" with the likes of you. There is no way to change your mind. I don't attempt to do this. Just asking questions.

Yes, and when you look at the facts, you can't really prove that it was the flight we are told because the hole is smaller than the plane, however, there are numerous witnesses that say it was a plane, but they all dispute the radar data...

Unlike you I have stated on other threads, that if any alternative explanation came forward with convincing proof, I would stand corrected.

Seems you have a closed mind.

No, I have an open mind, however, the official story is not a viable explanation when viewed as a whole... If I was shown an explanation for all the issues I would raise CONSISTENTLY (without refuting other explanations), then I would adjust my position....

Although, you won't get past the "let it happen"... that case is beyond reasonable doubt, and as I've pointed out, most of the debunkers here simply have UNreasonable doubts.

 

[Fledermaus]

The argument that you would call the "logical explanation" is very selective in what it considers as fact. So, by definition is not true logic.

Seriously, it's at a point where the only thing that matters to most of the debunkers is to maintain the narrative, and simply do not care how they will refute parts of their explanation so long as it defends that narrative.

finally, if I were wrong, showing how and where I am wrong would be a simple matter... the fact that 10 years into this, I have not been shown wrong on very much. Really, it's only been to the extent that Pentagon I view as ambiguous either way, as opposed to being plainly obvious as not a plane (or at least not the plane we are told).



Yes, and when you look at the facts, you can't really prove that it was the flight we are told because the hole is smaller than the plane, however, there are numerous witnesses that say it was a plane, but they all dispute the radar data...



No, I have an open mind, however, the official story is not a viable explanation when viewed as a whole... If I was shown an explanation for all the issues I would raise CONSISTENTLY (without refuting other explanations), then I would adjust my position....

Although, you won't get past the "let it happen"... that case is beyond reasonable doubt, and as I've pointed out, most of the debunkers here simply have UNreasonable doubts.

And yet only a SMALL subset of TRUTHERS believe something other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

And why won't you address THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that used to be all important?

 

[Sunzi]

Radar can be faked... the engines don't just evaporate.



Again, a couple hundred thousand pounds of airplane turned into enough debris to fit in the back of a pickup truck??

Furthermore, the metal does not evaporate, even if the plane exploded into nothing but shrapnel, all that shrapnel can and should be collected.

Prove Radar was faked on 911. Make my day. You can't do it, because the FDR matches the Radar and eyewitnesses. Darn, you made up the Radar can be faked, you nave no idea how to fake Radar data, and no idea how it is stored for study after an event. You have no idea how many Radars tracked Flight 93, and you can't explain who Radar can be faked; you made it up, like the rest of your claims.

No engines evaporated, they were found, you failed to find the evidence, so you say "evaporate", an exaggeration based on nothing.

Flight 93 was collected, and thousands of aircraft parts are seen around the Flight 93 impact crater. Did you fail to see?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris21sm.jpg
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris8sm.jpg
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris18sm.jpg
thousand of Flight 93 parts, and you claim you can't see

13 years of failure, 911 truth, in the 14th year of spreading lies and exposing an inability to see

 

[Mark F]

The argument that you would call the "logical explanation" is very selective in what it considers as fact. So, by definition is not true logic.

OK then, lets review again the summary of major talking points in favor of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon from the other day - the list you call "very selective".

1. 4 men, all of whom were known associates of the men accused of hijacking the other 3 flights that morning boarded Flight 77.
2. Flight 77 took off and never landed anywhere.
3. No one aboard 77 was ever seen alive again.
4. Flight 77 was tracked by at least 6 different radars from take-off to impact
5. 136 witnesses are on record as seeing 77 hit the Pentagon. None saw anything else. That includes several pilots and ground controllers
6. A MANG C-130 crew followed 77 in the last minutes of the flight, watching it strike the Pentagon
7. The damage pattern (light poles, trees, the diesel generator) are consistent with being hit by a Boeing 757
8. A low-res parking lot security camera caught several frames of the aircraft before and at impact
9. Damage to the building is absolutely consistent with high-speed impact by a B757
10. Wreckage from the aircraft including many pieces positively identified belonging to 77 were recovered at the crash site
11. The FDR and CVR for Flight 77 were recovered at the crash site. FDR data confirms multiple radar sites and witness accounts
12. Human remains from everyone aboard except for one infant were recovered at the crash site
13. Personal effects from persons known to be aboard 77 were recovered at the crash site
14. The airline and its insurers have admitted it was their aircraft and paid damages

I would argue the evidence is broadly based, not selective and follows a logical path from aircraft take-off to impact encompassing many facets of data ALL leading to a common conclusion supportable by evidence with minimal reliance on conjecture or unsupported assumptions. Certainly that case is a slam-dunk in any court of law even if presented by the most incompetence of prosecutors.

Now let us examine what you have offered as an alternative:

1. Radar can be faked
2. "...lack of physical evidence of the planes... insufficient to prove that it was the planes we are told they were, based on the physical debris collected."
3. "...the hole is smaller than the plane,..."
4. "...there are numerous witnesses that say it was a plane, but they all dispute the radar data."

Claim #1 you never stood behind, arguing only that radar could be faked, not that it was.
Claim #2 you later retracted when you were shown sufficient evidence of aircraft wreckage.
Claim #3 just presented by you for the first time so far as I can recall in your most recent post is offered with no supporting evidence of any kind.
Claim #4 same problem as #3. Both are vaguely asserted and totally unsupported pseudo-claims for which it seems unlikely you have asked the two questions. Certainly no conclusions could be drawn from either at this point.

All are examples of bass-ackwards logic where you start from a few unknown anomalies and without context, rather than what is known and use those to make unsupported blanket assertions. They rely entirely on conjecture and are not the product of a process of reasoning but rather when you lose on one point, you just fish for another to throw at the wall hoping eventually something will stick.

A poor process will almost always arrive at an equally poor conclusion.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Prove Radar was faked on 911. Make my day. You can't do it, because the FDR matches the Radar and eyewitnesses. Darn, you made up the Radar can be faked, you nave no idea how to fake Radar data, and no idea how it is stored for study after an event. You have no idea how many Radars tracked Flight 93, and you can't explain who Radar can be faked; you made it up, like the rest of your claims.

No engines evaporated, they were found, you failed to find the evidence, so you say "evaporate", an exaggeration based on nothing.

Flight 93 was collected, and thousands of aircraft parts are seen around the Flight 93 impact crater. Did you fail to see?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris21sm.jpg
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris8sm.jpg
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris18sm.jpg
thousand of Flight 93 parts, and you claim you can't see

13 years of failure, 911 truth, in the 14th year of spreading lies and exposing an inability to see

First, thanks for putting up those images, just a question or two...

Where were the photos taken relative to the hole that the plane dove right into?

Aside from that, the point was just to get people to prove the claim about there being actual planes... Fled, of all people, beat you to the punch.

The only reason the conversation has not moved on is because a couple Contrarians insist on flawed logic and moot points.

 

[BmanMcfly]

OK then, lets review again the summary of major talking points in favor of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon from the other day - the list you call "very selective".

1. 4 men, all of whom were known associates of the men accused of hijacking the other 3 flights that morning boarded Flight 77.
2. Flight 77 took off and never landed anywhere.
3. No one aboard 77 was ever seen alive again.
4. Flight 77 was tracked by at least 6 different radars from take-off to impact
5. 136 witnesses are on record as seeing 77 hit the Pentagon. None saw anything else. That includes several pilots and ground controllers
6. A MANG C-130 crew followed 77 in the last minutes of the flight, watching it strike the Pentagon
7. The damage pattern (light poles, trees, the diesel generator) are consistent with being hit by a Boeing 757
8. A low-res parking lot security camera caught several frames of the aircraft before and at impact
9. Damage to the building is absolutely consistent with high-speed impact by a B757
10. Wreckage from the aircraft including many pieces positively identified belonging to 77 were recovered at the crash site
11. The FDR and CVR for Flight 77 were recovered at the crash site. FDR data confirms multiple radar sites and witness accounts
12. Human remains from everyone aboard except for one infant were recovered at the crash site
13. Personal effects from persons known to be aboard 77 were recovered at the crash site
14. The airline and its insurers have admitted it was their aircraft and paid damages

I would argue the evidence is broadly based, not selective and follows a logical path from aircraft take-off to impact encompassing many facets of data ALL leading to a common conclusion supportable by evidence with minimal reliance on conjecture or unsupported assumptions. Certainly that case is a slam-dunk in any court of law even if presented by the most incompetence of prosecutors.

Now let us examine what you have offered as an alternative:

1. Radar can be faked
2. "...lack of physical evidence of the planes... insufficient to prove that it was the planes we are told they were, based on the physical debris collected."
3. "...the hole is smaller than the plane,..."
4. "...there are numerous witnesses that say it was a plane, but they all dispute the radar data."

Claim #1 you never stood behind, arguing only that radar could be faked, not that it was.
Claim #2 you later retracted when you were shown sufficient evidence of aircraft wreckage.
Claim #3 just presented by you for the first time so far as I can recall in your most recent post is offered with no supporting evidence of any kind.
Claim #4 same problem as #3. Both are vaguely asserted and totally unsupported pseudo-claims for which it seems unlikely you have asked the two questions. Certainly no conclusions could be drawn from either at this point.

All are examples of bass-ackwards logic where you start from a few unknown anomalies and without context, rather than what is known and use those to make unsupported blanket assertions. They rely entirely on conjecture and are not the product of a process of reasoning but rather when you lose on one point, you just fish for another to throw at the wall hoping eventually something will stick.

A poor process will almost always arrive at an equally poor conclusion.

Maybe I wasn't clear, I'm not going to go through that circle again because it always ends at the same place...

the result is that the only thing you can say conclusively is that something that looked like a plane seems to have crashed into the Pentagon.

 

[Mark F]

Maybe I wasn't clear, I'm not going to go through that circle again because it always ends at the same place...

the result is that the only thing you can say conclusively is that something that looked like a plane seems to have crashed into the Pentagon.

You could say that,... but only if you ignore all the Simpson DNA evidence.

And that would just be nutty.

But it seems to me that if a plane takes off and never lands, AND radar tracks it to a crash site, AND the FDR from the plane confirms the radar, AND more than 130 witnesses confirm the plane crashed, AND its wreckage is found at the crash site including items specifically matched to that particular aircraft, AND no other aircraft are missing, AND the remains of the people aboard that plane are found at the crash site, AND the personal effects of those aboard are found at the crash site, AND the damage at the crash site is absolutely consistent with that particular type of aircraft crashing under those circumstances AND even the airline and its insurers admit it was their aircraft in spite of the financial cost, AND there were four men aboard who were known associates of men who hijacked 3 other aircraft that same day,... you have a very unambiguous case supported by multiple points of data that all converge on a common, inescapable conclusion more than meeting the requirements for prima facie.

So I can see why you wouldn't want to go up against that. Better to duck and run.

 

[mike2810]

The argument that you would call the "logical explanation" is very selective in what it considers as fact. So, by definition is not true logic.

Seriously, it's at a point where the only thing that matters to most of the debunkers is to maintain the narrative, and simply do not care how they will refute parts of their explanation so long as it defends that narrative.

finally, if I were wrong, showing how and where I am wrong would be a simple matter... the fact that 10 years into this, I have not been shown wrong on very much. Really, it's only been to the extent that Pentagon I view as ambiguous either way, as opposed to being plainly obvious as not a plane (or at least not the plane we are told).



Yes, and when you look at the facts, you can't really prove that it was the flight we are told because the hole is smaller than the plane, however, there are numerous witnesses that say it was a plane, but they all dispute the radar data...



No, I have an open mind, however, the official story is not a viable explanation when viewed as a whole... If I was shown an explanation for all the issues I would raise CONSISTENTLY (without refuting other explanations), then I would adjust my position....

Although, you won't get past the "let it happen"... that case is beyond reasonable doubt, and as I've pointed out, most of the debunkers here simply have UNreasonable doubts.

I have seen your talking points before in various forms.

Your can't prove your claim.

What open mind, you accept alternative explanations that don't hold up.

 

[Mark F]

I have seen your talking points before in various forms.

Your can't prove your claim.

What open mind, you accept alternative explanations that don't hold up.

His mind is open to anything so long as it is contrary to the commonly accepted explanation.

 

[zyzygy]

His mind is open to anything so long as it is contrary to the commonly accepted explanation.

Anything except the truth. Very odd.

 

[Sunzi]

First, thanks for putting up those images, just a question or two...

Where were the photos taken relative to the hole that the plane dove right into?

Aside from that, the point was just to get people to prove the claim about there being actual planes... Fled, of all people, beat you to the punch.

The only reason the conversation has not moved on is because a couple Contrarians insist on flawed logic and moot points.

Wow, 911 truth never studied Flight 93's impact area. 911 truth has no idea where the house is relative to the impact crater - and then 911 truth makes up lies about 911 without any knowledge of the area. Indicative of zero research, and no idea where the photos were taken. Why does 911 truth lie, and say few aircraft parts were found, but there were tons. Does 911 truth mean to lie, or what.
Radar, FDR, and DNA prove it was flight 93, but 911 truth lies and says the evidence is fake.
Where is the logic in spreading lies, and then when proved 911 truth lies, 911 truth does the Gish Gallop to the next BS claim, or rambles about BS.
13 years of solid failure = 911 truth = less than creative speculation

 

[Fledermaus]

His mind is open to anything so long as it is contrary to the commonly accepted explanation.

I have asked often "Why do truthers reject the one and only explanation supported by the evidence?"

 

[Mark F]

Which brings up the next set of questions for Bman:

What conclusion is better supported by the above listed known true facts and how does that explain the disappearance of Flight 77 and all those aboard her?

 

[ozeco41]

I have asked often "Why do truthers reject the one and only explanation supported by the evidence?"

For the current alleged truthers it keeps the trolling successful. The pursuit of the truth about 9/11 matters long abandoned. Jerking chains for most of them. One local example actually jerking the chains of the truthers - and they don't realise it despite his tactics being transparent.

 

[Mark F]

For the current alleged truthers it keeps the trolling successful. The pursuit of the truth about 9/11 matters long abandoned. Jerking chains for most of them. One local example actually jerking the chains of the truthers - and they don't realise it despite his tactics being transparent.

And this being repeatedly pointed out to them.

 

[ozeco41]

And this being repeatedly pointed out to them.

It's only about five years since we had examples both classic trolls and classic Poes. Both species able to use intelligence to twist meaning without the resort to outright lies and personal attacks which are the highest(?) level the current practitioners rise(?) to.. Recall TelltaleTom and BillSmith? Grades better than the infantile stuff we see today.

Most times the only material in a post that is arguably "on topic" is also an outright lie. No amusing word play twisting cleverness.

Cue a response from uno hoo proving my point.

 

[ozeco41]

And this being repeatedly pointed out to them.

Cue comments about examples of species equus being relocated in proximity of dihydrogen monoxide without any evidence of a change in willingness to imbibe said fluid.


00:02 AEDT here - I've just completed a rewrite of a Job Application letter for #2 daughter.

 

[Mark F]

Cue comments about examples of species equus being relocated in proximity of dihydrogen monoxide without any evidence of a change in willingness to imbibe said fluid.


00:02 AEDT here - I've just completed a rewrite of a Job Application letter for #2 daughter.

You are a true party animal

 

[KokomoJojo]

It's only about five years since we had examples both classic trolls and classic Poes. Both species able to use intelligence to twist meaning without the resort to outright lies and personal attacks which are the highest(?) level the current practitioners rise(?) to.. Recall TelltaleTom and BillSmith? Grades better than the infantile stuff we see today.

Most times the only material in a post that is arguably "on topic" is also an outright lie. No amusing word play twisting cleverness.

Cue a response from uno hoo proving my point.

Very good observation of what I have been talking about concerning yours fleds marks mikes and a few others posts. dayum......debunker encirclement! LOL

 

[KokomoJojo]

Which brings up the next set of questions for Bman:

What conclusion is better supported by the above listed known true facts and how does that explain the disappearance of Flight 77 and all those aboard her?

its a known true fact that planes are not lightpole mowers mark.





do you have any evidence showing they can slice through 5 poles and still have wings attached?

 

[Fledermaus]

Which brings up the next set of questions for Bman:

What conclusion is better supported by the above listed known true facts and how does that explain the disappearance of Flight 77 and all those aboard her?

Well radar data can be faked, ergo by extension EVERYTHING can be faked. I hear the Pentagon is actually built on a much smaller scale. Out of Paper-Mache. It is actually a one storey repository for the missing Trillions.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Well radar data can be faked, ergo by extension EVERYTHING can be faked. I hear the Pentagon is actually built on a much smaller scale. Out of Paper-Mache. It is actually a one storey repository for the missing Trillions.

in fact they just happened to coincidentally fake it on that very same day with their war games. very small world.

 

[Fledermaus]

in fact they just happened to coincidentally fake it on that very same day with their war games. very small world.

Only a fool would suggest NORAD "war games" had any effect of the completely separate CIVILIAN Air Traffic Controller radars.

But you already knew that.

 

[Quag]

Only a fool would suggest NORAD "war games" had any effect of the completely separate CIVILIAN Air Traffic Controller radars.

But you already knew that.

Someone wanting to make fun of truthers would suggest that. So would someone who was drumming up support and more importantly $$ for whatever truther organization they support.
The fool would be the one who believed it.