911 Pentagon Video Footage

[Czero 101]

Skyeagle... pay closer attention who you are replying to.

In your post above you are obviously replying to BR, but have quoted Raptor's post and are talking to him as if he were BR

Cz

Edited October 17, 2012 by Czero 101

[skyeagle409]

Skyeagle... pay closer attention who you are replying to.

In your post above you are obviously replying to BR, but have quoted Raptor's post and are talking to him as if he were BR

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Apologies to RaptorBites. The post was meant for BR.

[+Liquid Gardens]

Does acceptance of breaking the guidelines, in favour of one author but not another, make the decision any less biased? I think not.

How difficult can this be: you can't break guidelines if there are other guidelines in place specifically allowing different word counts by editorial discretion, the same editorial discretion I might add that allowed the truther's reponse paper to published in the first place. It's like saying that because a baseball batter got to first base due to a walk that it breaks the guideline that you need to get a hit to be able to advance; multiple guidelines coexist. Here's the definition for you of 'bias', from dictionary.com: "a particular tendency or inclination, especially one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice." What is your evidence of prejudice due to political sensitivity? Zip. What is your evidence of prejudice at all? Zip. No guidelines that I can see vowing that all discussion and closure papers will be of equal length out of respect to some people's ideas of 'fairness'. Even if they are biased, how do you know the cause, you consistently just pluck out one possibility and ignore the others. Maybe Bazant is good friends with the editor and that's why he ultimately got more words; it'd be biased but it's got nothing to do with anything political. Why don't these even register on your probability board? Is this another consequence of overcertainty?

I don’t have any concrete evidence that every one of Rupert Murdoch’s hundreds of media outlets without exception editorialised in favour of the Iraq war due to a political decision at some level either... but that obviously was the case (it would be unbelievable to find a large random group where 100% agreed with the war). That instance was also a form of editorial bias in place of fair reporting of the facts, though given your responses I wouldn’t expect you to see/accept it. I rather hope, to be consistent, that you would argue along the lines the bias existed because the creators of the conflict were luminaries and that the Iraq war was ‘plain correct’, etc. Whilst I would, and did, question that media bias just as much as in the present case regarding mainstream journals.

What is with these 'analogies'? There is pretty concrete evidence that Murdoch's views align with the neocons/conservatives and the media he controls overtly reflects his views. Scientific journals do not publish political opinion, they don't really compare to news media. You are just grabbing out of thin air that the JEM is also biased politically, not even going to try to connect one of the editors to Neocons/Zionists/CIA? It shouldn't be that difficult, albeit still uncompelling.

I don’t understand how you can miss it. You already accept that editors can break their own guidelines “as they see fit”. So the only question would be: do you think editors are like robots; wholly objective and free of media influences and political considerations? Of course they are not – they are affected as much as anyone else, have a position of power/responsibility to add and must answer to their superiors. Even I would think twice about what I published if I were such an editor, for fear of stirring up a hornets’ nest and safety of my position.

What's the matter Q, doncha like it when others insist on people they don't know behaving in ways that are not agreeable to your overall argument? LIke when you tell me how all the hundreds of thousands of other experts either haven't looked at your blatant demolition theory or are cowed by the awesome oppression of the 'establishment'? Anyway, the issue here is simple, you feel entirely justified saying that mainstream journals have been proven to be biased against truthers due to political sensitivity. Your evidence of this? Lots of people, of an unknown quantity, are biased due to political sensitivity. If you think that's satisfactory, that's fine, duly noted; I agree, this is boring.

So what? Then I jumped the gun, demanded an investigation and conclusive answers. Better than to lull people into a false sense of righteousness in support of a war, no? By the way, I don’t believe I’m wrong at all – I have a very high level of confidence in my conclusions due to culmination of the vast evidence I have researched – that is not a concern to me at all. I’m more challenging you – what if you are wrong? All you want to talk about, are the oh so terrible consequences if I am wrong – OMG Q, if you are wrong, then you are wrong and... nothing. But what if you are wrong, LG? How does that compare? Perhaps we should have got a real investigation, and real answers, so we didn’t need to be in this position?

I've seen how you have culminated and glued your vast evidence together with large globs of your imagination, I don't find it nearly as convincing. As I said before, why are you piddlying away your time on 9/11 when clearly, under these standards of yours, we need a much more thorough investigation of alien visitations, there's all kinds of evidence of the government interfering with ufo investigations, they must be hiding something, what if I'm wrong, nothing? The fate of the earth potentially hinges on it if I'm right. And really, this paper word count 'unfairness' seems all the more pouty when you are so willing to jettison 'fairness' in order to get the investigation you want. You do realize that the people you want to investigate, because of the enormous downside if you are correct, have rights too? You need to provide some probable cause to get very far, and your direct evidence of anything is very limited. You've also shown how you would wield this fairness; Bazant is already a criminal, Silverstein is complicit in mass murder if not an accomplice, all based on some very circumstantial evidence buttressed by the solidity of your overcertainty and the unsound logic of an appeal to consequences, which has nothing to do with the truth value of the proposition.

No, that is not my argument - you have intentionally or not adopted a strawman argument. Let’s start from the beginning. I initially set out to show that the number of professionals is growing within the truth movement – and due to the figures, this is undeniable (post #2417). You then put forward an argument that a significant number of individuals not within the truth movement have evaluated the points I argue and disagree with me. The challenge that followed is to prove that your argument is unfounded in figures; it’s just an opinion. You don’t know that a significant number of professionals have evaluated the points I argue and disagree with me at all – you can’t back it up, but you’d like to believe it.

Yet you seem to also understand exactly what I'm referring to, you seem to realize that you need an explanation for why so many experts are not on your side which is where we diverted into some unfounded statement you made about the only people brave enough who are unbiased or don't succumb to political pressure are truthers. We had a long back-and-forth about your assumptions about the behavior and mindset of hundreds of thousands of experts? It's got nothing to do with 'like to believe it', you may not believe it, but I like it when you and I agree on something, like in general the tragedy of the ridiculous Iraq War, even though we agree on very little about 9/11. I believe it because I think the alternative you propose to be unlikely, and I've explained why many times: the interest in the most famous building collapses of all time, the controversy concerning the collapses driving experts to look into it, the benefits (again, Nobel prize level stuff) of blowing the cover off the biggest story of all time. I know you've replied to all those, but I think your civil war fears are a bit overwrought; a whole bunch of your argument relies on the complacency of Americans and you're simultaneously worried about those same Americans rising up in a civil war... as long as the electricity, food, cable, and internet are running, I can assure you your concerns of an uprising are unfounded. If your point is just that the number of professionals in the truther movement is growing and that has no other significance, then I agree, for whatever it means. Do the truthers dutifully deduct from their count of experts when they die, or is this number just inevitably always going to increase?

[+Liquid Gardens]

snip - double quote

Edited October 18, 2012 by Liquid Gardens

[+Liquid Gardens]

I’m honestly bored of this particular discussion. Let’s leave the facts to speak for themselves: -

Everyone can draw their own conclusions whether this constitutes ‘bias’ in favour of Bazant/against Gourley.

Interesting timing on your boredom; don't think it hasn't already been noted that as soon as boony whips out some math to support his scientific arguments, you also get bored and weary of the repetition. But I'm with you, this is boring, everyone can also draw their own conclusions as to whether '"There have also been a number of papers published in mainstream journals, which unfortunately have been proven biased in applying publishing rules when it comes to 9/11 truth, such is political sensitivity of the subject" is founded by "it would be naive to believe that political considerations are not taken into account by publishing editors.".

The reason I don’t feel the need to reproduce all of that text is because it has no bearing whatsoever on the initial quote. So please could you explain what context you think the rest of that text adds to the quote? Because I honestly don’t see it.

Is it that... no, I’ll just let you explain. This should be interesting. Do beware - flyingswan has misled you before.

Whether I've been misled is debatable, flyingswan has replied on the differences in peer review, especially pertaining to the 'peer' part. You don't see how, "no-one ever knows everything, there are always margins of error" modifies and qualifies the part you quote? That's fine, everyone can again draw their own conclusions, just trying to help you clean up your arguments.

[booNyzarC]

Do the truthers dutifully deduct from their count of experts when they die, or is this number just inevitably always going to increase?

Not to mention those who come to realize that the reasons they signed up in the first place were not nearly as substantiated as they may have first thought... and those which are merely padded repeat signups by certainly overly zealous members... and those which agree with some minor quibble, but not the whole argument... and any number of other qualifications which would serve to deflate this nonsensical idea that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition.

If these organizations really wanted to deliver some truth, they'd delineate with great detail exactly who agrees with exactly what. They'd break down the arguments for their membership to vote on, requiring participation in the vote, in order to make a more definitive statement to the world.

But they don't.

They don't even qualify their membership.

If you wanted to go sign up on one of these truther sites, you'd be welcomed with open arms and not questioned at all. If you went to every library in your home town, you could do so without any barriers. Drive to the next town? Sure thing. The more the merrier. No questions asked. Sign right up, right here, right now.

What do you think might happen if you signed up and then later requested to be removed from the ranks? My guess is that your request would be ignored. I haven't tried myself, though the idea has crossed my mind.

By the way... excellent post. Sorry for snipping it down to this one tiny sentence for my own commentary.

Cheers.

[Q24]

There is pretty concrete evidence that Murdoch's views align with the neocons/conservatives and the media he controls overtly reflects his views.

No way... you imaginative conspiracist you... how do you know that? Is this a result of your overconfidence? What is your evidence that neocon/conservative views have anything to do with it? How do you know that Murdoch didn’t just repeat Bush’s views, and the editors in turn repeated Murdoch’s view, just because they are good friends? Where is the evidence that Murdoch applied any pressure to his editors? Where does it state in the media he controls that the articles are anything to do with political views? Perhaps, it’s a possibility, the editorials on the Iraq war are just ‘plain correct’ so have a right to be published? Maybe there was just extra space every week which by dumb luck happened to be filled with pro-war editorial? It may be that the architects of the Iraq war are luminaries and legitimately deserve editorial coverage of their views? And at the end of the day, the editors and owners are under no obligation – they can write what they want – doesn’t mean it’s anything to do with politics, or biased toward war, or unfair to the anti-war movement, right? I might say it’s a little ‘whiny’ to suggest bias in the publishing. Perhaps there’s another unknown reason why Murdoch’s outlets all editorialised in favour of the Iraq war... I guess we’ll never know, because I want to believe that, why don’t you anymore?

That’s a reflection of your argument – seriously, try to answer the questions above and you will see the type of disbelief I’m up against.

Interesting timing on your boredom; don't think it hasn't already been noted that as soon as boony whips out some math to support his scientific arguments, you also get bored and weary of the repetition.

If that’s what you have deduced then you’re wrong. I’ve been going over this minor point with you for pages, and now you find the timing of my boredom interesting? I could go on forever correcting errors and misunderstandings but it genuinely does reach a point where we're repeating ourselves too frequently and I can’t be bothered. Believe me, it’s nothing to do with amazingness of your argument or ‘whippin out some maths’ that gets me bored.

Whether I've been misled is debatable, flyingswan has replied on the differences in peer review, especially pertaining to the 'peer' part. You don't see how, "no-one ever knows everything, there are always margins of error" modifies and qualifies the part you quote? That's fine, everyone can again draw their own conclusions, just trying to help you clean up your arguments.

No, I don’t see how that affects the quote.

How does the fact there are margins of error modify the quote?

NIST’s results, and therefore their hypothetical conclusion, include the margins of error.

i.e. taking account of the margins of error, “NIST's conclusion would be "It's more likely to stand up than collapse, but we can't rule out collapse".”

You see, acknowledging the margins of error does not modify the initial quote.

Please try again.

[Q24]

What do you think might happen if you signed up and then later requested to be removed from the ranks? My guess is that your request would be ignored. I haven't tried myself, though the idea has crossed my mind.

Typical armchair/pseudo-skeptic. I have conversed with AE911T regarding their professional membership after flyingswan came up with a similarly slanderous claim. I can confirm that the group do take their membership seriously; requesting proof of credentials from architects and engineers. If you got registered booNy, then it would only be through deception – why don’t you put it to the test? If you succeed, I know for a fact they’d remove you from the ranks afterwards at your request. Or just drop them an e-mail requesting their member verification procedure?

[booNyzarC]

Typical armchair/pseudo-skeptic. I have conversed with AE911T regarding their professional membership after flyingswan came up with a similarly slanderous claim. I can confirm that the group do take their membership seriously; requesting proof of credentials from architects and engineers. If you got registered booNy, then it would only be through deception – why don’t you put it to the test? If you succeed, I know for a fact they’d remove you from the ranks afterwards at your request. Or just drop them an e-mail requesting their member verification procedure?

My hypothetical was intended toward ALL truther organizations, not just one. IF there is such a policy for AE911T I commend them, assuming that what you say here is true of course. Considering that you supposedly asked about this yourself, why not share with all of us the exact response that you received? And when you are done with that, ask whether or not any of the other truther organizations share in this supposed policy. Do you think that Pilots for 911 Truth carry forward this practice for example?

Do you consider my questioning such a thing to be slanderous?

[Q24]

My hypothetical was intended toward ALL truther organizations, not just one. IF there is such a policy for AE911T I commend them, assuming that what you say here is true of course. Considering that you supposedly asked about this yourself, why not share with all of us the exact response that you received? And when you are done with that, ask whether or not any of the other truther organizations share in this supposed policy. Do you think that Pilots for 911 Truth carry forward this practice for example?

Do you consider my questioning such a thing to be slanderous?

Questioning is fine. The claims and guesses you made with no basis are slanderous, i.e. “They don't even qualify their membership ... If you wanted to go sign up on one of these truther sites, you'd be welcomed with open arms and not questioned at all.”

Excerpt from my correspondence with AE911T: -

Thank you for your interest and questions regarding AE911 Truth's verification procedures. I am one of the verifiers for Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

I can tell you that we verify the credentials of every architect and engineer who signs the petition. That is not to say that there are not mean people out there who have found it amusing to sign up fictional people with made up credentials to disrupt our work. We've had any number of fake petition signers from Osama Bin Laden to Mickey Mouse. More seriously, some mischief makers go to the trouble of finding architects out of the phone book or online licensing boards and sign up randomly selected people who have no idea that someone is using their name fraudulently. We catch them, of course, and delete them. It is because of these juvenile people that the verification standards have become, out of necessity, fairly exacting. I leave it up to you to decide whether or not it is likely that the people on the message boards who are claiming we have fake people on the petition, are the same ones who submitted them in the first place.

Regarding AE911's verification procedures, a process of elimination must occur on several levels:

1. All the architects and engineers that sign the petition have to email authenticate. That means they have an active email account, at the very least, and that email address is associated with a real person who clicked the link provided indicating that they intended to signed the petition and join.

2. Once they email authenticate, each architect and engineer who signs the petition gets a telephone call and a verifier speaks to them personally to make contact and again confirm that they signed the peition.

3. We verify all the licenses of architects and engineers by checking the state boards. If an architect or engineer is not licensed, but degreed, they MUST fax or email a scanned copy of their diploma from a credentialed architectural or engineering school. Once ALL THREE of those take place, only then is an architect or engineer considered verified.

For the two petition signers in question you emailed about, they are non-U.S. architects or engineers. For non-U.S. A/E's we do the same above checks, minus the personal telephone contact because of the cost of overseas communication. As far as I can tell, both people were properly verified to the best of our ability and there were no issues with their information.

As you can see, we do go through a lot to make sure people are who they say they are. Has one of these names out of a phone book been placed on the list or ever slipped through before such rigorous standards had to be put in place and before we realized people were deliberately disrupting the process? Probably. But if we find them, they are immediately deleted. As I am sure you understand, there is no such thing as a "sure thing" and false credentials are made up all time all around the world. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth does the absolute best it can to assure the quality and validity of its architectural and engineering petition signers.

I hope this answers your questions and puts any doubts you have to rest.

And yes, I expect that even PfffT would have some procedure in place to verify piloting/aviation credentials of their members where it is claimed. Some of those members make very good points, in particular regarding the manoeuvre at the Pentagon, even if the people they associate with promote other questionable/false theory for whatever reason.

[skyeagle409]

And yes, I expect that even PfffT would have some procedure in place to verify piloting/aviation credentials of their members where it is claimed. Some of those members make very good points, in particular regarding the manoeuvre at the Pentagon, even if the people they associate with promote other questionable/false theory for whatever reason.

The maneuver at the Pentagon was not extraordinary by any means and I have conducted similar maneuvers as a low-time student pilot. To put it in perspective, from the start of his maneuver, I could walk from my computer to the kitchen and scope out leftovers in the fridge from yesterday then grab a glass and pour a drink of green tea and head off to the living room and turn on the TV and sit back on the sofa and look at my watch and notice that he still has not completed a 360 degree circle, so I have to wait another minute.

That definitely does not sound like an extraordinary maneuver at all, and in fact, it was just a lazy descending right turn similar to what many student pilots have performed during the course of their flight training.

Edited October 18, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Q24]

The maneuver at the Pentagon was not extraordinary by any means and I have conducted similar maneuvers as a low-time student pilot. To put it in perspective, from the start of his maneuver, I could walk from my computer to the kitchen and scope out leftovers in the fridge from yesterday then grab a glass and pour a drink of green tea and head off to the living room and turn on the TV and sit back on the sofa and look at my watch and notice that he still has not completed a 360 degree circle, so I have to wait another minute.

That definitely does not sound like an extraordinary maneuver at all, and in fact, it was just a lazy descending right turn similar to what many student pilots have performed during the course of their flight training.

That’s nice...

“At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and could not have flown it the way the flight path was described. I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor, U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did.”

~Commander Ralph Kolstad, U.S. Navy (ret)

“Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn.…"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said Wittenberg.”

~Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force

“The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet. And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult. And it would take considerable training. In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it's not for military maneuvers. And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that. …”

~Commander Ted Muga, BS CE, U.S. Navy (ret)

“Finally, going over the hill and highway and crashing into the Pentagon right at the wall/ground interface is nearly impossible for even a small slow single engine airplane and no way for a 757. Maybe the best pilot in the world could accomplish that but not these unskilled "terrorists".”

~Capt. Daniel Davis, U.S. Army – Former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director.

“The Pentagon event shows that the official story is false because of the improbable flight path flown by the 757. The Shanksville event shows that the official story is false because of the characteristics of the aircraft debris field.”

~Arthur L. Carran, BS Aerospace Eng, PE – Aerospace Engineer. Certified Commercial Pilot.

Note they are not saying the manoeuvre was physically impossible to achieve, though the fact remains that skimming feet above the ground at 500 mph carries an obvious risk, more so to an amateur pilot on his first real flight. Whoever was in control of the aircraft… the descent, turn, final approach and impact were all performed rather well/militaristically, even leading experienced ATC to believe they were viewing a military aircraft on their radar screens at the time.

Was this the work of Hanjour, who was inept at controlling/landing a small, single engine aircraft, or more possibly one of the many remote guidance systems that existed on 9/11?

[skyeagle409]

That’s nice...

“At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and could not have flown it the way the flight path was described. I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor, U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did.”

~Commander Ralph Kolstad, U.S. Navy (ret)

How amusing for him to say such a thing when giant C-5 transports, KC-10 tankers, and even the C-17s at Travis AFB and other Air Force bases around the country perform even more radical maneuvers from altitudes up to 10,000 feet to a 360 degree landing on runway 21R during tactical anti-aircraft avoidance maneuvers.

BTW, my cousin is not only flew the B-757, but flies the B-767 as well and he doesn't agree with 9/11 Truthers either. In fact, none of the military and commercial pilots in my group agree with them. As I have said, the Hani maneuver is no more radical than a typical engine-out emergency maneuver that student pilots perform everyday. As a pilot of over 40 years, I find his remarks very amusing to say the least.

Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn.…"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said Wittenberg.”

~Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force

Since the giant C-5 transport can conduct 360 degree maneuvers from as high at 10,000 feet altitude to a landing, then I see no problem with a B-757 performing a lazy 330 degree descending turn from 7000 feet.

“The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet. And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult. And it would take considerable training. In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it's not for military maneuvers. And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that. …”

~Commander Ted Muga, BS CE, U.S. Navy (ret)

Talented pilots?! The tactical maneuver conducted by large aircraft as the C-5, is much more radical than anything that Hani performed and the only restriction in the C-5 is that during the descending maneuver, the pilot is forbidden from deploying the thrust reversers on #2 and # 3 engines in idle-reverse with full flaps during the descent.

“Finally, going over the hill and highway and crashing into the Pentagon right at the wall/ground interface is nearly impossible for even a small slow single engine airplane and no way for a 757. Maybe the best pilot in the world could accomplish that but not these unskilled "terrorists".”

~Capt. Daniel Davis, U.S. Army – Former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director.

“The Pentagon event shows that the official story is false because of the improbable flight path flown by the 757. The Shanksville event shows that the official story is false because of the characteristics of the aircraft debris field.”

~Arthur L. Carran, BS Aerospace Eng, PE – Aerospace Engineer. Certified Commercial Pilot.

I will pit my skills as a pilot against those pilots you have listed to prove those people are not playing with a full deck. In fact, I'd accepted BR's challenge to perform the Hani maneuver in front of military, commercial, and private pilots at the Nut Tree airport in Vacaville, CA. a few months ago. During the maneuver, I planned to down a full bottle of water before reaching the 300 degree mark to show how easy to perform such a maneuver.

I know many of those pilots personally because I am a member of two local aviation chapters whose members include military and commercial pilots and one of those chapters, I am the past president, that includes military members at Travis AFB, and included original Tuskegee Airmen, one of whom nominated me for president of the chapter whose members voted me in.

Not one of those pilots support the 9/11 Truth movement.

Edited October 18, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

That’s nice...

“At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and could not have flown it the way the flight path was described. I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor, U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did.”

~Commander Ralph Kolstad, U.S. Navy (ret)

“Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn.…"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said Wittenberg.”

~Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force

“The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet. And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult. And it would take considerable training. In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it's not for military maneuvers. And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that. …”

~Commander Ted Muga, BS CE, U.S. Navy (ret)

“Finally, going over the hill and highway and crashing into the Pentagon right at the wall/ground interface is nearly impossible for even a small slow single engine airplane and no way for a 757. Maybe the best pilot in the world could accomplish that but not these unskilled "terrorists".”

~Capt. Daniel Davis, U.S. Army – Former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director.

Note they are not saying the manoeuvre was physically impossible to achieve, though the fact remains that skimming feet above the ground at 500 mph carries an obvious risk, more so to an amateur pilot on his first real flight. Whoever was in control of the aircraft… the descent, turn, final approach and impact were all performed rather well/militaristically, even leading experienced ATC to believe they were viewing a military aircraft on their radar screens at the time.

Now, take a look at the attachment photo I took at Travis AFB of a C-17 conducting a 360 degree turn to a landing from high altitude, a maneuver your sources have said was "impossible" but typical for large aircraft such as the C-5, C-17, and the KC-10.

BTW, did I mention that Air Force One, performed the same maneuver when it flew President Bush into Iraq?!

Was this the work of Hanjour, who was inept at controlling/landing a small, single engine aircraft, or more possibly one of the many remote guidance systems that existed on 9/11?

One of the reasons why a friend of mine acquired his small Beechcraft Skipper, was because the original owner had difficulty landing the small aircraft in high winds and almost lost it on landing and because the pilot was more comfortable flying a larger, more stable multiple engine aircraft.

As Jack Waddell, the test pilot of Boeing who flew the B-747 on its first test flight commented, the B-747 is "ridiculously easy to fly."

“The Pentagon event shows that the official story is false because of the improbable flight path flown by the 757.

Let's take a look because the physical evidence supports the official story.

] The Shanksville event shows that the official story is false because of the characteristics of the aircraft debris field.”[/b]

~Arthur L. Carran, BS Aerospace Eng, PE – Aerospace Engineer. Certified Commercial Pilot.

Wrong again. The debris field of United 93 looks similar to the debris field of Caspian Airlines.

Crash Site of Caspian Airlines 7908

Crash Site of United 93

Edited October 18, 2012 by skyeagle409

[+Liquid Gardens]

If that’s what you have deduced then you’re wrong. I’ve been going over this minor point with you for pages, and now you find the timing of my boredom interesting? I could go on forever correcting errors and misunderstandings but it genuinely does reach a point where we're repeating ourselves too frequently and I can’t be bothered.

Ha, you can't be bothered to provide evidence for your claims? Not even going to try to explain how 'it would be naive to think' is justification for the your oft-abused usage of the word, 'proven' and evidence of bias due to political sensitivity?

Believe me, it’s nothing to do with amazingness of your argument or ‘whippin out some maths’ that gets me bored.

You're right, there's nothing amazing at all about asking you for evidence for your assertions, it's about as basic as you can get, a shame that it appears that there actually is none and you don't think that's an issue. So I think that we've now settled that 'mainstream journals have been proven biased due to political sensitivity' is unfounded, and yes it is a pity that we had to bore us both going on for pages to get to that point. I'm definitely done retracting anything I say to you though; I can cover just about anything by taking pages from your playbook, either under the guise of over-certainty 'justified' by an argument from consequences or just by ignoring any need to provide evidence at all. Under those standards, it is no wonder you are so convinced of your theory.

[Q24]

Ha, you can't be bothered to provide evidence for your claims? Not even going to try to explain how 'it would be naive to think' is justification for the your oft-abused usage of the word, 'proven' and evidence of bias due to political sensitivity?

You're right, there's nothing amazing at all about asking you for evidence for your assertions, it's about as basic as you can get, a shame that it appears that there actually is none and you don't think that's an issue. So I think that we've now settled that 'mainstream journals have been proven biased due to political sensitivity' is unfounded, and yes it is a pity that we had to bore us both going on for pages to get to that point. I'm definitely done retracting anything I say to you though; I can cover just about anything by taking pages from your playbook, either under the guise of over-certainty 'justified' by an argument from consequences or just by ignoring any need to provide evidence at all. Under those standards, it is no wonder you are so convinced of your theory.

I am happy to provide evidence or at least logic for my claims all day, but not to the unreasonable standards demanded of pseudo-skeptics (of which I’m sorry to say you are now doing a fine impression – and no wonder you are so faithful to the official story given this approach). If you attempted to answer all of the questions you ignored in my last post then you might realise what I mean.

Noted your argument that the further text alters context of the quote appears to have fallen flat also, or at least you have failed to explain it – I don’t even understand what you mean at this point. Not to mention real evidence of importance on the Talking Turkey thread that remains unaddressed in favour of this sidehow you’ve fallen back on.

Given this avoidance and increasing pseudo-skepticism I'm seeing, I'd say it’s like you don’t want to know about 9/11, rather believe in it. That's fine - but the initial visage you presented of being objective and no 'official story adherent' has been well and truly dispelled.

[skyeagle409]

Given this avoidance and increasing pseudo-skepticism I'm seeing, I'd say it’s like you don’t want to know about 9/11, rather believe in it.

You still think the 9/11 conspiracist have any credibility? People make mistakes now and then, but 9/11 conspiracist are consistent when getting the facts wrong. 9/11 conspiracist goofed on many facts and some claimed that United 175 was a military aircraft with no passenger windows, but let's take look.

Look like passenger windows to me!

[Babe Ruth]

Funny enough as Fetzer/Cimino had also made an error in claiming that the FDR data clearly shows the airplane passing OVER the Pentagon, when it has been confirmed that a Plane struck the Pentagon.

As I have discussed this before the RA data they datamined and calculated was incorrect.

If the FDR was indeed fabricated, by Fetzer and Cimino's own admission, then the Government sure as hell did a p*** poor job in fabricating a FDR that is way off what the official report says.

The fact of the matter is, neither Fetzer or Cimino can come to an agreement between what happened.

Can you please tell me why Cimino has not yet retracted his statement that the Cabin Door data showed 0 values (basically never being opened) after being advised that the model jet the FDR came from was not updated to include this data in the FDR?

That's rather the point Raptor, thanks very much for finally acknowledging it. Yes, whoever's job it was to construct the FDR information, and his supervisor if there was one, totally screwed the pooch.

How could you do that and not assign it to a specific airplane? Goes to show they are only human.

A bit of trivia that was also cute, as told by Cimino, NOT Fetzer, was that as they descended through FL180, both pilots, at the exact same second, set their altimeters to the local setting from 29.92. Here these guys are, with visions of 72 virgins dancing through their heads, intent on raising hell and dealing a fatal blow to the Great Satan, by pass the White House in favor of the Pentagon and set their altimeters to the local setting! You could write a SNL script with that one. LOL.

Hey, what happened to the emoticons here?

[skyeagle409]

A bit of trivia that was also cute, as told by Cimino, NOT Fetzer, was that as they descended through FL180, both pilots, at the exact same second, set their altimeters to the local setting from 29.92.

Apparently, a reexamination of the FDR data reconfirmed the official story.

[+Liquid Gardens]

I am happy to provide evidence or at least logic for my claims all day, but not to the unreasonable standards demanded of pseudo-skeptics (of which I’m sorry to say you are now doing a fine impression – and no wonder you are so faithful to the official story given this approach). If you attempted to answer all of the questions you ignored in my last post then you might realise what I mean.

What official story am I faithful to Q? I didn't even know until a few weeks ago that the official collapse theory was a composite of NIST and Bazant. I realize how difficult it must be for you to come up with and give a positive, evidenced case for your demolition scenario without obfuscating it with criticism of the 'official story'; seriously, I give you an A for effort, I think it would be very difficult given the large gaps in the evidence. And define 'pseudo-skeptic'; you seem to know enough about skepticism to not dare claim the mantle for yourself thankfully. Here, let me give you a primer. Skepticism entails asking the question, 'how do you know that'' to every conclusion you reach. So when you pontificate about how truthers are the only ones brave enough to challenge the official story and state things about the mental state and decision-making processes of hundreds of thousands of experts, yea, I ask, apparently unreasonably to you, how you can possibly know that. I've come up with two options, either you have extensive psychological training beyond what I think is even possible, or you are a telepath. You disagree with this analysis so far? It's in full compliance with non-pseudo-skepticism by the way. And you seem to consistently find where skepticism naturally takes you, to the "we don't know" position, to be anathema; you've got a sale to close/debate to 'win', so that won't do. Long story short, you'd be taken a little more seriously about your ideas about skepticism if you would actually put it into practice against points other than the ones that oppose your pet theory.

Which then leads to the state of your circumstantial evidence. I've tried to explain this to you a few times, but maybe if I quote someone else it might sink in. The following is from worldlawdirect.com:

"However, there is sometimes more than one logical conclusion inferable from the same set of circumstances. In cases where one conclusion implies a defendant's guilt and another his innocence, the "benefit of the doubt" principle would apply. Indeed, if the circumstantial evidence suggests a possibility of innocence, the prosecution has the burden of disproving that possibility."

See that 'benefit of the doubt' part and who has the burden, Mr. (Selective) Fairness? Have you provided anything that doesn't have a non-demolition alternative?

Noted your argument that the further text alters context of the quote appears to have fallen flat also, or at least you have failed to explain it – I don’t even understand what you mean at this point. Not to mention real evidence of importance on the Talking Turkey thread that remains unaddressed in favour of this sidehow you’ve fallen back on.

So now you've provided real evidence of importance on TT? I thought I had made this clear before so let me make it explicit (beyond the obvious that I can comment on whatever, whenever, at my leisure, when it is good for me; ya know, the exact same latitude you allow yourself). Here's the familiar pattern: you make a claim; I look it up and research it, including like a good pseudo-skeptic the arguments against your position; I find that, wow, you've overstated/exaggerated/neglected-all-other-possibilities in your original claim, we discuss it, and all too often end up with gems like (paraphrased) 'well it could be' and 'it'd be naive to think' and 'this is made credible by the all the other evidence', as well as excuses like 'what's the matter if I'm a over-certain'. Every time you do this, it increases the amount of time I need to spend researching, I can't take anything you say as being true without assuming there's a boatload of unmentioned qualifications that take time, and work, for me to look into. When you lay on such whoppers as your 'proven bias due to political sensitivity', most rational, or at least skeptical, people don't need to research that to know that it's most likely a load of bull, which it has turned out to be. Your shifting of the goalposts to 'it'd be naive to think..' just further increases the work I have to do. You could just say, 'yea I was a little over-the-top with my statement', but you don't, I don't think I've seen a single concession on anything from you, or even understanding of why I find your position so untenable; it seems almost pathological. You are the one who set the standard here, things are 'blatant' and you are 'very certain' (the words of a true skeptic obviously...), I didn't set it. We'd probably have a less exasperating conversation if you would have set the bar at what's required to justify another investigation, but you didn't. Seriously dude, I've spent hours putting together responses to you on TT once you take in the research time I've put in; it gets to be a drag when I do that and I find out you're basing your 'evidence' on what 'could be', to the exclusion of all other possibilities. It's not what I'm 'falling back on', in contrast, I don't need to look anything up to address your misunderstanding of what skepticism entails, I can go on all day about that off the top of my head and in a lot less time.

Given this avoidance and increasing pseudo-skepticism I'm seeing, I'd say it’s like you don’t want to know about 9/11, rather believe in it. That's fine - but the initial visage you presented of being objective and no 'official story adherent' has been well and truly dispelled.

Ha, would you like me to send you a mirror, Reverend, so you can examine your own belief? I know a lot more about 9/11 since I've been on UM, and a lot of it has come from my discussion with you. You've made this suggestion before, that your evidence and argument is just so darned good and compelling that you accuse me of being unreasonable and requiring signed confessions to require convincing, which is ridiculous. You are very certain right now; how would your position change if one of your Israeli agents was to come forward and confess to setting up a demolition, maybe with some explanations of what the demolitions were actually composed of instead of your appeal to a thermite demolition from the early 20th Century and a patent application? Would you then be super very certain? Because if that were to occur, it would be better evidence than pretty much all the 'evidence and logic' you've provided so far combined. Do you disagree, maybe not with the 'combined' part (see this is how you qualify statements and note that you may be exaggerating), but if that were to occur it would be the best piece of evidence yet? Doesn't that tell you anything about how strong your current evidence isn't?

So yes, I will address your post on TT, at my total leisure but probably sometime this weekend, but in the meantime I'd like you to think about something. When you brought up that whatever point was more convincing because of all the other evidence, I asked you to jump to providing the best evidence so we can establish that and work our way out, and you replied that there is no 'best evidence'. If you think that all your evidence is at the level of the 'media had foreknowledge' evidence (jesus man, even I can think of better evidence you've provided than that laugher) then there probably is going to be no bridging the gulf between us and our continued discussion is likely pointless and will just devolve into who can be a bigger smartass (you'll lose in that contest by the way), and I honestly have no desire for my discussions with you to devolve to boony and swan levels (not that those aren't instructive and entertaining of course). If you do agree that there are gradients to your evidence, think about one or two good things that may lead to a more fruitful discussion after we go over the points in your latest TT post.

[+Liquid Gardens]

And finally, two stars and Ectoplasmic Residue no more!

[booNyzarC]

And finally, two stars and Ectoplasmic Residue no more!

Congrats

Well earned!

[Czero 101]

What official story am I faithful to Q? I didn't even know until a few weeks ago that the official collapse theory was a composite of NIST and Bazant. I realize how difficult it must be for you to come up with and give a positive, evidenced case for your demolition scenario without obfuscating it with criticism of the 'official story'; seriously, I give you an A for effort, I think it would be very difficult given the large gaps in the evidence. And define 'pseudo-skeptic'; you seem to know enough about skepticism to not dare claim the mantle for yourself thankfully. Here, let me give you a primer. Skepticism entails asking the question, 'how do you know that'' to every conclusion you reach. So when you pontificate about how truthers are the only ones brave enough to challenge the official story and state things about the mental state and decision-making processes of hundreds of thousands of experts, yea, I ask, apparently unreasonably to you, how you can possibly know that. I've come up with two options, either you have extensive psychological training beyond what I think is even possible, or you are a telepath. You disagree with this analysis so far? It's in full compliance with non-pseudo-skepticism by the way. And you seem to consistently find where skepticism naturally takes you, to the "we don't know" position, to be anathema; you've got a sale to close/debate to 'win', so that won't do. Long story short, you'd be taken a little more seriously about your ideas about skepticism if you would actually put it into practice against points other than the ones that oppose your pet theory.

Which then leads to the state of your circumstantial evidence. I've tried to explain this to you a few times, but maybe if I quote someone else it might sink in. The following is from worldlawdirect.com:

"However, there is sometimes more than one logical conclusion inferable from the same set of circumstances. In cases where one conclusion implies a defendant's guilt and another his innocence, the "benefit of the doubt" principle would apply. Indeed, if the circumstantial evidence suggests a possibility of innocence, the prosecution has the burden of disproving that possibility."

See that 'benefit of the doubt' part and who has the burden, Mr. (Selective) Fairness? Have you provided anything that doesn't have a non-demolition alternative?

So now you've provided real evidence of importance on TT? I thought I had made this clear before so let me make it explicit (beyond the obvious that I can comment on whatever, whenever, at my leisure, when it is good for me; ya know, the exact same latitude you allow yourself). Here's the familiar pattern: you make a claim; I look it up and research it, including like a good pseudo-skeptic the arguments against your position; I find that, wow, you've overstated/exaggerated/neglected-all-other-possibilities in your original claim, we discuss it, and all too often end up with gems like (paraphrased) 'well it could be' and 'it'd be naive to think' and 'this is made credible by the all the other evidence', as well as excuses like 'what's the matter if I'm a over-certain'. Every time you do this, it increases the amount of time I need to spend researching, I can't take anything you say as being true without assuming there's a boatload of unmentioned qualifications that take time, and work, for me to look into. When you lay on such whoppers as your 'proven bias due to political sensitivity', most rational, or at least skeptical, people don't need to research that to know that it's most likely a load of bull, which it has turned out to be. Your shifting of the goalposts to 'it'd be naive to think..' just further increases the work I have to do. You could just say, 'yea I was a little over-the-top with my statement', but you don't, I don't think I've seen a single concession on anything from you, or even understanding of why I find your position so untenable; it seems almost pathological. You are the one who set the standard here, things are 'blatant' and you are 'very certain' (the words of a true skeptic obviously...), I didn't set it. We'd probably have a less exasperating conversation if you would have set the bar at what's required to justify another investigation, but you didn't. Seriously dude, I've spent hours putting together responses to you on TT once you take in the research time I've put in; it gets to be a drag when I do that and I find out you're basing your 'evidence' on what 'could be', to the exclusion of all other possibilities. It's not what I'm 'falling back on', in contrast, I don't need to look anything up to address your misunderstanding of what skepticism entails, I can go on all day about that off the top of my head and in a lot less time.

Ha, would you like me to send you a mirror, Reverend, so you can examine your own belief? I know a lot more about 9/11 since I've been on UM, and a lot of it has come from my discussion with you. You've made this suggestion before, that your evidence and argument is just so darned good and compelling that you accuse me of being unreasonable and requiring signed confessions to require convincing, which is ridiculous. You are very certain right now; how would your position change if one of your Israeli agents was to come forward and confess to setting up a demolition, maybe with some explanations of what the demolitions were actually composed of instead of your appeal to a thermite demolition from the early 20th Century and a patent application? Would you then be super very certain? Because if that were to occur, it would be better evidence than pretty much all the 'evidence and logic' you've provided so far combined. Do you disagree, maybe not with the 'combined' part (see this is how you qualify statements and note that you may be exaggerating), but if that were to occur it would be the best piece of evidence yet? Doesn't that tell you anything about how strong your current evidence isn't?

So yes, I will address your post on TT, at my total leisure but probably sometime this weekend, but in the meantime I'd like you to think about something. When you brought up that whatever point was more convincing because of all the other evidence, I asked you to jump to providing the best evidence so we can establish that and work our way out, and you replied that there is no 'best evidence'. If you think that all your evidence is at the level of the 'media had foreknowledge' evidence (jesus man, even I can think of better evidence you've provided than that laugher) then there probably is going to be no bridging the gulf between us and our continued discussion is likely pointless and will just devolve into who can be a bigger smartass (you'll lose in that contest by the way), and I honestly have no desire for my discussions with you to devolve to boony and swan levels (not that those aren't instructive and entertaining of course). If you do agree that there are gradients to your evidence, think about one or two good things that may lead to a more fruitful discussion after we go over the points in your latest TT post.

Cz

[skyeagle409]

And finally, two stars and Ectoplasmic Residue no more!

Congratulations!!

[+Liquid Gardens]

Congratulations!!

Thanks guys!