A guide to critical thinking

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

I think many "skeptics" are not true skeptics and should stop calling themselves as such.

Wrong ... genuine skepticism is where you FULLY question and look into ALL aspects of claims.

Conspiracy believers almost religiously automatically buy INTO conspiracy promotion for no better reason than it paints whatever particular resented individual and/or group in a bad light ... WITHOUT even attempting to double-check the accuracy or validity of the information presented.

Conspiracy believers demonstrate a pretty interesting way to avoid thinking.

They don't have to actually check anything ... because all information is sorted into just two piles:

Pile 1. It confirms preconceptions ... that automatically makes it true, and does not need further investigation.

Pile 2. It contradicts preconceptions ... this means that it is untrue, and almost certainly part of the conspiracy ... it also needs no further investigation.

It's like they operate in binary !!!

True skeptics however, will look EQUALLY at BOTH sets of "evidence" before even attempting a judgement.

For another poster I shall be starting a thread in regard to the supposed "chemtrails" ... shall we see whom presents the more genuinely scientific evidence with more thourough analysis ... and genuine information ... as opposed to regurgitating what conspiracy sites tell/sell.

In regard to skeptism ... one of the best indicators is whether or not those presenting the information are engaging in the HARD SELL !!!

Do they have "stuff" to sell, alongside the endless touting for donations ???

Personally, in relation to 9/11 sites ... you find that the DEBUNKING sites have NOTHING to sell.

No DVD's, books, tee-shirts, fridge magnets, clocks, dog bowls ...

Call it the cynic in me ... but I am always deeply suspicious of those whom feel the need to sell so much stuff whilst claiming the moral high ground and nobility of a quest for truth and justice !!!

For them "skeptic" is belief that tows the party line and rejects anything that doesn't.

So what "party line" do I toe then ... ???

I am not even an American nor live there ... your gubmint has zero influence, control or jurisdiction over me ... quite frankly, I could not give two rather large piles of excreta for what they say or do !!!

Their skepticism does not extend towards official stories of an event such as 9-11 or the JFK assassination. It only extends to those who question such stories. That proves they are not "skeptics" in any way shape or form.

What utter bunk !!!

Regarding 9/11, I'm not arguing for blindly following anyone and/or the gubmint, but when a reasonable and probable account has been rendered by studied PROFESSIONALS FROM ALL OVER THIS PLANET, the bar has effectively been elevated for those wishing to illustrate another explanation.

Thus far, the Truther movement has been VERY light on providing a coherent, consistent, and illustrative scenario that even attempts to meet that "bar" !!!

Nobody on the other side of this argument is providing ANYTHING near a logical narrative of events followed by a listing of hard evidence to support it ... only bits and pieces of "evidence" that often turns out not to be evidence at all ... and any holes in the "official" narrative often aren't holes at all ... given a better understanding of the material.

But until that time, I accept the analysis of the professionals, not only because they ARE professionals ... but because besides the fact that it demonstrates an understanding of materials science ... it also has the fewest holes when lined up with the visual evidence of any theory yet presented.

Personally, I have fully analyzed the events of 9/11, and while there remain a few unanswered questions ... they pale into insignificance against the number of unanswered questions raised by the alternate "theories" of Da Twoof !!!

Same goes for just about every other "theory" out there !!!

JFK was shot by a single gunman, a misfit and nobody intent on gaining a place in history.

Diana ... despite being such and iconic and special person ... a Princess, no less ... was killed in something as ordinary and mundane as a drink-driving accident !!!

That is another feature of conspiracy belief ... they fail to see how a big event can originate from small causes ... for them it is inconcievable that a huge historic event such as 9/11 could be carried out by so few people.

A grand event like 9/11 (for them) "needs" an equally grand conspiracy !!!

But this is simplistic comic-book thinking ... and they simply do not see it, what they do doesn't seem much like a true search for the truth of whatever conspiracy, it seems much more like an attempt to justify a preconceived notion using selective information.

It's smart to question, just plain stupid to ignore expert opinion and a ****load of evidence against your case, in favour of the words of people like Alex Jones, non-expert websites and home-made YooToobs, et al !!!

Occam's razor is abused so much by "skeptics" it is obscene. It is also not a sufficient argument.

Oh! rubbish ... it still stands ... this feeble attempt at deflection of the power of Occam's razor does nothing to diminish the truth behind it !!!

How does Occam's razor with regards to the JFK assassination deal with Jack Ruby? The HSCA found a mountain of evidence that tied Jack Ruby with the mafia in many significant ways. Yet when "skeptics" apply Occam's razor they claim the simplest explanation for Jack Ruby killing Oswald is the one in the official history. However, the official history ignores or downplays his ties to the mob so clearly it does not get along well with Occam's razor.

So what !!!

A guy with ties to the Mafia took out Oswald ... come on, explain exactly how that takes anything away from the single gunman scenario ???

JFK / The Kennedy Assassination Home Page

 

[Caine]

Why should I take your word on anything? Why are you above questioning? Maybe what makes you sick is the realization that you accept things at face value and not everyone follows your example.

Its the Conspiracy Theory subforum.
Its a place for people to conspire and conjure up wild ass ideas and have fun with it.

Loosen up, ****.

 

[Demon of Light]

Wrong ... genuine skepticism is where you FULLY question and look into ALL aspects of claims.

That is exactly what I said, and exactly what I said many "skeptics" do not in fact do.

True skeptics however, will look EQUALLY at BOTH sets of "evidence" before even attempting a judgement.

I would agree again and once more reiterate this is not what most "skeptics" do in reality.

So what "party line" do I toe then ... ???

I am not even an American nor live there ... your gubmint has zero influence, control or jurisdiction over me ... quite frankly, I could not give two rather large piles of excreta for what they say or do !!!

Your profile says you are from Scotland. If that is the case then it isn't too surprising given that the influence and power of U.S. government and business interests extend to the UK as well. The UK may criticize the U.S. in some things, but in the most critical areas it will tow the line.

JFK was shot by a single gunman, a misfit and nobody intent on gaining a place in history.

I love it how you are so damn certain of his social life and his motives. Also love how that is always the story. There is no such thing as conspiracies just insane glory-hogs! Oswald also single-handedly orchestrated a cover-up of his CIA ties from beyond the grave. That's how much of a glory-hog he was! Is that enough to get you to stop questioning your government or do you need to watch a few more episodes of American Gladiators?

Diana ... despite being such and iconic and special person ... a Princess, no less ... was killed in something as ordinary and mundane as a drink-driving accident !!!

Honestly there is one big glaring reason for questioning the official story there: the car obviously bumped into someone's white Fiat Uno.

That is another feature of conspiracy belief ... they fail to see how a big event can originate from small causes ... for them it is inconcievable that a huge historic event such as 9/11 could be carried out by so few people.

I love this one too, because it sort of has that desperate, pathetic sound to it. Like all conspiracy theorists are desperate, pathetic people who can't stand the idea of something so simple. Of course, it couldn't possibly be because there are actual reasons to question the official story.

Oh! rubbish ... it still stands ... this feeble attempt at deflection of the power of Occam's razor does nothing to diminish the truth behind it !!!

It wasn't a deflection. The notion that there is any truth behind such an absurd argument proves who is really avoiding critical thinking here.

A guy with ties to the Mafia took out Oswald ... come on, explain exactly how that takes anything away from the single gunman scenario ???

Why does the single gunman scenario rule out a conspiracy? Is it not possible that a grand conspiracy used only one assassin? The only reason you have more than one assassin is sort of like why you have a spare tire. It is not because you need to have five tires on your car, but if one of your tires has a blowout (assassin fails) you'll want a backup (second assassin) so you can finish your trip to Wal*Mart (death).

 

[creativedreams]

I am not even an American nor live there ... your gubmint has zero influence, control or jurisdiction over me ... quite frankly, I could not give two rather large piles of excreta for what they say or do !!!

Then why did you infiltrate an American petition for a new 9/11 investigation in the guise of "testing their credentials"....in effect helping to squash the wishes of the many legitimate names on the petition who wanted a new investigation?

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

Then why did you infiltrate an American petition for a new 9/11 investigation in the guise of "testing their credentials"....in effect helping to squash the wishes of the many legitimate names on the petition who wanted a new investigation?

Memory playing up again creative ... youv'e been told this a gizillion times ... it was to TEST their verification and checking process, a guarantee of authenticity and calibre of signees.

They FAILED ... I passed with faked credentials and fictitious membership to professional organizations !!!

Besides what's with this "American" petition crud ... is it not supposedly a global one ???

And since when has Gages Gaggle got ANYTHING to do with the gubmint anyway ???

Nice to see you still throw your wee tantrums when you've been roundly trounced though ... and funnier still that you don't get annoyed at Gage and Co for having such POOR standards as to allow this noble petition to be so well "infiltrated".

"Infiltrated" ... yes, because faking support for a moronic on-line petition is akin to deep cover thuper thpy thtuff ...

You even fail at villification ... :lamo

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

Then why did you infiltrate an American petition for a new 9/11 investigation in the guise of "testing their credentials"....in effect helping to squash the wishes of the many legitimate names on the petition who wanted a new investigation?

Memory playing up again creative ... youv'e been told this a gizillion times ... it was to TEST their verification and checking process, supposedly a guarantee of authenticity and calibre of signees.

They FAILED ... I passed with faked credentials and fictitious membership to professional organizations !!!

Besides what's with this "American" petition crud ... is it not supposedly a global one ???

And since when has Gages Gaggle got ANYTHING to do with the gubmint anyway ???

Nice to see you still throw your wee tantrums when you've been roundly trounced though ... and funnier still that you don't get annoyed at Gage and Co for having such POOR standards as to allow this noble petition to be so well "infiltrated".

"Infiltrated" ... yes, because pretending support for a moronic on-line petition is akin to deep cover thuper thpy thtuff ...

You even fail at villification ... :lamo

 

[BmanMcfly]

The main issue I've heard brought up is that for the passenger plane to be going at 600 miles per hour at an altitude of less then a hundred feet would be an achievement, and apparently would come very close to tearing that kind of plane apart, especially given the tight turn being made at the same time.

Also, I'm guessing everyone forgot how all outside the pentagon film was also confiscated by pentagon security... also, that there was ONLY that one bit of film, 4-5 super-ambiguous frames, that really just serve to create a MORE INTENSE debate on the subject. I mean, the pentagon isn't some chump apartment block... it's gotta be in the top 10 most surveilled buildings in the country, and there was only the one angle used that requires an interpretation as to what is actually shown...

So, ya... they declassified the ONE bit of footage that doesn't actually show any recognizeable definition of a plane...

Anyway, the pentagon is the most ambiguous as to what actually hit the building, but it was necessary that the pentagon be attacked to make sure that the 'pearl harbor' analogy could be made, having a suicide attack on a military installation.

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

Once again B'man, this is another case of being fooled by little to no knowledge.

Of by NOT having the necessary real information to hand being taken in by something with very little truth in it ... it is far easier to be fooled if you do not know what is being spoken about !!!

The main issue I've heard brought up is that for the passenger plane to be going at 600 miles per hour at an altitude of less then a hundred feet would be an achievement, and apparently would come very close to tearing that kind of plane apart, especially given the tight turn being made at the same time.

How in Gods name do aircraft take-off or land then ???

For a Boeing 757 take-off speed is around 160/200 mph ... the speed Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon was 780 feet per second, which is 531 miles per hour ... well short of 600 !!!

Now anything that moves has KINETIC energy ... so even if Flight 77 had only been travelling at twice take-off speed ... the IMPACT energy would be FOURFOLD !!!

Remember, as any physics book will tell you, kinetic energy is one-half the mass times the square of the velocity, written as KE = ½ mv2.

This means if the velocity doubles, the kinetic energy QUADRUPLES !!!

(As an aside this helps explain the very enormous differences between the hypothetical aircraft impact the Twin Towers were designed for and the one that actually hit ... that even although there was not much difference in size, the Boeing 767 on 9/11 would hit with EIGHT times the kinetic energy of the 707 used in the study)

Now aircraft CAN do those speeds at those heights ... it is just not desirable, puts enormous stress on the airframe as well as discomfort for the passengers ... but it CAN be done !!!

This was a strictly ONE-WAY trip ... so there was NO need for the hijackers to show concern for the craft and passengers ... period !!!

Most conspiracists like to call it impossible for aircraft to fly fast and low like this to something known as "ground effect".

However, (again) they demonstrate complete ignorance of what ground effect actually is ... they "claim" that by flying so fast and low it creates a "cushion of air" which would make it impossible for the aircraft to fly ...

That is patent NONSENSE ... there is NO cushion of air which prevents an aircraft from flying ... if it were true, then airplanes would simply never be able to land ... or take-off !!!

Anybody that has any involvement in flying knows that ground effect can actually INCREASE the aerodynamic efficiency of low-level flight !!!

Besides large changes in pitch, yaw and roll are damped out by the aircrafts control systems ... it is only on smaller aircraft, not equipped wih automated systems (FMCS or FBW/fly-by-wire) ... where you truly need pilot skill.

And the tight turn would SLOW the craft down ...

" ... A common misconception about ground effect is that a "bubble" or "cushion" of air forms between the aircraft and ground that somehow prevents the aircraft from landing or even forces the plane upward away from the ground. Furthermore, many believe that the strength of this cushion grows the faster an aircraft flies when near the ground. Both of these beliefs are wrong.

First of all, there is no bubble of air that pushes an aircraft away from the ground. The true cause of ground effect is the influence of the ground on the wing's angle of attack as described above. Ground effect does nothing to force an aircraft upward from the ground, it only changes the relative amount of lift and drag that a wing will generate at a given speed and angle of attack.

Second, we have seen that this effect actually decreases with speed since induced drag has increasingly less influence on an aircraft the faster it flies."

Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Pentagon & Boeing 757 Ground Effect

Look B'man if you don't believe me, go take a few flight lessons, learn some aerodynamics, if you can't afford all the way through to your PPL (UK/Private Pilots License) ... just enough to get some real knowledge about flying ... for then and only then will you be prepared to take these conspiracy claims with the bucketloads of salt they deserve !!!

Also, I'm guessing everyone forgot how all outside the pentagon film was also confiscated by pentagon security...

Wrong B'man ... no-one has "forgotten", for as ALL those videos HAVE been released, there is NO need to keep bleating about them any more !!!

There were 85 videos in total taken ... but maybe up to 10 of those are not even from anywhere near the Pentagon, some are from NYC, most were from OTHER places, businesses, etc ... which remain the LEGAL property of whichever business they were taken from and released back to them.

But for what reason would you EXPECT a video from, say Citco gas station to be pointed towards the Pentagon ... surely people install security cameras to watch their OWN property ???

So why would you expect the vast majority of those cameras to show what happened AT the Pentagon ???

also, that there was ONLY that one bit of film, 4-5 super-ambiguous frames, that really just serve to create a MORE INTENSE debate on the subject.

How is only having the very few frames possible in any way "creating" ambiguity ???

How is it PHYSICALLY possible for a camera recording at ONE FRAME PER SECOND to clearly see any object moving at SEVEN HUNDRED AND EIGHTY FEET PER SECOND ???

To adequately record MOVING images clearly it HAS to be filmed at a rate of at LEAST ... 24 FRAMES PER SECOND ... because due to the human phenomenon of persistance of vision it NEEDS to be higher speed than one frame per second ... PERIOD !!!

For what possible reason would you "expect" crystal clear, pin-sharp imagery from such glacial film rate ... security cameras ONLY show IMAX quality images in Hollywood ...

Hollywood is not real life ... so why do people still expect things to be like the movies ... where CSI do testing in 20 seconds, due to super compressing the storyline to fit in with the episodes time-slot, instead of the weeks it takes in the real world ???

You are NEVER going to see more ... for there IS no more !!!

This is all incredibly simple science and mathematics ...

I mean, the pentagon isn't some chump apartment block... it's gotta be in the top 10 most surveilled buildings in the country, and there was only the one angle used that requires an interpretation as to what is actually shown...

Why does it have to be in the top 10 ... why would they need rings of cameras when they have armed military 24/7 crawling about the place ???

It is what happens INSIDE that would be more closely monitored.

What's coming up next B'man ... the (non-existent) anti-aircraft defenses again ...

So, ya... they declassified the ONE bit of footage that doesn't actually show any recognizeable definition of a plane...

Wrong ... it was NEVER "classified" ... it was, as is standard, evidence in an ongoing trial ... since WHEN if information released to the public PRE-TRIAL ???

All those videos were analysed and submitted for evidence ... when the Moussouri trial ended they were RELEASED.

Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request for them in 2004 and was granted access in 2006 ...

Even in this very (short) thread there has been information regarding these videos and their release ... did you not read them ... else why are you still bleating on about this old stuff which has been FULLY explained numerous times years ago ???

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...guide-critical-thinking-2.html#post1058914094

You see B'man this shows the basic dishonesty of conspiracy believers ... that EVEN when presented with conclusive proof that their claim no longer stands they STILL repeat it ... unbelievably so ... for once your claim has been shown to be no longer valid you SHOULD never need repeat it again !!!

So why B'man ... you KNOW for a FACT that ALL videos pertaining to the Pentagon, from Citgo, Doubletree and other places HAS BEEN RELEASED ???

And as clearly shown it is impossible in physical reality for a camera recording at one frame per second to shoot movie quality images of an extremely fast moving object ... FACT !!!

http://spng.se/frame-rate-test/

Anyway, the pentagon is the most ambiguous as to what actually hit the building, but it was necessary that the pentagon be attacked to make sure that the 'pearl harbor' analogy could be made, having a suicide attack on a military installation.

Bollocks ... it is what it is an airplane impact due to hijacking ... backed up by radar, flight data, damage assesments, forensic reports, eye witnesses, etc, etc,etc ... period !!!

All the rest is pure fantasy because it is more exciting than the reality, and fits in with your prejudices about those in power ... that is it B'man ... end of !!!

 

[BmanMcfly]

Once again B'man, this is another case of being fooled by little to no knowledge.

Of by NOT having the necessary real information to hand being taken in by something with very little truth in it ... it is far easier to be fooled if you do not know what is being spoken about !!!

The rest of this post is an exercise in attacking arguments that are similar but different arguments then the ones I was making, and so is an exercise in demonstrating these built strawmen... Except :

Bollocks ... it is what it is an airplane impact due to hijacking ... backed up by radar, flight data, damage assesments, forensic reports, eye witnesses, etc, etc,etc ... period !!!

All the rest is pure fantasy because it is more exciting than the reality, and fits in with your prejudices about those in power ... that is it B'man ... end of !!!

No, it's not quite that simple... there's the factor of the damage being smaller then the size of the plane (before a section of the structure collapsed).

You said I was lying about that ALL the footage has been released?? Care to link to that instead of some arbitrary frame rate test that I wasn't disputing... what I said was that OUT OF ALL the video of the plane hitting the pentagon that was confiscated, the only bit that was released was the 4-5 frames that DO NOT IN ANY of those frames clearly show any evidence of WHAT it was... it shows a trail leading into the explosion... I'm saying it's INCONCLUSIVE. You can't make ANY determination based on that film, and anyone that does so is being misleading.

So, unless you can provide this film that clearly shows the plane that hit the pentagon, all we have to go on are reenactments, which go against what the eyewitnesses on the ground described (yes, I know eye witnesses are only valid if they support your claims).

Look, my prejudice comes from the fact that there are reports written by those in power positions CALLING FOR these things as part of their overall plans. In chess it's called a gambit... sacrifice a pawn or two so that you can take the queen. OR the old military tactic of sending a small force to attack knowing they will be killed but draw out the enemy so that the rest of the army can attack their flanks...

Hell, think of the number of jewish people caught painting swastikas and racial slurs on their own buildings to garner sympathy, or the business owner that burns down a failing business for insurance money, etc...

The reality of the situation is that frame-ups (whatever the word you want to use) is always viable tactic...

Bottom line, I'm not going to argue too deeply into the facts, because I've already come to the conclusion that the totality of the evidence makes the situation AT BEST inconclusive. The official story is a lie, but nobody has conclusively proven a case... I mean, it's POSSIBLE that the body of the plane punctured through 6 reinforced concrete walls, yet the engines of the plane disappeared without even breaking a window.

I don't KNOW what hit the pentagon, but nobody has conclusively and satisfactorily shown what has happened.

 

[bub]

This is a 40 minute open-source download from ClearBits™ - BitTorrent Distribution of Open Licensed Media

Do you believe in the paranormal?
Do you believe in 911 truth?
Do you believe in the face on Mars?
Do you believe in.......... Anything that is considered pseudoscience or conspiracy theories?

There is a reason that it is called pseudoscience in that anybody who has critical thinking skills can smash it to smithereens. This video, called Here Be Dragons - A Guide to Critical Thinking, is a quick tour of how critical thinking works, and how it can be used to debunk junk science and conspiracy theories. This is an excellent video, and I highly recommend it, especially for all you truther guys. :mrgreen:

You can find and download it here. You will need a torrent client to download it.http://www.clearbits.net/torrents/659-here-be-dragons I recommand utorrent, which can be found and downloaded here.

Enjoy.

thanks a lot, should be stickied somewhere!

 

[bub]

Another so-called skeptic "debunking" anything that questions authority more than is considered acceptable by authority. Honestly, I'm not big on the paranormal, but why should that be considered something bad to believe exists? Believing that people live on after death and may even have effect on the physical world is not an irrational belief, it is just a belief.

As for conspiracy theories, conspiracies have shaped history and this is known as a fact. Everything from the Scopes Monkey Trial to the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand were the result of known conspiracies. Not every conspiracy is global or even national in nature, but there is no denying there have been such conspiracies and you would be foolish to think there are none going on in the modern era.

Of course there have always been conspiracies, and the 911 could very well be a false flag attack similar to the reichstag burning or the gleiwitz incident.

But the video adresses the way to defend these theories: you can't claim that something (like homeopathy) works because ancients have always done this way, because a guy with a white lab dress says so, or because someone says it involves "energy" and brings a lot of irrelevant informations. That's what the video is talking about: it explains the fallacies that are being used to make people believe something.

 

[Demon of Light]

Of course there have always been conspiracies, and the 911 could very well be a false flag attack similar to the reichstag burning or the gleiwitz incident.

But the video adresses the way to defend these theories: you can't claim that something (like homeopathy) works because ancients have always done this way, because a guy with a white lab dress says so, or because someone says it involves "energy" and brings a lot of irrelevant informations. That's what the video is talking about: it explains the fallacies that are being used to make people believe something.

Well I had not watched it, but now that I have my position remains the same. It is interesting to notice the various fallacies he himself makes in arguing the point and noting how it raises several of the red flags he warns about. The best part was when he suggests people buy his book at the end. Honestly, it is a bunch of garbage and I am sorry that I wasted so much time watching it.

 

[creativedreams]

Memory playing up again creative ... youv'e been told this a gizillion times ... it was to TEST their verification and checking process, supposedly a guarantee of authenticity and calibre of signees.

:lamo

So how many others (CIA agents?) infiltrated 9/11 petitions in the guise of "testing their verification process"?

Kind of a trojan horse... in effect destroying the wishes of the many legitimate licensed architects and engineers who simply wanted a new investigation...

Why would anyone want to undermine... or sabotage a push for a new investigation anyways?

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

So how many others (CIA agents?) infiltrated 9/11 petitions in the guise of "testing their verification process"?

Kind of a trojan horse... in effect destroying the wishes of the many legitimate licensed architects and engineers who simply wanted a new investigation...

Why would anyone want to undermine... or sabotage a push for a new investigation anyways?

Grow up creative ... CIA "agents" for some tiny useless on-line petition !!!

Your not that important ... look at how you are just universally ridiculed and ignored.

Listen creative ... NOBODY needs do ANYTHING to "destroy" that moronic petition ... it is wholly self-destructive ... for they do NOTHING except whine for money to travel the world and have ZERO intention of presenting it to anyone, anytime soon.

Please explain exactly how an ENDLESS petition has ANY power to achieve anything.

If anything people like me pointing out the flaws in it SHOULD be a catalyst to doing it better ... you seem to miss that point entirely.

Trojan Horse ... my arse !!!

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

The rest of this post is an exercise in attacking arguments that are similar but different arguments then the ones I was making, and so is an exercise in demonstrating these built strawmen...

No B'man, there is no strawman pointing out the flawed understanding of a topic !!!

How is showing the misinformation you rely on a strawman ... information is either correct or it's not ???

No, it's not quite that simple... there's the factor of the damage being smaller then the size of the plane (before a section of the structure collapsed).

So what size should it have been according to your understanding of crash forensics and engineering ... should it have been "plane-shaped" like in cartoons ???

Does the narrower cockpit hit first, or the wings ... how does conservation of energy work in this case ???

Do you genuinely think it should have been bigger than the diameter of the fuselage ???

You are aware that running longitudinally the length of an aircraft is a steel structure known as the KEEL BEAM ... it is one of the strongest parts of an aircraft and would have acted like a spear.

What height should the hole have been ... please do not say 44ft !!!

You said I was lying about that ALL the footage has been released??

You said video had not been released ... yet you have been told and shown several times it had ... does that make you a liar ???

what I said was that OUT OF ALL the video of the plane hitting the pentagon that was confiscated, the only bit that was released was the 4-5 frames that DO NOT IN ANY of those frames clearly show any evidence of WHAT it was... it shows a trail leading into the explosion... I'm saying it's INCONCLUSIVE. You can't make ANY determination based on that film, and anyone that does so is being misleading.

Why do you expect more ???

How long was that aircraft in the viewpoint of the camera ... 2 seconds ... 5 seconds ... 10 seconds ... what ???

How many frames do you actually expect there to be ... 5 ... 20 ... 30 ... 1,000 ???

Why do you expect a high-speed event to produce more frames, clarity and definition from slow film rate ???

Yet the reality stands that ALL video from ALL the places HAS been FULLY released ... that most of it shown nothing near the Pentagon is not in itself suspicious, but you seem to expect more.

I have several times linked to Judicial Watch whom have ALL video ... easily available ... here they are again ...

Judicial Watch

Judicial Watch

Judicial Watch

Judicial Watch

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2006/DOD-FOIA-pentagon-attack.pdf

CITGO Gas Station Cameras Near Pentagon Evidently Did Not Capture Attack

This has ALL been in the public domains since 2006 ... every single bit of video has been released, your playing semantics over the security hut footage, by saying that is all that is released.

But B'man why do you not see that the ONLY camera which was near the event was the security hut and because of frame rate it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to have any clearer images that what is available ???

Just because a slow film does not show a fast event does not mean that event did not take place ... when viewed in isolation the few frames prove nothing ... BUT when viewed with the ADDED data from eye-witness testimony, later photographs, expert analysis, forensics, RADAR, etc, etc, etc it creates a PREPONDERANCE of evidence that shows it was Flight 77 !!!

So, unless you can provide this film that clearly shows the plane that hit the pentagon, all we have to go on are reenactments, which go against what the eyewitnesses on the ground described (yes, I know eye witnesses are only valid if they support your claims).

And again, for what possible reason do you still expect CLEAR footage from a security camera recording at the positively glacial rate of one frame per second to CLEARLY define an object travelling at seven hundred and eighty feet per second ...

It just CAN'T be done ... this is really simple maths ... it does not need a three-digit IQ to grasp.

Your personal incredulity is not enough to negate the very real physical reality of this !!!

And how exactly does this "go against" what eye-witnesses said ... please B'man do not give the SHORTENED quotes from conspiracy sites ... if you have eye-witness testimony give the WHOLE quotes.

For I guarantee the WHOLE testimony does not support what the conspiracy sites infer ...

Such as conspiracists whom "convienently" leave out the rest of an ATC controllers quote ... Danielle O'Brian at Dulles ...

"... The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien.

The obvious inference is it "was" a military craft ... but funny how they ALWAYS leave out the REST of the quote ... which shows is wasn't ...

"You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

Air Traffic Controllers Recall 9/11 - ABC News

But before you go getting your knickers in a twist about protected airspace ... read this ... P-56 does NOT include the Pentagon ...

P56

9-11 Research: Eyewitnesses Accounts

9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon, page 1

In chess it's called a gambit... sacrifice a pawn or two so that you can take the queen. OR the old military tactic of sending a small force to attack knowing they will be killed but draw out the enemy so that the rest of the army can attack their flanks...

Real life is not chess !!!

Hell, think of the number of jewish people caught painting swastikas and racial slurs on their own buildings to garner sympathy, or the business owner that burns down a failing business for insurance money, etc...

Oh! noes ... da joos !!!

Is this some American thing ... seriously this kind of stuff NEVER comes up in other countries, unless your some sort of thug in a white supremacists group ... and they just hate everyone !!!

What is the problem with "Jewish" people ... are they not also human beings, whom just have a different religious belief ... I wouldnt know if I have ever seen a Jewish person in my life, do they have two heads or something ???

B'man just because something happened in the past does NOT mean that is what is happening now ... I could just as well publically call you a rapist because some are guilty of it.

It is a nonsensical and illogical argument !!!

Bottom line, I'm not going to argue too deeply into the facts, because I've already come to the conclusion that the totality of the evidence makes the situation AT BEST inconclusive. The official story is a lie, but nobody has conclusively proven a case...

You see B'man this is where you SHOULD be interested in facts ... for without correct factual information your opinion can never be fully informed.

How can you trust your OWN belief if it is garnished from faulty and flawed information ... that is not a logical way to come to any conclusion about anything ... it is avoidence of reality to suit a pre-conception.

That is NOT genuine skeptism !!!

I mean, it's POSSIBLE that the body of the plane punctured through 6 reinforced concrete walls, yet the engines of the plane disappeared without even breaking a window.

The aircraft did NOT have to puncture SIX reinforced walls ... that is yet another piece of misinformation perpetuated by conspiracy sites.

The Pentagon ONLY had reinforced walls on the OUTSIDE walls of E ring, don't also forget that the RINGS only started ABOVE the ground floor ... they started on the SECOND storey, and with the LIMESTONE facing being purely decorative ...

ArchitectureWeek - News - Pentagon Battered but Firm - 2001.1003

Rebuilding the Pentagon

Double BRICK in the INNER walls ... no reinforcement ...

The concentric design of the Pentagon means that very LITTLE force applied to the outer ring will be TRANSMITTED to the inner rings.

There is no SOLID ONE-PIECE structure to absorb the force.

Each ring was subject to the same penetrating force as the previous.

Flight 77 did NOT have to penetrate 6 SOLID reinforced walls ... on the ground floor there was normal office walls and the rings only started above that.

(WHY do Karate masters have GAPS or SPACERS between the concrete or wooden slabs they are going to smash with their hands ... because if it was a solid ONE-PIECE structure they could NOT do it ... same with the Pentagon, by it not being a solid one piece structure the aircraft was able to punch through)

And again B'man this has all been previously discussed ... real facts are real ... and your denial of them shows you to not be interested in real and honest truth, merely having your pre-conceptions and resentments eternally reinforced by deliberate avoidence of genuine factual information.

Not learning and moving on is not good !!!

I don't KNOW what hit the pentagon, but nobody has conclusively and satisfactorily shown what has happened.

You do "know" B'man, for there is a preponderance of real and reliable evidence which tells you it was Flight 77 ... you just don't want to believe it, for it fits in with your world view that all bad things are done by da ebil gubmint and elites for their own ends.

Your personal incredulity does not count ... have you ever thought about going to these places and speaking with the people whom were actually there ... there is nothing stopping you ... except it is harder to keep believing a delusion when you confront, in the real world, those whom were there and see for yourself.

Look B'man, I have no actual proof that YOU exist ... you could be a commitee of robots for all I "really" know, but there is enough evidence to prove your physical reality ... I CHOOSE to accept your reality.

So it is not in fact that there is no genuine and truthful evidence ... there's heaps ... just that you prefer to choose to dismiss it ... that's it !!!

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

Sorro ... forgot to post this bit, couldn't find the photties ... :doh

, yet the engines of the plane disappeared without even breaking a window.

What like this "disppeared" engine ... you know which was in full view UNTIL the collapse which buried and broke it up ...

To later be found as BITS ... like this section of a combustion casing ...

Or this bit of a turbine ...

Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Pentagon & Boeing 757 Engine Investigation

 

[BmanMcfly]

No B'man, there is no strawman pointing out the flawed understanding of a topic !!!

Yes, I am in agreement with what you said... but that's not the point I had been making... So, if I'm arguing A, and you reply 'A+1 means ... ' then you are not addressing the point I raised, but are simply attacking the point you took it to mean... so, while I agree with your position and understand what you're saying, you have been regularly modifying my positions slightly in order to take down the altered version... which is fine, but it is still a strawman argument.

How is showing the misinformation you rely on a strawman ... information is either correct or it's not ???

The strawman is the shifting of my argument, which on occasion I'll accept that my wordings of points may have contributed, and then dealing with the new version...

So what size should it have been according to your understanding of crash forensics and engineering ... should it have been "plane-shaped" like in cartoons ???

Well, I suppose the hole that was punctured should have been as big or bigger then the fuselage of the boeing... that would make the whole argument alot less of a problem.

Does the narrower cockpit hit first, or the wings ... how does conservation of energy work in this case ???

As a lay person, the cockpit should hit first... and since we are talking a collision speed over 500 miles per hour, we're talking fractions of a second, so the explosion is expected... but this is a case again where the official version has it's cake and eats it as well...

I'd be willing to accept that the plane burst through all 6 walls, OR I'd be willing to accept that the plane evaporated... but NOT to be able to see a hole in the middle ring the size as though the nose of the plane punctured through ... but THERE WAS A CLEAR line of sight going through the whole structure.

Do you genuinely think it should have been bigger than the diameter of the fuselage ???

At least AS BIG AS... and the way walls are built, would likely wind up bigger, as the example of the WTC towers, where the hole in the side of the building the first hit was demonstrably larger then the plane itself.

You are aware that running longitudinally the length of an aircraft is a steel structure known as the KEEL BEAM ... it is one of the strongest parts of an aircraft and would have acted like a spear.

What height should the hole have been ... please do not say 44ft !!!

That makes sense... now, lets say only that part, being the strongest punctured through... what happened to it??
Also, if the rest of the plane just peeled off and disintegrated, where did the material all wind up?? Seriously, on the lawn there was a few scrap pieces that you could pretty much pick up by hand, and a few gears that arguably are part of the engines....

Which doesn't make sense all in all, because the engines didn't even break a window yet the fuselage broke through 6 walls?? Even if they are blast windows, which are tough, they are still not indestructible.

You said video had not been released ... yet you have been told and shown several times it had ... does that make you a liar ???

No, this was honestly the first I've heard of it...

 

[BmanMcfly]

Why do you expect more ???

Well, there were eyewitnesses that were on the news discussing how they were filming during a vacation and had caught the whole event on camera which wound up being confiscated... I'll try to dig for the video for this...

How long was that aircraft in the viewpoint of the camera ... 2 seconds ... 5 seconds ... 10 seconds ... what ???

How many frames do you actually expect there to be ... 5 ... 20 ... 30 ... 1,000 ???

This is where you're utterly missing the point... If I showed you a blurred video and said it was an alien, you would rightly be skeptical, but the government shows this blurred video and says 'see that's proof our story is right', you reply 'damn straight'.

I'm telling you objectively, the film IS INCONCLUSIVE, it ONLY serves to intensify debate.

Why do you expect a high-speed event to produce more frames, clarity and definition from slow film rate ???

I expect that since there were at least 3 camera's per section of the pentagon that there should have been multiple angles... however, since the pentagon cameras represent a 'security risk' if they showed all the angles, they can justify keeping the rest private as a national security issue... I know the frame rate is garbage, but out of the many angles that had caught the event on film, there isn't one bit of film that conclusively proves that it was the boeing plane that had been hijacked.

So, Stop trying to tell me that it DOES PROVE it when it clearly DOES NOT, and you only serve to reinforce that point with your points about frame rates and resolution.

I have several times linked to Judicial Watch whom have ALL video ... easily available ... here they are again ...

Judicial Watch

Judicial Watch

Judicial Watch

Judicial Watch

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2006/DOD-FOIA-pentagon-attack.pdf

CITGO Gas Station Cameras Near Pentagon Evidently Did Not Capture Attack

Ok... well, 3 film clips from what was potentially 5 different angles (plus those that claimed to have had confiscated film on 9-11)... I did have a good laugh when most of these links led to the same video clip... but that's ok.

This has ALL been in the public domains since 2006 ... every single bit of video has been released, your playing semantics over the security hut footage, by saying that is all that is released.

There is more footage that has not been released, unless the cameras on the walls of the pentagon are just for show.

But B'man why do you not see that the ONLY camera which was near the event was the security hut and because of frame rate it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to have any clearer images that what is available ???

This is demonstrably false.

Just because a slow film does not show a fast event does not mean that event did not take place ... when viewed in isolation the few frames prove nothing ... BUT when viewed with the ADDED data from eye-witness testimony,

The eyewitnesses from the Citgo gas station... well, they said that the plane definately flew on the opposite side from where the rest of the data pointed.

later photographs,

None of these showing any piece of a plane that was larger then could be picked up by hand...

plane crash - Google Search

In EVERY one of the actual plane crash photos there is clear evidence of... you know... a PLANE...

expert analysis, forensics,

"Trust me, I have a piece of paper that tells me I'm better then you"

forensics, well, since they are limited to analyzing input information, if they are given false information they will come to a false result... so, the forensics DOES depend on accurate information, and the evidence is ALL AMBIGUOUS AT BEST.

RADAR, etc, etc, etc it creates a PREPONDERANCE of evidence that shows it was Flight 77 !!!

Yes, and there is radar evidence that santa claus flies to deliver presents every christmas eve.... any reasonable person would know that this is just a group of jets flying in formation... the dots on the screen do not necessarily prove what the object being tracked is... don't go over the deep end on this, I'm just stating this as an extension that there is nothing that unambiguously proves anything one way or the other.

However, this procedure is not unprecedented in military literature : Operation northwoods, which was declassified, a REAL operation that was cancelled at some point before it was instigated, describes this process of deceit by having an explosion and then dispersing debris so that help and rescue comes to the conclusion that is desired.

And again, for what possible reason do you still expect CLEAR footage from a security camera recording at the positively glacial rate of one frame per second to CLEARLY define an object travelling at seven hundred and eighty feet per second ...

It just CAN'T be done ... this is really simple maths ... it does not need a three-digit IQ to grasp.

I know, that's why it's a strawman argument.

Your personal incredulity is not enough to negate the very real physical reality of this !!!

And using a strawman to create an ad hom argument is noted.

And how exactly does this "go against" what eye-witnesses said ... please B'man do not give the SHORTENED quotes from conspiracy sites ... if you have eye-witness testimony give the WHOLE quotes.

LMAO... and when I give you the 2 pages surrounding a specific quote you just say 'out of context' anyway... or somehow justifiy it as though the quoted person didn't say what they meant or mean what they said, but instead meant something based on your interpretation...I'm not playing this game again, though I'm still doing some searching for the old news footage from nearing 10 years ago.

Real life is not chess !!!

Of course not, but politics and being a leader often requires the strategical analysis like used in a game of chess.... read Machiavelli.

Oh! noes ... da joos !!!

Is this some American thing ... seriously this kind of stuff NEVER comes up in other countries, unless your some sort of thug in a white supremacists group ... and they just hate everyone !!!

What is the problem with "Jewish" people ... are they not also human beings, whom just have a different religious belief ... I wouldnt know if I have ever seen a Jewish person in my life, do they have two heads or something ???

B'man just because something happened in the past does NOT mean that is what is happening now ... I could just as well publically call you a rapist because some are guilty of it.

It is a nonsensical and illogical argument !!!

Again you divert from the point, and through your diversion, dare I say DELIBERATE because you do this tactic continuously?? Or do you just not notice ?

So, You are deliberately race bating by picking out the one example I used and declaring it anti-semitic somehow...

Here I can define it with one word : PRETEXT.

1. An ostensible or professed purpose; an excuse.
2. An effort or strategy intended to conceal something.
tr.v. pre·text·ed, pre·text·ing, pre·texts
To allege as an excuse.

You see B'man this is where you SHOULD be interested in facts ... for without correct factual information your opinion can never be fully informed.

How can you trust your OWN belief if it is garnished from faulty and flawed information ... that is not a logical way to come to any conclusion about anything ... it is avoidence of reality to suit a pre-conception.

That is NOT genuine skeptism !!!

This doesn't even match with what I said... maybe there's something lost in translation here... but really...

The aircraft did NOT have to puncture SIX reinforced walls ... that is yet ...
Not learning and moving on is not good !!!

HAHA... I've worked in construction long enough... a double layered brick wall with that chicken wire mesh, for all intents and purposes IS reinforced... especially when compared with other structures, including MANY that I've worked on...

Just so you know, maybe the standards are different in europe, but in many buildings it would be about just as easy to get into a persons house through the wall as breaking through the door, it's not as simple a matter as the door, but by comparison, the double layer brick is reinforced.

You do "know" B'man, for there is a preponderance of real and reliable evidence which tells you it was Flight 77 ... you just don't want to believe it, for it fits in with your world view that all bad things are done by da ebil gubmint and elites for their own ends.

Your personal incredulity does not count ... have you ever thought about going to these places and speaking with the people whom were actually there ... there is nothing stopping you ... except it is harder to keep believing a delusion when you confront, in the real world, those whom were there and see for yourself.

Look B'man, I have no actual proof that YOU exist ... you could be a commitee of robots for all I "really" know, but there is enough evidence to prove your physical reality ... I CHOOSE to accept your reality.

So it is not in fact that there is no genuine and truthful evidence ... there's heaps ... just that you prefer to choose to dismiss it ... that's it !!!

No... honestly, it doesn't matter... as I've said countless times... the pentagon strike whether it was a plane, a missile, or a submarine... it doesn't change ANYTHING about 9-11 being a pretext for both the justification of planned incursions into the middle east, while expanding on police / security powers in north america.

Ok, fine,... the plane crashed into the pentagon... but 9-11 was still a false-flag militarized operation. Ok, let's call those that think otherwise adding a 'turd into 9-11 truths punchbowl', does that make you happy??

You'll notice that I haven't even discussed the pentagon in a long time... it's like a case where you have a serial killer that's been convicted of 49 counts, but the evidence is weak on the 50th murder.

Crying Wolf: Fabricated Crimes | Psychology Today

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

... which is fine, but it is still a strawman argument.

Well B'man lets just agree to disagree on this one ... for I will still always feel that presenting all possible information can never be a strawman ... real, accurate information can NEVER take away from an argument only add !!!

Well, I suppose the hole that was punctured should have been as big or bigger then the fuselage of the boeing... that would make the whole argument alot less of a problem.

It was !!!

As a lay person, the cockpit should hit first... and since we are talking a collision speed over 500 miles per hour, we're talking fractions of a second, so the explosion is expected... but this is a case again where the official version has it's cake and eats it as well...

Correct ... so the cockpit, by virtue of shape and velocity, PUNCTURED the facade, like a spear or javelin, travelling far in ... but the wings, which contained the fuel, ruptured and broke apart spreading shrapnel like, shredded debris and inflammable liquid everywhere.

Even although a liquid it still had WEIGHT and as travelling forward MASS and ENERGY ... fluid dynamics if you will.

(Just like an avalache although basically just semi-solid water it accumulates energy to do more damage by the simple act of moving gathering up as it goes along.)

I don't see how you can say it is a case of "having cake and eating it" ... it is just the simple and expected physics and science behind impacts and energy ... it just is what it was, a fast object impacting a static object.

Nothing about this is surprizing to those that actually study and understand these kind of things !!!

Crash investigation is a well-known subject, and althought each crash has unique individual parts, the whole is fully understood ... else why B'man, is it only the NON-EXPERTS that are questioning this ???

I know you like to pretend that real experts aren't always reliable, mildly true enough, but they are STILL a hell of a lot more reliable than the complete non-expert !!!

Seriously to believe that this event is somehown not understood by the vast majority of this planets real experts whom have somehow missed these "obvious" details yet been picked up by random people on the internet is simplistic in the extreme.

To think that this world experts have missed this (whatever point regarding physics, engineering and science), but some random dude, with a V avatar to boot, on YooToob has it all "worked out", is simply not a logical or intellectual thought process !!!

For what possible reason do you find random internet conspiracy sites, whose ideas are postulated by KNOWN non-experts MORE credible than this whole wide worlds acknowledged Institutes, Universities and centres of learning ... I said worlds, not US ???

How EXACTLY do people find those such as Dylan, Gage, Icke to be "better" able to interperate engineering data than someone like Bazant ... it doesn't compute B'man ???

Don't come back with the nonsense about Bazant having hands tied due to keeping career or securing funding ... just don't, because it doesn't work like that.

Bazant has PROVEN his expertise and ability ... science is DEMONSTRATED not claimed, Bazant has done that, to the extent he has an engineering scaling law named after him.

These things do not just get handed out ... they are EARNED ... earned by PROVING your level of expertise.

Bazant is able to work ANYWHERE ... he is one of the most respected and recognized experts in his field, whom had won drawerfuls of INTERNATIONAL awards, medals and honours ... he does not "need" America ... his career would carry him anywhere !!!

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/docs/Bazant/resume.pdf

So why would some teenage boys know more than him ... explain ???

Now I am not generating strawmen or whatever flavour of fallacy you choose ... it is a serious question ... for what reason would you ACCEPT and BELIEVE some teenage boy (Like Dylan ... I know you say you don't buy into him ... just an example k) over a PROVEN expert with over 40 years real experience ???

Because THAT is what conspiracist do ... they accept and believe total non-experts over real-experts and yet have the gall to call themselves critical thinkers !!!

I'd be willing to accept that the plane burst through all 6 walls, OR I'd be willing to accept that the plane evaporated... but NOT to be able to see a hole in the middle ring the size as though the nose of the plane punctured through ... but THERE WAS A CLEAR line of sight going through the whole structure.

Why wouldn't the nose cone poke through ... even if broken and damaged it STILL had mass, weight and energy !!!

Dynamic energy is always greater than static.

(If a rock weighs one ton and you break it apart ... it STILL weighs one ton ... and would require the same energy output to shift it, a lorry transporting it in single piece or multiple pieces STILL needs the same fuel, brake power, etc to shift it)

At least AS BIG AS... and the way walls are built, would likely wind up bigger, as the example of the WTC towers, where the hole in the side of the building the first hit was demonstrably larger then the plane itself.

It was ... the impact hole was around 16 feet in diameter ... completely in keeping with puncture of an object 13 feet in diameter.

Along the side of the building there was CLEAR damage from the WINGS, with bigger damage in line with where the engines, the struts, and the fairings, or wheel housing were ...

In the above photograph you will notice that the damage is bowing INWARDS ... something that would not have happened with a missile, as missile damage radiates outwards in a 360° pattern, idential damage in ALL directions, including the ground by leaving craters as well.

This is clearly damage from one direction only ... something coming IN.

They also do NOT (except in Hollywood) produce massive fireballs ... there is lots of smoke but no real flame because the shockwave drives oxygen AWAY ..

(Think of how explosives are used to extinguish oil well fires)

A missile also has to actually penetrate before detonation, creating an all over expanding shockwave ... the one on the Pentagon was visibly OUTSIDE at the very wall.

The damage to the Pentagon is entirely in keeping with impact from an object the size and shape of a Boeing 767

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

Also, if the rest of the plane just peeled off and disintegrated, where did the material all wind up?? Seriously, on the lawn there was a few scrap pieces that you could pretty much pick up by hand, and a few gears that arguably are part of the engines....

Again B'man this is where conspiracy promotion sites are dishonest by ONLY showing the few photographs which make it appear there is not much debris as well as cropping out.

And that's not a strawman ... its a statement of fact !!!

For there are plenty of images that show you huge amounts of shredded debris, like in other crashes ... dont forget also that due to the limitations of film media, many photographss show FORESHORTENING of the scene, so it is harder to define detail as it is more squished ...

Some of it large debris, such as this APU door ...

Notice too, the GREEN PRIMER .... used mostly in the airline construction industry as it contains Zinc Chromate, which is an extremely effective anti-corrosive barrier paint ...

"... The aircraft first receives a base foundation coat of anti-corrosion green wash-primer, followed by an intermediate primer to enhance the bond between the primer and the final colour pigment."

Color Around the World: Europe's Leading Aircraft Painter - Lufthansa Technik AG

Poly-Fiber Aircraft Coatings - EP-420 Epoxy Primer Green or White

Which doesn't make sense all in all, because the engines didn't even break a window yet the fuselage broke through 6 walls?? Even if they are blast windows, which are tough, they are still not indestructible.

B'man, it is simple, just like in an earthquake or other disaster, some windows survive intact ... some don't !!!

Look at the aftermath of a hurricane or other disaster ... you sometimes see incongruous examples of an intact object while everything else is in bits ... it happens !!!

Many windows WERE broken at the Pentagon and some WEREN'T ... it happens !!!

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

I'll try to dig for the video for this...

Please do ...

This is where you're utterly missing the point... If I showed you a blurred video and said it was an alien, you would rightly be skeptical, but the government shows this blurred video and says 'see that's proof our story is right', you reply 'damn straight'.

No B'man I do not miss the point ... I do not just take da gubmint word that says it shows a plane ... I accept it as only PART of a greater collection of information and data that when taken together shows an aircraft impact.

To take it in isolation is stupid !!!

I also use my own understanding of science, physics, avionics, etc garnished from personal experience and career, as well as the advocacy of those whom I respect as more knowledgable than me, such as engineering friends, ex-RAF personnel, etc whose judgement I trust.

Nothing I believe is because da gubmint told me ... don't forget B'man, as a non-American I have ZERO interest in them, nor follow them ... I have NOT got any of my understanding from any part of da US gubmint.

Personally, I could not give two flying ducks for their politics or words ... :moon:

I also look fully through the conspiracy sites ... and then either fact-check/double-check their information or seek advice elsewhere.

I have contacted ex-pals whom are in ATC (Military and Civilian), in France, Germany and Australia for a more technical understanding of proceedure, and although from outside US, most share commonality of purpose and use as air travel is now extensive and global.

I have spoken with other more experienced private pilots than me (not pulled a stick in years) ... I have accessed proper scientific studies, using Google Scholar as oppossed to the more lay Google ... etc, etc, etc.

I have looked as much at conspracy sites as "official ones" ... and have come to a FULLY informed opinion ... which rests with the CONSENSUS of the vast majority of the planet ... hijacking by radical foreign extremists whom deliberatly crashed into various targets !!!

B'man when some people actively believe, support and have engagement with like-minded individuals or groups, they have a sense of taking "action" against a seemingly more powerful adversary ... and this is what virtually every single conspiracy going boils down to ...

""It's da ebil gubmint doin' it ...""

Another is that they bring "order" to an unwieldy universe ... even a theory that posits an overwhelming evil force in the world is comforting (for some) compared to the enormity of random tragedy and violence we see all around us !!!

Conspiracy theories may act as a quasi-scientific attempt to explain the unknown, not too dissimilar to religion (perhaps utilising the same neurological mechanisms) ... but whist a child could be excused for believing such fantasies, it is intriguing how some adults can maintain and perpetuate wild conspiracy beliefs without regret.

It is akin to HAVING to explain that rainbows are a natural phenomenon with the Crazy Rainbow Lady ... she is just stupendously stupid, yet prepared to defend it in argument.

That degree of ignorance is not somthing to be proud of ... aside that in todays world it just shouldn't happen than somebody in the First World has that level of "stupid" !!!

I'm not arguing for blindly following anyone B'man... but when a reasonable and probable account has been rendered by studied, renowned, credible and respected REAL PROFESSIONALS and EXPERTS ... how can you find it unbelievable.

I choose to accept the expert opinion ... anyday ... over a few badly researched, sketchy and patchy attempts at psuedoscience by NON-EXPERTS!!!

Thus far, the Truther movement has been very light on providing a coherent, consistent, and illustrative scenario that even attempts to meet the bar or standards of the official explanations.

The fact is, the official version is the "only" explanation that lies within the realm of reason.

So is it possible that I have come to a FULLY informed conclusion ... YES !!!

Did I just blindly believe the US gubmint ... NO ... it is not mine to believe !!!

I'm telling you objectively, the film IS INCONCLUSIVE, it ONLY serves to intensify debate.

Yet again B'man only when not taken alongside the other plethora of information available.

Yes, the video shows nothing "conclusive", but when you take on board that it can only ever be as clear as it was for genuinely technical reasons, you see it is then only a MINOR part of the rest of the evidence.

By being so, understandably, fuzzy and indefined, how does that "intensify" debate ???

Due to scientific reality of frame rate versus speed it SHOULD become lesser to the debate, for it can never be more than it is, fuzzy film !!!

There are AMPLE other things, more conclusive, which ADD to the fact it WAS an aircraft, in truth Flight 77, that hit the Pentagon.

I expect that since there were at least 3 camera's per section of the pentagon that there should have been multiple angles...

Where ???

Which 3 cameras per section ???

Do you have photographs of them, there must be some available.

Please show them, for I believe I know where this is going !!!

There is more footage that has not been released, unless the cameras on the walls of the pentagon are just for show.

Ah! see, I did know where you were going with this ...

Your conspiracy sites lied to you, again ... those are NOT cameras.

They are block-and-tackle points used for window washing hoists !!!

You can even see the ROPE !!!

Your little unexplained-myseries/above top secret photograph (originally posted by the fraud Craig Ranke from CIT) shows photoshopped images with the NEW cameras ... which WEREN'T there THEN on 9/11 ...

A twoofer doctoring images ... whoda thunk it !!!

 

[Demon of Light]

Hell, think of the number of jewish people caught painting swastikas and racial slurs on their own buildings to garner sympathy, or the business owner that burns down a failing business for insurance money, etc...

It is kind of interesting to note that and this is stuff typically included in reports on hate crimes. I am curious how many hate crimes include these sorts of non-violent incidents and how many of those incidents were carried out by Jews.

Real life is not chess !!!

Actually I could show you that this is a rather common tactic. Sacrificing innocents for the benefit of some greater goal has happened all the time.

I have looked as much at conspracy sites as "official ones" ... and have come to a FULLY informed opinion ... which rests with the CONSENSUS of the vast majority of the planet ... hijacking by radical foreign extremists whom deliberatly crashed into various targets !!!

Even if that is the truth it does not rule out a government conspiracy. Proving the event happened as described does not prove we have the whole story.

Another is that they bring "order" to an unwieldy universe ... even a theory that posits an overwhelming evil force in the world is comforting (for some) compared to the enormity of random tragedy and violence we see all around us !!!

There is order to the universe, we are just too feeble-minded to perceive that order. Of course, that does not mean every action is plotted out by some nefarious intelligence, only that there is no such thing as random. It doesn't even mean there is a reason for why things happen. However, that is all way off topic. What you should do is plot out the mindset you describe here and assign it also to the most powerful people in the world. Humans most importantly want to control their environment because an environment beyond their control is threatening to them. People in positions of power have greater ability to control their environment and fearing a lack of control use whatever means they have available to exercise control.

Democracy inherently takes the system out of their control and so when they see something they consider a thought they find themselves unable to control the situation because they cannot control the masses. That is why every authority in history has sought a way to control the masses with varying levels of success. Manipulating information and influencing events that might allow shifts in the public mindset towards their desired position is how the elites of today seek control.

There is a BBC documentary called the Century of the Self that deals in part with this sort of mass mind control. Basically, I do not see it as them having control, but rather seeking control.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Interesting how the very term "conspiracy theory" in itself creates a taboo topic and has evolved to keep average American's (sheeple) from questioning their government.....even though throughout history of the world there are countless "conspiracies" that were quite disturbing and quite real....

America has evolved to a place where the government is unquestionable by its citizens....even though America's government is far more sneaky and secretive than ever before

And it's interesting to note how the term 'sheeple' is used to insult a mass number of people on the bases of false assumptions.

I question the government all the time. A lot of people do.

Today in my Law class we took a 'view' survey - almost everyone thought our laws were unfair, our government is out of control and our rights/means to intercede and hold the government accountable was increasing in common-use, popularity and ease.

More and more people are becoming less accepting, blind and tolerant of the government - as is evident if you just brief a timeline of history when it comes to citizens taking action.

In your realm of thought and opinion you should be very well aware of our countrymen's increase in this area of activity - rather than a decrease.

 

[BmanMcfly]

I_gaze_at_blue :

I'm only going to make a few points here :

First, thanks for bringing up all this extra information, I had not seen many of those pictures, and I'm much more convinced now that it really was the plane that crashed into the building... though I do maintain that even conceding that the pentagon was hit by a plane, does not change that the attacks on 9-11 were a pretext, an event that at bare minimum was allowed to happen to outright orchestrated from the highest levels for the purposes detailed in the PNAC's rebuilding america's defenses.

I know I keep harping on strawman tactics, and you do use these tactics interspersed with your legitimate points... I'm not pointing these out as an antagonistic way to avoid addressing issues, more that many times even by addressing the counter-points does nothing to change the original point.

Now, I do hope that you'll pay attention to what I say next time the pentagon issue gets brought up...

Finally, I do agree that the official story is the only 'full account'... that glances over all the issues. The problem is that there is too much that is simply glossed over, or untouched in the official account that is damning of this account and points that the events of 9-11, much like Palpatine did to become the emperor served as an event that could be used to manipulate the masses into granting the wishes of those in power. The main one of these is to re-engineer human society into this 'one world / new world order' system of command and control over every human activity into perpetuity.

I've said many times that when I'm properly shown where my beliefs are wrong I will own up to my being wrong and will shift my view points accordingly... I'm ALL TO HAPPY to be proven wrong... I can't simply be TOLD that I'm wrong though, and this time you've succeeded and I thank you for this past post, though you may be irritated at how little this shift on my viewpoint of the pentagon attack on 9-11 changes my overall view point rest assured that if others bring up the pentagon I will respond more along the lines : "It was the plane that hit the building, focus more on other issues then this 'turd' in the truth punch bowl"

Cheers.

 

[BmanMcfly]

And it's interesting to note how the term 'sheeple' is used to insult a mass number of people on the bases of false assumptions.

I question the government all the time. A lot of people do.

Today in my Law class we took a 'view' survey - almost everyone thought our laws were unfair, our government is out of control and our rights/means to intercede and hold the government accountable was increasing in common-use, popularity and ease.

More and more people are becoming less accepting, blind and tolerant of the government - as is evident if you just brief a timeline of history when it comes to citizens taking action.

In your realm of thought and opinion you should be very well aware of our countrymen's increase in this area of activity - rather than a decrease.

Honestly, the 'sheep' are waking up and realizing the lion within...

I still remember my attempts with 9-11 truth from 9-12...
In 2001 - There was near violent opposition at even the suggestion of government involvement
By 2005 - People would listen to the questions, but then laugh it off...
By 2007 - People became aware of both sides of the stories and I started running into people that had similar thought processes, or they would have alternative viewpoints, and the true dialogues began.
In 2010 - Now I go and talk to people at random, and I'm amazed, they are all what I would call 'awake' to the situation in the world... well, not all, but it's at least in the area of 30-40% of the people I'll talk to (too low of a sample size to attribute this as anything more then my experience) know that government is corrupt, not looking out for their best interests, and are openly willing to discuss these things... I remember during the G20 protests I got SO PISSED OFF seeing the police officers dressed as anarchists in pictures attacking police with police issue weapons that I just yelled it out, and on the train most people didn't actually respond but I had 3-4 people say, 'I thought there was something odd with that situation' and then another person came closer and said 'they're called agents provocateurs'... I was shocked to have that many people say something on a train car with maybe 20-30 other people on the way to work

The awakening IS happening. So, the number of 'sheep' out there is dwindling.