Rational argument gets lip service, but that's about it.
No explanation for explosions in the basement just seconds before the impact, no explanation for absence of necessary aircraft debris at the Pentagon, but LOTSA out of context photos, and complete reliance upon the testimony of entities with reputations as deceivers. All this is presented as some sort of rational argument.
I'm sorry but people aren't stupid....(not about that so-called poor excuse of an image, anyway)
The details are clearly evident to those of us who know what to look for in the video. Besides, the B-757 has been a favorite aircraft of mine for decades.
...this wasn't an air disaster, as such...it would be described an act of war...at ground level, in a very public place, on the US mainland.
It was an act of war, but still an airplane crash just the same. You have B-757 wreckage inside and outside the Pentagon, along with black box data and even radar data, not to mention eyewitness accounts from the C-130 and observers on the ground and of course, the image taken from the video camera along with the announcement by American Airlines on the loss of American 77.
A check of FAA records, along with those of the Boeing Aircraft company, Rolls Royce, and of American Airlines, will confirm that the airliner which crashed at the Pentagon was in fact, American 77. You can throw away the video and still there is more than enough evidence confirming the airliner was American 77, however, there are those who still claim that a cruise missile struck the Pentagon.
One of those discrepancies is the lack of visual evidence of the impact at the Pentagon.....and the fobbing of with the ridiculous CCTV from the traffic cam.....
Video cameras are not required to identify the airliner was American 77. There are video cameras of American 11 and United 175 striking the WTC buildings and yet you can still hear 9/11 conspiracist saying that no aircraft struck those buildings or that the aircraft were switched aircraft and flown under remote controlled into those buildings without accounting for the original aircraft and passengers. We have videos of American 11 and United 175 and still, there those who are just looking for an argument for the sake of having an argument despite the overwhelming evidence.
Edited by skyeagle409, 01 October 2012 - 06:23 PM.
My current understanding of your critique of Ross & Furlong is that they might be right, and they might be wrong.
If they are wrong, it is because the radar sweep time interval is not precise enough, and that potential inaccuracy allows for the 17 or 14 second discrepancy.
Is that accurate?
I have two computers in my house, a stove, a microwave, two cable boxes, a cell phone, a land line, a radio alarmclock, and a wall mounted clock. With the exception of the two cable boxes every single clock shows a different time, as does the time in my car.
Could the apparent time discrepancy be as simple as something like that?
Absolutely Boo. No doubt. And as I understand it, Raptor has already acknowledged that his is a "maybe" type scenario.
But I have a hunch you and he are much more interested in impeaching the testimony of Rodriguez and others than in getting down to the real nitty gritty.
Of course, because the Ross and Furlong paper itself used Rodriguez's testimony in conjunction with their analysis of the seismic data to come to the conclusion that explosions indeed happened before the planes struck.
If one is wrong then the other cannot hold up to scruitiny.
IT IS THAT SIMPLE!
No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats