1211 replies to this topic

[Babe Ruth]

The whole formula is not mass MID.  There are other factors, one being the structure from which the mass is derived.

And the structure of the supersonic aircraft is far stronger than the structure of a subsonic aircraft,  Mass in an eggshell is what a transport category aircraft is.  The supersonic F18 is able to penetrate the sound barrier, the other is not.  So too Florida sand v. Pennsylvania coal.

[Babe Ruth]

LG

I don't trust Wikipedia.  It is most helpful, incredibly helpful, but that does not make it a source of truth.  It is a terrific source of information, but it is not necessarily a source of truth.

So, what is your point about TWA800?  Ever read General Partin's interpretation of it?

[MID]

Babe Ruth, on 30 June 2012 - 06:32 PM, said:

The whole formula is not mass MID.  There are other factors, one being the structure from which the mass is derived.

And the structure of the supersonic aircraft is far stronger than the structure of a subsonic aircraft,  Mass in an eggshell is what a transport category aircraft is.  The supersonic F18 is able to penetrate the sound barrier, the other is not.  So too Florida sand v. Pennsylvania coal.

The whole formula for what?

My post addressed  why the military would've taken over the  crash site rather than the NSTB.

[DONTEATUS]

MID, on 30 June 2012 - 08:00 PM, said:

The whole formula for what?

My post addressed  why the military would've taken over the  crash site rather than the NSTB.

Mid Good buddie ! WHat Happened? We havent Closed down the Sweetie Have wee ?  WHats up Man ?

[Babe Ruth]

The formula for what actually happened.  Not the Official Conspiracy Theory, which is a proven lie, but what actually went down.

[booNyzarC]

Babe Ruth, on 30 June 2012 - 08:21 PM, said:

The formula for what actually happened.  Not the Official Conspiracy Theory, which is a proven lie, but what actually went down.

If what you call "the Official Conspiracy Theory" were "a proven lie" we wouldn't be here discussing it now would we?

Just more nonsense from you about a subject that you're incapable of viewing objectively.

[Babe Ruth]

Good point Boo, about whether we'd be discussing it now.

My bet is that subliminally everybody knows it's a damn lie and a fable.  But as you say, discussing is another matter.  Most folks prefer not to.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Babe Ruth, on 30 June 2012 - 08:21 PM, said:

The formula for what actually happened.  Not the Official Conspiracy Theory, which is a proven lie, but what actually went down.

You know I don't necessarily buy everything about the Official explanation, but how is the Official Version a proven lie? many people have said that they don't think that this or that happened how They say it did, but what parts of it have been proven to be lies?

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 30 June 2012 - 08:21 PM, said:

The formula for what actually happened.  Not the Official Conspiracy Theory, which is a proven lie, but what actually went down.

A proven lie you say, and yet you have been unable to provide the slightest evidence to back up your claim..

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 30 June 2012 - 08:34 PM, said:

My bet is that subliminally everybody knows it's a damn lie and a fable.

Please post the evidence for everyone to see, otherwise, you have offered nothing of substance.

You have claimed no Boeing crashed in Shanksville, but recovery crews and others who were there have disagreed with you.

Edited by skyeagle409, 30 June 2012 - 09:40 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 30 June 2012 - 06:32 PM, said:

  The supersonic F18 is able to penetrate the sound barrier, the other is not.  So too Florida sand v. Pennsylvania coal.

Let's do another recap on a photo. Are you claiming that no subsonic aircraft could have made this crater? Yes or no.

Caspian Airlines Crash



Emergency workers shift through the wreckage of a Tupolev Tu-154 passenger plane which crashed near the city of Qazvin, about 150 km (93 miles) north of Tehran, July 15, 2009. The Caspian Airlines aircraft crashed in northwestern Iran on Wednesday on its way to neighbouring Armenia and all 168 people on board were killed, Iranian media reported. [Agencies] Photo: 168 killed in Iran plane crash

http://www.chinadail...ent_8437346.htm

Any pilot should have known that subsonic aircraft are capable of creating such craters. Here you are telling people that it was impossible for subsonic aircraft to make such craters  and yet, the above photo proves conclusively that you are incorrect.

Edited by skyeagle409, 30 June 2012 - 10:14 PM.

[MID]

Babe Ruth, on 30 June 2012 - 08:21 PM, said:

The formula for what actually happened.  Not the Official Conspiracy Theory, which is a proven lie, but what actually went down.

Yes, of course.  A proven lie!

And you're using that silly terminology again:  OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY.
It obviously didn't take:

There is no Official Conspiracy Theory about 9-11.
There are only the results of the investigation, which showed what went down, a bunch of ill-defined copnspiracy theories about it...none of which has ever been proven.

There's the CTs, and there's the facts.

[Liquid Gardens]

Babe Ruth, on 30 June 2012 - 06:32 PM, said:

And the structure of the supersonic aircraft is far stronger than the structure of a subsonic aircraft,  Mass in an eggshell is what a transport category aircraft is.  The supersonic F18 is able to penetrate the sound barrier, the other is not.  So too Florida sand v. Pennsylvania coal.

Wow, it's like you don't even read what I've written to you.  You can drop the 'Pennsylvania coal' bull, I don't think anyone here is so new that they can't see through that extremely deceptive phrase.  Or are you asserting that where Flight 93 supposedly went down isn't actually a mine filled with soft dirt, it's actually coal?  Another thing you've determined from watching it on the tube?  As far as what a transport aircraft can do, rebut Sky's Caspian Airlines crash evidence first, maybe that'll convince me that you might know what you are talking about.

Quote

I don't trust Wikipedia. It is most helpful, incredibly helpful, but that does not make it a source of truth. It is a terrific source of information, but it is not necessarily a source of truth.

So, what is your point about TWA800? Ever read General Partin's interpretation of it?

Ha ha ha, of course you don't trust Wikipedia.  You don't seem to trust and don't really engage with anything that might conflict with your opinion.  What you won't do is actually provide evidence or make a valid argument why wikipedia is wrong or investigate whether it is correct.  Here, let me do the work for you; from the NTSB website:

"The Safety Board does not investigate criminal activity; in the past, once it has been established that a transportation tragedy is, in fact, a criminal act, the FBI becomes the lead federal investigative body, with the NTSB providing any requested support."

Now, do you also mistrust the NTSB website concerning NTSB's policies?  And come on man, the point about Flight 800 is right in the quote of yours I responded to.  You asked why 'normal procedures' weren't followed by NTSB for the 9/11 flights, and I quoted back to you the evidence that actually NTSB was following normal procedure by handing it over to the FBI, by quoting that from Flight 800 entry. And this policy was in effect before 9/11.  But seeing as you don't accept wikipedia or really anything that doesn't fit your notion of what happened I can see how that could be confusing...

You seem to be going downhill in this debate BR.  People rebut your assertions and you don't respond to it (how many times now has Sky posted the Caspian Airllines picture that you dutifully ignore, because of course it refutes your assertions about what can and cannot happen when a plane slams into soft ground).  You then repeat these same rebutted assertions as if no one has already dealt with them.  I've been given things to think about on both sides concerning the Flight 93 crash in this thread; you haven't really given me anything, partially because too much of your evidence is based purely on your opinion.

So I'll bite, prove that the official story is a lie.  Good luck with that, you're going to need it; I hope you know what 'prove' means.  With evidence and reason only, and without resorting to anything that relies purely on your analysis of the situation, you are not an expert in the relevant disciplines for most of the 'analysis' you've provided so far.

[booNyzarC]

Liquid Gardens, on 01 July 2012 - 02:32 AM, said:

Wow, it's like you don't even read what I've written to you.

Get used to it.  

[Babe Ruth]

747

The basic rules of logic make the OCT a proven lie.  Basically, if one asserts a hypothesis, all parts of that hypothesis, all claims, must be true for the hypothesis to even have a chance of being true in its entirety.  If ANY element of the hypothesis is false, then the entire piece is false.

There are so many false elements of the OCT that are false it's not funny.  Therefore, strictly speaking, the entire thesis is false.

Just a few: WTC was not just a gravitational collapse.  As Kevin Ryan pointed out on about Day 5, there's no way the fires we saw could have melted structural steel that complied with the building code and insurance regulations.  Of course Mr. Ryan was fired for telling the truth.

No Boeing at Shanksville or at Pentagon.  Musical Chairs, by the Pentagon in telling and amending its stories to the commission.

LG

You're new here, so you're probably not aware that with Skyeagle's claims and pictures, I'm "once bitten, twice shy."  Which is to say that he has ALREADY posted bogus and contrived videos and statements.  Thus, to me he is merely a source of misinformation.

Regarding TWA 800, or any accident for that matter, how do we know it is the result of a criminal act if the accident is not properly investigated?  I have no objection whatsoever to the FBI being the lead agency in any given investigation, but if standard NTSB procedures are not followed, how do we know the accident was the result of a criminal act?  Isn't the logical and scientific process being avoided if we start out with assumptions?

On TWA, how many times does the POTUS come on TV to announce an airliner crash?  How many times have you seen the POTUS interrupt standard TV programming to announce an airline crash?

MID

You missed the class on the definition of "conspire" and "conspiracy", and that's OK.  But to refresh your memory, when 2 or more people plan to commit a criminal act, it is called a conspiracy, by definition.

If you accept that definition, then unless you happen to claim that only 1 person was responsible for the events of 11 September, it was a conspiracy, by definition.

Thus, by definition, a conspiracy took place.  Criminal events were planned and executed by a group of people.

Thus, we have the Official Conspiracy Theory, which you embrace.  That is, the Official Story (which describes a conspiracy of arabs with box cutters), is actually a theory of a conspiracy by men to attack WTC and the Pentagon.

Now there is precious little evidence to actually support that Official Conspiracy Theory, so others have speculated about OTHER conspirators and conspiracies.

It's really just semantics and common sense.  Yes, a conspiracy took place, but just who were the conspirators?