3292 replies to this topic

[skyeagle409]

Crumar, on 01 November 2012 - 04:05 AM, said:

I am honestly drained at this point I was going to respond to another post made by Skyeagle when I got a notification that Frenant and Czero posted again.  I have 5 people if not more who are trying to ask me questions and my opinion and I realize I will be here all night responding and we will just be going in circles.  I have said from the start I am not an expert, I was not there when the Pentagon attack happened and I can only base my opinion off of what other people who were there and expert testimony as to what might have actually happened on that date.  The same applies for Skyeagle and other posters here because they were not there and they have to use the information provided by other sources to base their opinion on what took place.  Even posters here who have aviation engineering degree, pilots, were not at the crash site, were not investigators with the NTSB or FAA and are just making educated guesses as to what may have happened.  

Just like Skyeagle I used other sources to provide information and opinion based on eyewitness testimony, expert accounts, and any information that was asked of me was looked on for outside sources to base my opinion as an observant bystander from afar.  People here claim because they are experts and viewed certain aspects of the crash the same way I have (via video and pictures) that their opinion is fact.  The fact is it is just your opinion the NTSB neglected to include in their report eyewitness testimony of those who were there which I already stated their names as to what happened from their perspective which raises a red flag for me anyway.  Why is their testimony discounted?  I provided names of these people and their testimony via video you can see it and yet they are discredit even though 3 federal police officers, 2 aviation experts, refute what the NTSB claims occurred.  I have said time and again that something hit the Pentagon, and a grainy video along with aftermath photos that do not identify any part of a 757 is claimed to be flight 77 being the culprit to hit the Pentagon.  Skyeagle provides me pictures like this (a drawing and not real world picture keep that in mind).





Why is the stamp date on the picture above say September 7, 2001 is this a misprint?   Also again notice another drawing caused the following damage below:






And the final two pictures one a drawing again.




Which if you take a look where the red and yellow mark met and where the actual lower part of the tail section the red mark points to where the drawing does not even line up is supposed to be this damage:





Never knew drawings could cause damage.

I understand it is for illustration purposes since we do not have video or picture evidence to prove this is what actually happened but at the same time the drawings are making an assumption and helps investigators determine what could have actually caused that damage.  But the drawings themselves do not even support or line up to the physical evidence there.

When used in conjunction with visual and direct physical evidence, such as the light poles and generator damage, they do.

Quote

Case in point the first drawing has the entire engine over the transformer yet the transformer itself is damaged to the side and a little bit on top at the same time?

Remember, you not only have the engine impact, but have the flap jackscrew on the trailing edge of the wing as well,

Quote

So maybe the wing could have caused the upper part of the transformer damage...

The flap jackscrew was in a position to cause the gouge on top of the generator. The position of the jackscrew turn it into a spear.

Quote

Still we cannot confirm without a shadow of a doubt that this is indeed what happened but people are basing this as fact.

Let's do a recap.

* American Airlines, operator of American 77,  reported the loss of American 77 at the Pentagon

* The airframe of American 77 has now been deregistered  and written off because it was destroyed.

* The airframe of American 77 was a B-757-200 series aircraft and each B-757-200 is accountable. A simple process of elimination is all that is needed to determine which B-757-200 series aircraft had crashed at the Pentagon.

* Each engine that powered American 77 is trackable and can be accounted for because each engine has its own maintenance and installation histories that are as unique as a fingerprint and once again, the process of elimination can be used in the case of engine installation, flight, and maintenance histories including the use of documentation on time-sensitive line replacement items in order to make a determination as to which aircraft crashed at the Pentagon.

* Each part of an aircraft has its own part or stock number stamped, which means that I could have created a thick file of stock and part numbers obtained from the wreckage seen in the Pentagon photos and then, use that information to determine the identity of the aircraft, which is why no one in the United States government in their right mind would have modified any B-757 or B-767 for the purpose of flying them into buildings because it wouldn't have taken very long to determine who was responsible.

9/11 conspiracist do not think of little things like those, but as I have said before, I could reveal a switched aircraft in less than 30 minutes because I know from many years of experience, what to look for.

Quote

Added to the eyewitness testimony I provided along with the FBI not releasing evidence is clear indication something may (not saying is but may) be a miss.

In accidents, there are usually conflicting witness accounts which is why the FAA and NTSB rely on data to verify who is right and who is wrong. A case in point, an airplane crashed on landing and some people said the aircraft was on fire before it crashed and others said the aircraft burst into flames after landing and you can find many such cases, and another reason why I have said that despite what witnesses have said, you have to go with FDR and radar data and direct physical evidence inside and outside the Pentagon.

Edited by skyeagle409, 01 November 2012 - 05:29 AM.

[Crumar]

skyeagle409, on 01 November 2012 - 04:24 AM, said:

I don't think you understand. American 77 was not flying at 530 mph when it completed its turn, it accelerated to 530 mph afterward and his estimate is just that, an estimated and nothing to do accuracy, which was evident by his 50 knot margin.

Again eyewitness testimony refutes that evidence on the ground at least.

Quote

Were there videos of PSA 1771? Do you know why black boxes were eventually added to airliners?

I have already gone through with a lot of this with you we are going to go in circles.  I understand why you are bringing up PSA 1771 and the connection to the black box.

Source:  http://en.wikipedia....t_data_recorder

"The first prototype coupled FDR/CVR designed with civilian aircraft in mind, for explicit post-crash examination purposes, was produced in 1956 by Dr. David Warren of the Defence Science and Technology Organisation's Aeronautical Research Laboratories in Melbourne, Australia.^[6] In 1953 and 1954, a series of fatal incidents involving the de Havilland Comet prompted the grounding of the entire fleet pending an investigation. Dr. Warren, a chemist specializing in aircraft fuels, was involved in a professional committee discussing the possible causes. Since there had been neither witnesses nor survivors, Dr. Warren conceived of a crash-survivable method to record the flight crew's conversation (and other pre-crash data), reasoning they would greatly assist in determining a cause and enabling the prevention of future, avoidable accidents of the same type."

This would include lack of video and picture evidence I get it.  Problem is in regards to the Pentagon and flight 77 both you and I were not there so we have to base our evidence on what we see and there was eyewitness testimony at that site and one crappy video of the impact event along with aftermath photographs.

Quote

On the contrary, the C-130 crew and ground-based observers watched as American 77 struck the Pentagon, and the announcement by American Airlines and B-757 wreckage outside and inside the Pentagon confirmed the aircraft as American 77. Remember, only a certain number of B-757-200 series were built and each of those aircraft are accountable so it is no problem in making a determination which B-757 crashed at the Pentagon and I might add that each Rolls Royce RB11-535 engine that powered American 77 are accountable as well. Think about it. Draw upon the process of elimination.

Right so someone is lying.  Is it the many witnesses who saw what flight 77 did before and after the impact while on the ground or it is the C-130 crew doing so?  That is the mystery to this whole thing and by the way you are the first person to point out to me at least there were other eyewitnesses who refute the claim the ground crew is making.  Of course the C-130 crew would have an unobstructed view of what took place so they should be more creditable and yet there are 9/11 Truther experts who claim their testimony to be false.  Are these experts lying I have no clue these Truthers they could be spreading misinformation as well I am no expert on this topic.  But what I do know is those many witnesses on the ground have the same story and are video documented as saying so and are consistent with other witness testimonies which are many.  As for the plane itself not being accounted for I have been trying to dig up something I saw a few years back with no luck in regards to American Airlines not writing off two of the 4 planes over a year after the incident even though the two planes that impacted the twin towers were written off.  Are 9/11 Truthers spreading disinformation I have no clue but I do remember seeing it, but this is not fact so please do not take this as fact so you can understand why I am still a bit skeptical that is why I wrote this so you know where I am coming from.  I will keep an open mind on this subject if I can't find the evidence I will drop that flight 77 was still around after the fact.

Quote

Yes, and a bomb and a cruise missile could not have caused the kind of documented damage observed inside the Pentagon.

There are people inside the building at the time of the attack that say there was a strong odor of cordite some of which had military training with this substance and know the difference.  Are they lying I have no clue one woman who was interviewed on Conspiracy Theory by Jesse Ventura claims this to be the case.  Since I was not there I can not comment on this further but the fact is you do not know this to be 100% as well either.   All we can ascertain at this point is a flying object (it could be a plane it could be something else that has flight capabilities) flew into the Pentagon.  But there is clear  evidence to indicate that plane parts are present at this location and I can understand why you feel based on your educated opinion that it was a plane and possibly a 757 that caused this crash.

Quote

There is absolutely no evidence that explosives knocked down and bent those light poles.

Right we already touched on this subject I never claimed this to be fact I said there was a possibility that something (like explosives or a flying object) could have caused those lamp posts to be knocked down.  You showed me why explosives could not have been the culprit and I have to agree with you on this thank you for pointing that out.

Quote

I have indentified the vertical stabilizer of a B-757 in the background of the photo taken from the video.

The video is too grainy and being obstructed by a pillar to conclusively determine it was from flight 77.  There looks like what appears to be a vertical stabilizer in the video but that could be from any air craft.  We do not have exact dimensions to determine whether it is indeed from a 757.

Quote

I have already identified B-757 wreckage inside and outside the Pentagon. In fact, you can see the wing trailing edge ribs inside the Pentagon along with low density honeycomb core.

I will have to go back and look at your previous post to further examine this image to get a sense of what you are pointing out as I have been responding non stop for the last few hours to different posters. so will leave this open for the time being.

[Crumar]

skyeagle409, on 01 November 2012 - 04:54 AM, said:

When used in conjunction with visual and direct physical evidence, such as the light poles and generator damage, they do.



Remember, you not only have the engine impact, but have the flap jackscrew on the trailing edge of the wing as well,



The flap jackscrew was in a position to cause the gouge on top of the generator. The position of the jackscrew turn it into a spear.



Let's do a recap.

* American Airlines, operator of American 77,  reported the loss of American 77 at the Pentagon

* The airframe of American 77 has now been deregistered  and written off because it was destroyed.

* The airframe of American 77 was a B-757-200 series aircraft and each B-757-200 is accountable. A simple process of elimination is all that is needed to determine which B-757-200 series aircraft had crashed at the Pentagon.

* Each engine that powered American 77 is trackable and can be accounted for because each engine has its own maintenance and installation histories that are as unique as a fingerprint and once again, the process of elimination can be used in the case of engine installation, flight, and maintenance histories including the use of documentation on time-sensitive line replacement items in order to make a determination as to which aircraft crashed at the Pentagon.

* Each part of an aircraft has its own part or stock number stamped, which means that I could have created a thick file of stock and part numbers obtained from the wreckage seen in the Pentagon photos and then, use that information to determine the identity of the aircraft, which is why no one in the United States government in their right mind would have modified any B-757 or B-767 for the purpose of flying them into buildings because it wouldn't have taken very long to determine who was responsible.

9/11 conspiracist do not think of little things like those, but as I have said before, I could reveal a switched aircraft in less than 30 minutes because I know from many years of experience, what to look for.



In accidents, there are usually conflicting witness accounts which is why the FAA and NTSB rely on data to verify who is right and who is wrong. A case in point, an airplane crashed on landing and some people said the aircraft was on fire before it crashed and others said the aircraft burst into flames after landing and you can find many such cases, and another reason why I have said that despite what witnesses have said, you have to go with FDR and radar data and direct physical evidence inside and outside the Pentagon.

You can keep recapping you are trying to drill into me the importance of physical evidence and exclude eyewitness testimony as the determining factor in what happened on that day .  I understand and know where you are coming from but some of the evidence being presented is lacking for me anyway.  Maybe because my ignorance precludes me to see the full picture of what you see is the reason why but for whatever reason I will not discount the testimony and contradiction people have claimed from day one and over the years and still stick to their story that other events transpired over what the NTSB and FBI is reporting as fact.  I am trying to keep an open mind and your argument has merit that it could have been flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon but at the same time other experts and witnesses claim otherwise I have no clue why they would be lying, considering they probably are not getting anything out of it except maybe attention.  But I also do not understand why 3 Federal Pentagon Officers would lie I just don’t see what they would have to gain from it.  So understand from my perspective why I am resistant at the moment.  Evidence can be planted am I saying that is what happened?  No but what I am saying is things just don't add up at this point in time.  Based on other experts who may have the same experience as you they are contradicting what you are pointing out as evidence in the many 9/11 Truther videos out there and of course people are taking sides, I am in the middle on the fence so to speak.  So far all I know is that some flying object hit the Pentagon you can clearly see it in that grainy video that there something flying toward the building.  

[Czero 101]

Crumar, on 01 November 2012 - 04:44 AM, said:

I will try to keep this short as I am too tired to continue.  Source for quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man  We can keep going in circles as I said to you previously the government is made up of people and people lie and tell the truth for their own agenda. I understand what you are saying, you are assuming that I was implying that the evidence people provided was fake because the government always lies is actually not accurate.  I made that blanket statement because the government does lie I did not make it because I am saying that the government continually lies and any evidence that is provided to posters to prove my account as false is in fact false.  I have given reasons as to why their account could be false based on opinions of people who were there on that day I never claimed that these opinions were in fact my own.

*sigh*

You STILL miss the point.

Here... let me lay it out for you since that seems to be the only way you're going to get it.

You said "Because the American Goverment never lies right?" which implies that there are people here that have said that the American Government never lies... why else would you say it in the way that you did unless you were addressing those that you think claim and / or believe that...?

I asked you to provide proof that anyone here on the "Official Version" side has actually claimed or said that they believe that "the American Government never lies" and then pointed out that it was a strawman argument because it is an oversimplification or a purposeful misrepresentation of the "Official Versioner's" position presented by you in order to justify the videos you posted.

Rather than admit that you had either overstated, misunderstood or exaggerated "our" position, or doing the intellectually honest thing and admit that you'd only said it that way for effect, you railed on about other things essentially unrelated to the topis under discussion.

I don't care what you believe. I only care what you can prove and that you present your arguments in a factual and honest manner. I will freely admit that I haven't read all of your posts - mostly because I can only get a few sentences in before the overwhelming willfully ignorant and biased CT mindset you display makes my brain sore - but based on the interaction between you and I so far I feel I can safely assume it will be on a similar level with other CT's who have come and gone and never provided anything resembling factual evidence or even an unbiased appraisal of the evidence and will mainly consist of a regurgitation of some other site's or person's opinions that you have taken as your own, all the while couching yourself in the intellectually dishonest safety net of that old CT standby throw-away claim of "I never claimed in was MY opinion..."...

Crumar, on 01 November 2012 - 04:44 AM, said:

I have given reasons as to why their account could be false based on opinions of people who were there on that day I never claimed that these opinions were in fact my own.

Quote

What proof do you have of this as all these sites being ignorant because the physical evidence does not add up to what some experts and not all experts agree as to what happened?  There are experts in the aviation field who discount other experts’ viewpoints and this is why we have a conflict to begin with.  Eyewitness testimony of Federal Pentagon Officers on record as disputing the fact of what the NTSB reported is people taking things out of context?  Yeah right.  The fact that you discount their testimony is showing ignorance on your part.  Not all people are honest, not all people who make videos base it on factual material, and that includes some of the information you base your opinion off of.  Please do not ask me proof as I have already done so and you are just ignoring it.  So show me why those officers testimony and other 9/11 truther video's you claim to be fake I would like to look out for them so I do not become an ignorant fool as you suggest I am.

I discount those people's statements - and I'm willing to bet that they were not included in the NIST investigation for similar rationale - because they are not supported by the vast and overwhelming preponderance of evidence that goes against what they say. There are over 100 eyewitnesses who say they saw an aircraft which they identified, generally speaking, as a large / jumbo passenger jet hit the Pentagon. There were hundreds others on the highways around the Pentagon that morning who would have been in perfect position to see an aircraft overfly the Pentagon had one done so. There were other aircraft in the air at that time who would have seen something or possible even been in the way if an aircraft had overflown the Pentagon since it sit right next to the approach to a major airport. There was a C-130 (if memory serves) that saw the aircraft just moments before it hit the Pentagon and would have seen it overfly the Pentagon had it done so.

Your lack of understanding of the physics involved in why a large body traveling at high speeds impacting a reinforced building will not leave "large chunks" of the aircraft laying around is only reinforced by others with the same simplistic understanding of how the world really works... THAT is why I say those sites are biased and ignorant... because they make assumptions based on "common knowledge" that doesn't apply to this extraordinary event and when the results don't match the assumptions they make based on their limited understanding, the cry "COVER UP!!" or "CONSPIRACY!!" or "NO AIRPLANE!!" yet they haven't bothered to actually find out IF THEY ARE RIGHT, they've just start from the position that they are right and then proceed to fit the evidence into their conclusions, rather than forming their conclusions based on the evidence.

You come along, seemingly with the same simplistic and limited understanding, find something on the internet that agrees with you and figure you / they must be right. Then you come here, make some ludicrous claims and essentially say that those who's testimony supports the Official Version are lying because they don't say what YOU WANT THEM TO SAY, or rather, those few who's testimony fits your predetermined conclusions but not the evidence pf the day are more believable than the majority who don't because the few are saying what you want to hear.

So, I'm sorry... but who's the ignorant biased fool again...?

Quote

We will have to agree to disagree because you have already discredited all 9/11 truthers as ignorant misinformed people who are spreading disinformation.  That is your opinion which is based on?  You know I don't even care and I don't want to know.  The fact is if the FBI had Intellectual Honesty they would have released those surveillance tapes and hand held recordings of the event to show the public they were being truthful in their investigation but they are being secretive for whatever reason.  I was told you did an in-depth analysis of this very thing how did you account for the video footage of the bystanders that the FBI seized?  You want to pursue the truth without bias you should be asking the FBI why they are not releasing this evidence.

Again... learn what Intellectual Honesty actually means, then talk about how it applies, or doesn't in your case.

The tapes have been released. That you don't know that shows your lack of research into this topic and that you are only basing your opinions on those same ignorant and biased people and websites mentioned above who will rail on endlessly about the tapes not being released, all the while conveniently ignoring the fact that they were all released by 2006 (again, if memory serves on that time frame).

I did an impromptu analysis of one part of one tape, the Doubletree hotel security tape, because someone said that the Pentagon was visible in it and that the impact should have been visible too. That post is earlier in this thread HERE and there's a follow-up post HERE.

Just a few days ago I re-posted an analysis I did of the damage to the Pentagon 3 1/2 years ago. That post is also in this thread HERE.

In other threads I have gone into great detail in proving my point - usually with the impressive help of boonYzarC, or in assisting him prove a point.

So again... I really don't care what you believe. Beliefs and opinions can't be argued rationally. Evidence and facts can and that's what important.






Cz

[Crumar]

Czero 101, on 01 November 2012 - 06:06 AM, said:

*sigh*

You STILL miss the point.

Here... let me lay it out for you since that seems to be the only way you're going to get it.

You said "Because the American Goverment never lies right?" which implies that there are people here that have said that the American Government never lies... why else would you say it in the way that you did unless you were addressing those that you think claim and / or believe that...?

I asked you to provide proof that anyone here on the "Official Version" side has actually claimed or said that they believe that "the American Government never lies" and then pointed out that it was a strawman argument because it is an oversimplification or a purposeful misrepresentation of the "Official Versioner's" position presented by you in order to justify the videos you posted.

Rather than admit that you had either overstated, misunderstood or exaggerated "our" position, or doing the intellectually honest thing and admit that you'd only said it that way for effect, you railed on about other things essentially unrelated to the topis under discussion.

I don't care what you believe. I only care what you can prove and that you present your arguments in a factual and honest manner. I will freely admit that I haven't read all of your posts - mostly because I can only get a few sentences in before the overwhelming willfully ignorant and biased CT mindset you display makes my brain sore - but based on the interaction between you and I so far I feel I can safely assume it will be on a similar level with other CT's who have come and gone and never provided anything resembling factual evidence or even an unbiased appraisal of the evidence and will mainly consist of a regurgitation of some other site's or person's opinions that you have taken as your own, all the while couching yourself in the intellectually dishonest safety net of that old CT standby throw-away claim of "I never claimed in was MY opinion..."...







I discount those people's statements - and I'm willing to bet that they were not included in the NIST investigation for similar rationale - because they are not supported by the vast and overwhelming preponderance of evidence that goes against what they say. There are over 100 eyewitnesses who say they saw an aircraft which they identified, generally speaking, as a large / jumbo passenger jet hit the Pentagon. There were hundreds others on the highways around the Pentagon that morning who would have been in perfect position to see an aircraft overfly the Pentagon had one done so. There were other aircraft in the air at that time who would have seen something or possible even been in the way if an aircraft had overflown the Pentagon since it sit right next to the approach to a major airport. There was a C-130 (if memory serves) that saw the aircraft just moments before it hit the Pentagon and would have seen it overfly the Pentagon had it done so.

Your lack of understanding of the physics involved in why a large body traveling at high speeds impacting a reinforced building will not leave "large chunks" of the aircraft laying around is only reinforced by others with the same simplistic understanding of how the world really works... THAT is why I say those sites are biased and ignorant... because they make assumptions based on "common knowledge" that doesn't apply to this extraordinary event and when the results don't match the assumptions they make based on their limited understanding, the cry "COVER UP!!" or "CONSPIRACY!!" or "NO AIRPLANE!!" yet they haven't bothered to actually find out IF THEY ARE RIGHT, they've just start from the position that they are right and then proceed to fit the evidence into their conclusions, rather than forming their conclusions based on the evidence.

You come along, seemingly with the same simplistic and limited understanding, find something on the internet that agrees with you and figure you / they must be right. Then you come here, make some ludicrous claims and essentially say that those who's testimony supports the Official Version are lying because they don't say what YOU WANT THEM TO SAY, or rather, those few who's testimony fits your predetermined conclusions but not the evidence pf the day are more believable than the majority who don't because the few are saying what you want to hear.

So, I'm sorry... but who's the ignorant biased fool again...?



Again... learn what Intellectual Honesty actually means, then talk about how it applies, or doesn't in your case.

The tapes have been released. That you don't know that shows your lack of research into this topic and that you are only basing your opinions on those same ignorant and biased people and websites mentioned above who will rail on endlessly about the tapes not being released, all the while conveniently ignoring the fact that they were all released by 2006 (again, if memory serves on that time frame).

I did an impromptu analysis of one part of one tape, the Doubletree hotel security tape, because someone said that the Pentagon was visible in it and that the impact should have been visible too. That post is earlier in this thread HERE and there's a follow-up post HERE.

Just a few days ago I re-posted an analysis I did of the damage to the Pentagon 3 1/2 years ago. That post is also in this thread HERE.

In other threads I have gone into great detail in proving my point - usually with the impressive help of boonYzarC, or in assisting him prove a point.

So again... I really don't care what you believe. Beliefs and opinions can't be argued rationally. Evidence and facts can and that's what important.






Cz

Great thanks for posting, just to let you know since you haven't read any of my posts thoroughly I will now ignore you since it is obvious you are trolling and only just picking and choosing what you want to see and then fabricate and warp my viewpoint to then say I am ignorant and have no basis for any argument because I am using evidence based from 9/11 Truthers.  So we really have nothing else to discuss do we.  If you will not take the time to read what I have to say then why should I even bother with you frankly I don’t care about what you think either.  You can spew all your assumptions as "facts" and call it the official version all you want have fun with that some of us know the truth I made my point which others liked, and agreed with what I had to say and for those who don't like it you are entitled to your opinion and it was an interesting conversation over all with some posters.  The post above is a clear indication that someone is out of touch with reality.  By the way English is my second language one of many yet I think I can still grasp and understand what you are saying it just may a little more time for me.  So yeah if that bothers you to bad I don’t care anymore good luck in life.

[Czero 101]

Crumar, on 01 November 2012 - 07:37 AM, said:

Great thanks for posting, just to let you know since you haven't read any of my posts thoroughly I will now ignore you since it is obvious you are trolling and only just picking and choosing what you want to see and then fabricate and warp my viewpoint to then say I am ignorant and have no basis for any argument because I am using evidence based from 9/11 Truthers.  So we really have nothing else to discuss do we.  If you will not take the time to read what I have to say then why should I even bother with you frankly I don’t care about what you think either.  You can spew all your assumptions as "facts" and call it the official version all you want have fun with that some of us know the truth I made my point which others liked, and agreed with what I had to say and for those who don't like it you are entitled to your opinion and it was an interesting conversation over all with some posters.  The post above is a clear indication that someone is out of touch with reality.  By the way English is my second language one of many yet I think I can still grasp and understand what you are saying it just may a little more time for me.  So yeah if that bothers you to bad I don’t care anymore good luck in life.

*chuckle*

You accuse me of trolling and say that you don't care what I think when I admit that I haven't read every single word you have posted - and please note I didn't say that haven't read ANY OF YOUR POSTS, just that I haven't read ALL OF YOUR POSTS... I hope you can understand *that* difference - yet you continue on with hypocritical hubris that we should care about what you say while you yourself are trolling the typical Truther garbage ....

Its obvious that you don't understand this topic very well, ESL or not. The fact that you have gone so far out of your way to avoid having to admit that you couldn't provide any backup whatsoever for your strawman argument shows that clearly enough. You *STILL* don't realize that admitting that you were mistaken is a much more honorable way out of a strawman than the way you have handled it, assuming credibility means anything at all to you.

But whatever... as I've said, I only really care what you can prove, which so far is essentially nothing, and you've already said that the opinions you present are not your own, but are those that are provided for you by the Truther movement....

Enjoy living in the 9/11 Truther fantasy world you've wrapped around yourself.


Have a good day....





Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 01 November 2012 - 09:01 AM.

[Crumar]

Czero 101, on 01 November 2012 - 06:06 AM, said:

*sigh*

You STILL miss the point.

Here... let me lay it out for you since that seems to be the only way you're going to get it.

You said "Because the American Goverment never lies right?" which implies that there are people here that have said that the American Government never lies... why else would you say it in the way that you did unless you were addressing those that you think claim and / or believe that...?

I asked you to provide proof that anyone here on the "Official Version" side has actually claimed or said that they believe that "the American Government never lies" and then pointed out that it was a strawman argument because it is an oversimplification or a purposeful misrepresentation of the "Official Versioner's" position presented by you in order to justify the videos you posted.

Rather than admit that you had either overstated, misunderstood or exaggerated "our" position, or doing the intellectually honest thing and admit that you'd only said it that way for effect, you railed on about other things essentially unrelated to the topis under discussion.

I don't care what you believe. I only care what you can prove and that you present your arguments in a factual and honest manner. I will freely admit that I haven't read all of your posts - mostly because I can only get a few sentences in before the overwhelming willfully ignorant and biased CT mindset you display makes my brain sore - but based on the interaction between you and I so far I feel I can safely assume it will be on a similar level with other CT's who have come and gone and never provided anything resembling factual evidence or even an unbiased appraisal of the evidence and will mainly consist of a regurgitation of some other site's or person's opinions that you have taken as your own, all the while couching yourself in the intellectually dishonest safety net of that old CT standby throw-away claim of "I never claimed in was MY opinion..."...







I discount those people's statements - and I'm willing to bet that they were not included in the NIST investigation for similar rationale - because they are not supported by the vast and overwhelming preponderance of evidence that goes against what they say. There are over 100 eyewitnesses who say they saw an aircraft which they identified, generally speaking, as a large / jumbo passenger jet hit the Pentagon. There were hundreds others on the highways around the Pentagon that morning who would have been in perfect position to see an aircraft overfly the Pentagon had one done so. There were other aircraft in the air at that time who would have seen something or possible even been in the way if an aircraft had overflown the Pentagon since it sit right next to the approach to a major airport. There was a C-130 (if memory serves) that saw the aircraft just moments before it hit the Pentagon and would have seen it overfly the Pentagon had it done so.

Your lack of understanding of the physics involved in why a large body traveling at high speeds impacting a reinforced building will not leave "large chunks" of the aircraft laying around is only reinforced by others with the same simplistic understanding of how the world really works... THAT is why I say those sites are biased and ignorant... because they make assumptions based on "common knowledge" that doesn't apply to this extraordinary event and when the results don't match the assumptions they make based on their limited understanding, the cry "COVER UP!!" or "CONSPIRACY!!" or "NO AIRPLANE!!" yet they haven't bothered to actually find out IF THEY ARE RIGHT, they've just start from the position that they are right and then proceed to fit the evidence into their conclusions, rather than forming their conclusions based on the evidence.

You come along, seemingly with the same simplistic and limited understanding, find something on the internet that agrees with you and figure you / they must be right. Then you come here, make some ludicrous claims and essentially say that those who's testimony supports the Official Version are lying because they don't say what YOU WANT THEM TO SAY, or rather, those few who's testimony fits your predetermined conclusions but not the evidence pf the day are more believable than the majority who don't because the few are saying what you want to hear.

So, I'm sorry... but who's the ignorant biased fool again...?



Again... learn what Intellectual Honesty actually means, then talk about how it applies, or doesn't in your case.

The tapes have been released. That you don't know that shows your lack of research into this topic and that you are only basing your opinions on those same ignorant and biased people and websites mentioned above who will rail on endlessly about the tapes not being released, all the while conveniently ignoring the fact that they were all released by 2006 (again, if memory serves on that time frame).

I did an impromptu analysis of one part of one tape, the Doubletree hotel security tape, because someone said that the Pentagon was visible in it and that the impact should have been visible too. That post is earlier in this thread HERE and there's a follow-up post HERE.

Just a few days ago I re-posted an analysis I did of the damage to the Pentagon 3 1/2 years ago. That post is also in this thread HERE.

In other threads I have gone into great detail in proving my point - usually with the impressive help of boonYzarC, or in assisting him prove a point.

So again... I really don't care what you believe. Beliefs and opinions can't be argued rationally. Evidence and facts can and that's what important.






Cz

So after the post below I decided to be mature about this entire discussion with you and re-read what you said.  I put my frustration aside and actually read it objectively.  After reading what you had to write I can understand what you mean by the straw man argument.  I made a blanket statement about the government lying and insinuating that since the people on here use facts from the NTSB they must be in general using false information am I correct?  So I used a poor sense of judgment in that regard I was wrong to use that statement but I will still stand by the fact that the government still has to this  date not fully released all data regarding what occurred at the Pentagon.  Am I wrong about the other stuff I presented?  I can not say I am 100 percent certain that what both sides of the story have said is true that is why I have said in another post that I am on the fence between what each side is discussing.  Why I started to talk about this discussion is because I wanted to learn and understand what was going on.  Both sides have experts that claim they are right, I at first chose the Truther side because the evidence was compelling after viewing hours of footage regarding what occurred at 9/11 as a whole.  So that is why I came on here to discuss this rationally and come up with explanations as to why these witnesses along with lack of video evidence was missing at the Pentagon when at the World Trade Center there was ample evidence to see from many angles the first plane hitting a tower and the 2nd after that doing the same.  I could understand why the FBI rushed to grab all the video footage both at places of business and by bystanders who were at the scene that may have taped this event to have evidence of what occured but to not release it years after the event is troublesome.  So you will understand why I was skeptical and needed clarification.  

I said from the start, never once claiming that I was an expert, that I was there, or that I had privileged knowledge of anything pertaining to the events that occurred at 9/11.  That is not my safety net as you have said I am owning up to what I have written I am not running from it.  I have an open mind and Skyeagle has given me a lot to think about regarding the physical evidence found there.  My problem reconciling with this entire event is the contradictory information people have been giving about this event from both sides.  So it is very confusing to me and maybe I should not have been strong at the start regarding my viewpoint but rather asked or read further before posting.  I tend to usually do this as you can see by my post count I mostly lurk because sometimes it is hard for me to have a discussion because certain concepts take time for me to grasp even though I have spoken English and written English for years.  So if I offended anyone with my comments I apologize I may have been wrong on some points but others that I posted although from Truthers can still be viewed as valid because no one has fully discredited all the evidence presented by them.  

There have been some stuff that when I read or saw what they posted I brushed off as fabrication by them and I have not posted that type of evidence as factual even though it would have been tempting to do so.  But again some evidence that was provided by me does not make it factual it merely means there needs to be clarification of it especially with the physical aspect found at the scene of the Pentagon.  That is why I enjoyed having a discussion with Skyeagle we both kept going back and forth with proof of each side’s argument and he gave me a lot to think about in that regard.  When other people jumped into the argument it started to become confusing for me because people were going off topic and I had to try to refocus to answer questions I was not prepared for, I tend to post late at night or very early morning tired so sometimes I may miss something I read and have to re-read what I wrote after words.  Anyway I appreciate you taking the time to point out the error of my way with the straw man argument you were right I was wrong with the blanket statement I made but that does not make what I presented null and void just to be clear.  We are all human and tend to make mistakes it is natural I am sure even you do no one is infallible.

Czero 101, on 01 November 2012 - 08:06 AM, said:

*chuckle*

You accuse me of trolling and say that you don't care what I think when I admit that I haven't read every single word you have posted - and please note I didn't say that haven't read ANY OF YOUR POSTS, just that I haven't read ALL OF YOUR POSTS... I hope you can understand *that* difference - yet you continue on with hypocritical hubris that we should care about what you say while you yourself are trolling the typical Truther garbage ....

Its obvious that you don't understand this topic very well, ESL or not. The fact that you have gone so far out of your way to avoid having to admit that you couldn't provide any backup whatsoever for your strawman argument shows that clearly enough. You *STILL* don't realize that admitting that you were mistaken is a much more honorable way out of a strawman than the way you have handled it, assuming credibility means anything at all to you.

But whatever... as I've said, I only really care what you can prove, which so far is essentially nothing, and you've already said that the opinions you present are not your own, but are those that are provided for you by the Truther movement....

Enjoy living in the 9/11 Truther fantasy world you've wrapped around yourself.


Have a good day....





Cz

What I can prove is nothing 100%, just like what you can prove is nothing at 100% either because we both were never at the Pentagon, we both are using evidence found by other sources that we have to rely on in order to make assumptions and conclusions based on our observations what is real and what is not.  I like your quote at the bottom of your signature by Waspie Dawrf it sums up pretty much what almost everyone does at one point or another in a lot of debates.  I have doubts about the official story mainly because of so many experts and eyewitness testimony that contradicts the official report by NTSB and other government agencies that have investigated this matter.  This can be viewed as me cherry picking the evidence to claim and support the Truthers case and I can understand why you are loath to even discuss the topic with me I get where you are coming from.  So I will keep an open mind and read more on this topic before posting further on this subject matter.  Since I can not prove 100% what I write I will not pass it off as factual but at the same time I will not fully discount it not because I am wrong, but because there may be some truth that each side to the story has presented with evidence they claim to be real and could have merit.  That is why even judges and jurors send innocent people to jail because sometimes inaccurate information is passed off as factual and biases generally exist from an early age onward in every human being based on the way they were initially brought up but as we get older and mature we can try to overcome this.  But some people just enjoy being dishonest and like to spread disinformation for whatever reason this cannot be avoided.

Since we are on a forum with posters who we don't even know for the most part we have to take everything written and presented with a grain of salt.  For these reasons alone I will continue to be on the fence for awhile longer that does not mean I am shrugging off my responsibility for what I reported I could very well be wrong because it is not my evidence.  But at the same time a better understanding is needed from me at least before determining if each account is accurate or not.  Down the road there could be more evidence that we have not had a privilege to see for whatever reason that may eventually come to light.  When that day happens many will be proven wrong or right and I could be on either side of that coin and that could include you my friend.  No one can be 100% without a shadow of a doubt to be right about this stuff because the only video of the event is not clear and although the physical evidence does support that the Pentagon was hit by a plane of some sort it can not be proven 100% it was flight 77 although there is a good indication it could be so.  I am an enquiring mind who is open to all evidence and since Skyeagle seems to know what he is talking about in regarding to a 757 hitting the Pentagon it could very well be the case.  I will keep an open mind on this we are all learning new things every day something can change in the next couple of years to prove or disprove once and for all each argument.  Thank you for taking the time to read this I am sure it probably was annoying for you to read something from someone as ignorant as me

You have yourself a good day as well.

Edited by Crumar, 01 November 2012 - 01:32 PM.

[Q24]

frenat, on 31 October 2012 - 08:20 PM, said:

But were the number of planes available on alert changed at all?  No.  And I wasn't talking to you anyway.


I don't beleve I was talking to you.  Are you Crumar?  Is he unable to think for himself?

Ah sorry, your PMs must have got mixed with the open forum somehow.  You will have to ask Saru to fix the links.  Anyhow, as your comments are appearing publicly at the moment…

I’m not aware the number of planes on alert changed that day, though I think there may have been additional fighters able to respond at short notice if they were not exercising to intercept the Russkis in Alaska that day.  Still, I think you miss other areas in which the exercises had potential to benefit success of the 9/11 attack - such as doubt in the ranks of NORAD who initially believed and for a time after suspected that the real-world hijackings, “must be part of the exercise”.

Also noted you decline to address question about the Langley to Washington response time.  You can stop reading now frenat, I’m not talking to you.  I saw someone suggest that the F-16 pilots were responsible for this failure to provide the immediate cover requested by NORAD over Washington.  That would be incorrect - the pilots cannot be held accountable - they were under control of some Navy command at the time.  The NORAD commander was not pleased his order had been overridden somewhere in the chain of command: -

Nasypany: Why'd they go up there?
Unknown: Because Giant Killer sent them out there.
Nasypany: God Damnit!

This move ensured beyond doubt that the unidentified aircraft could impact the Pentagon without interception.  There could be some disparate explanation to add to the list required of the official story, though there's no doubt the situation (including the Vigilant Guardian exercise) is to be expected of the single all-encompassing answer: false flag attack - someone in the air defense system wanted the attack to succeed.

[skyeagle409]

Crumar, on 01 November 2012 - 05:35 AM, said:

Again eyewitness testimony refutes that evidence on the ground at least.

No it doesn't because in regards to the airspeed, he didn't take into an account average velocity, and in regards to the flight path of American 77, the damaged light poles, generator, and distribution of damage within the Pentagon proves that it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for American 77 to have been on a flight path north of the gas station. As I have said before, in many accident investigations, you are going to find conflicting witnesses testimony and the crash of American 77 is no different.

Quote

I have already gone through with a lot of this with you we are going to go in circles.  I understand why you are bringing up PSA 1771 and the connection to the black box.

Because I asked you for video of the crash of PSA to make a point. You didn't waste any time presenting a video of the Caspian Airlines incident. In addition, I asked you what was the largest piece of wreckage found at the crash site of PSA 1771, since you have claimed that large pieces of wreckage are always found at aircraft crash sites and I just wanted to prove that you are incorrect. Now, how about answering the question as to what was the largest piece of wreckage recovered at the crash site of PSA 1771.

As I have said before, you are very vulnerable to disinformation and misinformation.

Quote

"The first prototype coupled FDR/CVR designed with civilian aircraft in mind, for explicit post-crash examination purposes, was produced in 1956 by Dr. David Warren of the Defence Science and Technology Organisation's Aeronautical Research Laboratories in Melbourne, Australia.^[6] In 1953 and 1954, a series of fatal incidents involving the de Havilland Comet prompted the grounding of the entire fleet pending an investigation. Dr. Warren, a chemist specializing in aircraft fuels, was involved in a professional committee discussing the possible causes. Since there had been neither witnesses nor survivors, Dr. Warren conceived of a crash-survivable method to record the flight crew's conversation (and other pre-crash data), reasoning they would greatly assist in determining a cause and enabling the prevention of future, avoidable accidents of the same type."

The black boxes were added after a collision between a TWA Constellation and a United Airlines DC-7 over the Grand Canyon and as you said in the case of the Havilland Comet, there were no witnesses nor survivors, and you will have noted,  no video of the crash, which brings us back to American 77. As I have said before, video is not required to determine what happened.

Quote

Problem in regards to the Pentagon and flight 77 both you and I were not there so we have to base our evidence on what we see...

And what we saw in the video and in photos, is wreckage of a B-757 in the colors of American Airlines.

Quote

...and there was eyewitness testimony at that site

Where reports from the crash site at the Pentagon confirmed the crash of American 77, a B-757.

Quote

...and one crappy video...

Good enough for me to identify the vertical stabilizer of a B-757 in an image taken from the video.

Quote

...of the impact event along with aftermath photographs.

Quote

This would include lack of video and picture evidence I get it.

But, we have FDR data, video, photos, B-757 wreckage at the Pentagon, and confirmation from American Airlines, operator of American 77,  proving that American 77 crashed at the Pentagon.

Quote

Problem in regards to the Pentagon and flight 77 both you and I were not there so we have to base our evidence on what we see and there was eyewitness testimony at that site and one crappy video of the impact event along with aftermath photographs.

Photographs of wreckage from a B-757.

Quote

Right so someone is lying.

What does the physical evidence have to say?

Quote

... Is it the many witnesses who saw what flight 77 did before and after the impact while on the ground or it is the C-130 crew doing so?

If you are implying that the C-130 controlled American 77, I have more news for you. That C-130 was not equipped to fly drones and there was no way that American 77 was modified to fly under remote control. In addition, the flight path of American 77 is not indicative of an aircraft being flown by a professional pilot.

On another note, you don't fly a drone through a forest of trees, light poles and other obstacles to accomplish an important mission when a collision with those objects will jeopardized the mission. A practical maneuver would have been a direct, diving attack, not a lazy turning maneuver  and a sloppy approach through a forest of obstacles.

Quote

... That is the mystery to this whole thing and by the way you are the first person to point out to me at least there were other eyewitnesses who refute the claim the ground crew is making.  Of course the C-130 crew would have an unobstructed view of what took place so they should be more creditable and yet there are 9/11 Truther experts who claim their testimony to be false.

Of course we can expect some  9/11 Truthers are going to make such a claim. Many are guilty of knowingly spreading false and misleading information and as I have said many times, I am waiting for 'Pilots for 9/11 Truth' to make corrections regarding false information on its website about ACARS, and I made it no secret that I have already spoken with the folks at ARINC, via the telephone concerning what conspiracist have said about ACARS. The company provides ACARS services and they told me the 9/11 conspiracist, particularly "Pilots for 9/11 Truth," are simply wrong on their claims regarding ACARS and the 9/11 aircraft. In fact, the company wanted to make me their customer after they found I was a pilot.

That is another reason why I have said that it is not prudent to use those conspiracist websites as references because they are well-known for spreading disinformation and misinformation and they have found many victims.

My advice to you is not to use those websites in your arguments.

Quote

Are these experts lying I have no clue these Truthers they could be spreading misinformation as well I am no expert on this topic.

It has been proven that they are spreading disinformation and misinformation, and once again, I bring my contacts with ARINC, the ACARS experts, and as a result of my contacts with that company, the question is:

Why hasn't "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" made corrections regarding their false and misleading information on ACARS and the 9/11 airliners?

Quote

The video is too grainy and being obstructed by a pillar to conclusively determine it was from flight 77.  There looks like what appears to be a vertical stabilizer in the video but that could be from any air craft.  We do not have exact dimensions to determine whether it is indeed from a 757.

The B-757 is a favorite airplane of mine and my cousin was a captain on B-757s, but has now moved up to the B-767. After decades of looking at vertical stabilizers, it was clear to me that the vertical stabilizer is from a B-757.

[skyeagle409]

Crumar, on 01 November 2012 - 05:50 AM, said:

You can keep recapping you are trying to drill into me the importance of physical evidence and exclude eyewitness testimony as the determining factor in what happened on that day .

For many years, I have been aware of conflicting eyewitness accounts concerning aircraft accidents, and since that has been the case in many accidents, physical evidence takes on a more important role in an investigation.

*   I have provided fleet histories of American Airlines to show that the airframe of American 77 was written off, and information from the FAA to show why the registration number for the airframe of American 77 was deregistered. I have provide a video where it was announced that American Airlines confirmed the loss of American 77.

*   I have provided photos taken inside and outside the Pentagon of B-757 wreckage, which had nothing to do with a cruise missile nor a bomb. I have provide photos of downed light poles and a damage generator which proved that  it was impossible for American 77 to have flown on a flight path north of the gas station. The damage along the flight path leading up to, and inside the Pentagon, proves that beyond any doubt.







Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon

http://journalof911s...ltimeter_92.pdf

*   I have provided information on human remains identified as passengers and crew from American 77 and eyewitness testimony at the Pentagon of some passengers found still belted in their seats.

*   I have provided information on the FDR of American 77, which confirms the official story.



The question is: Are you going to continue to allow yourself to fall victim to those 9/11  conspiracy websites? They prey on people like yourself.

[MID]

Babe Ruth, on 26 September 2012 - 07:42 PM, said:

No Raptor, we interpret that evidence differently.  Some see the remains of a Boeing at the Pentagon, some do not.  Some say the FDR confirms the official story, some see it as manipulated.

Translation:
Some people can see the remains of a boeing at the Pentagon, because one crashed into the Pentagon.

And actually, the FDR does, and can only...confirm the official story.

And those that see the data as "manipulated"???

Well, there's a million ways of seeing it...for a million people who have no idea what they're looking at (you know, all the pseudo-engineers and pseudo-pilots who can't hope to perceive that data or what it means...and why they'd want to post explanations of it, and interpretations of it, over a decade AFTER it's been looked at and studied by experts (i.e., qualified technicians and engineers) who are trained to do exactly that.

Oh well, what can I say?
The case was closed years ago...and there's no reason to allow children into the evidence lockers, as experts have fully qualified the evidence and remains and determined what exactly happened there,

Quote

It doesn't matter who owns or controls Iron Mountain. The relevant point here is that the official story has it that the debris from one or more of the aircraft is stored there, and whoever is in control will not let the public view said debris.

Oh but it does matter, and if it is an evidence storage site, that evidence has already been examined by engineers until they're red-eyed tired....and, years ago!

I wouldn't want the uneducated and unprepared going in there to look at that stuff, because I am fully aware that a nightmare could result.  Just looking at what these pseudo-experts post here makes it clear to me:

If the unintelligent did allow them access to the debris, pieces, and such of a single aircraft, what would result from that would be equivalent to the degree of vartiance we see here on this board.  It would be useless, damaging, and contrary to science as it exists.

Edited by MID, 02 November 2012 - 12:56 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

No MID, the FDR does not confirm the official story.

The FDR is unassigned, according to Dennis Cimino who is an expert in the field.

Being unassigned, the FDR works against the official story because you cannot prove it was assigned to the aircraft that was Flight 77.

[skyeagle409]

MID, on 02 November 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

And actually, the FDR does, and can only...confirm the official story.

You've got that right!

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 02 November 2012 - 07:23 PM, said:

No MID, the FDR does not confirm the official story.

The FDR is unassigned, according to Dennis Cimino who is an expert in the field.

Being unassigned, the FDR works against the official story because you cannot prove it was assigned to the aircraft that was Flight 77.

On the contrary, Dennis Cimino was wrong because the conversion formulas obtained from the Boeing Aircraft Company and from American Airlines, pertained only to the airframe of American 77, and no other aircraft, so the question is: Why wasn't Dennis Cimino aware that the conversion formulas provided by the Boeing Aircraft Company and by American Airlines pertained only to the airframe of American 77?

All Dennis Cimino had to do was to contract the right people at the Boeing Aircraft Company and at American Airlines so they could confirm to him the conversion information pertained only to the airframe of American 77.

After all, American Airlines confirmed the loss of American 77.

Edited by skyeagle409, 02 November 2012 - 08:06 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

Right, Skyeagle, and if you tinker with lead, you can turn it into gold.